NSSE: Retrospective and Prospective George Kuh SCSU NSSE Users Conference October 19, 2006

1. NSSE: Retrospective and Prospective George Kuh SCSU NSSE Users Conference October 19, 2006

2. Overview • Why student engagement matters • What we’ve learned • Using NSSE data • Current activities

3. We value what we measure Wise decisions are needed about what to measure in the context of campus mission, values, and desired outcomes.

4. What Really Matters in College: Student Engagement Because individual effort and involvement are the critical determinants of impact, institutions should focus on the ways they can shape their academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings to encourage student engagement. Pascarella & Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 2005, p. 602

5. Foundations of Student Engagement Time on task (Tyler, 1930s) Quality of effort (Pace, 1960-70s) Student involvement (Astin, 1984) Social, academic integration (Tinto,1987, 1993) Good practices in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) College impact (Pascarella, 1985) Student engagement (Kuh, 1991, 2005)

6. Good Practices in Undergraduate Education(Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) • Student-faculty contact • Active learning • Prompt feedback • Time on task • High expectations • Experiences with diversity • Cooperation among students

7. The Student Engagement Trinity • What students do -- time and energy devoted to educationally purposeful activities • What institutions do -- using effective educational practices to induce students to do the right things • Educationally effective institutions channel student energy toward the right activities

8. National Survey of Student Engagement(pronounced “nessie”)Community College Survey of Student Engagement(pronounced “cessie”) College student surveys that assess the extent to which students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development

9. NSSE’s Survey InstrumentThe College Student Report Student Behaviors Student Learning & Development Institutional Actions & Requirements Reactions to College Student Background Information

10. Effective Educational Practices Level of Academic Challenge Active & Collaborative Learning Student Faculty Interaction Supportive Campus Environment Enriching Educational Experiences

11. NSSE Core Purposes Institutional Improvement Public Advocacy Documenting Good Practice

12. NSSE Evolution

13. NSSE 2006 Participating Colleges and Universities

14. NSSE Project Scope • 1,000,000+ students from 1,000+ different schools • 80% of 4-yr U.S. undergraduate FTE • 50 states, Puerto Rico, Canada • 70+ consortia

15. State & University Consortia California State U U of New Hampshire CUNY New Jersey Connecticut U of North Carolina Georgia North Dakota U of Hawaii Ontario (CA) Indiana U South Dakota Kentucky Tennessee Maryland Texas A&M U of Massachusetts U of Texas U of Missouri U of Wisconsin West Virginia

16. Customized Institutional Report • Overview • Institutional data • Means and frequencies • 1st year students and seniors • Comparisons by peers, Carnegie, national • National benchmarks • Data use tips • CD with raw data, etc. • And more!

17. What have we learned so far?

18. Student Success Quiz What percent of first-year high school students complete college six years after high school graduation? (a) 18% (b) 27% (c) 40% (d) 68% (e) none of the above a. 18% (“participation rate”) ore. – none of the above

19. Student Success Quiz What percent of high school seniors have college-level reading skills? (a) 51% (b) 59% (c) 68% (d) 77% (e) none of the above a. 51%(ACT, 2006)

20. Student Success Quiz True or false: About $300 million is spent annually on postsecondary remediation coursework. False. $1-2 billion

21. Student Success Quiz True or false: 25% of first-year first-time frosh at two-year colleges are required to take one or more remedial courses in college. False. 60%

22. Student Success Quiz What percent of students who take at least one remedial course in reading do not earn a certificate or degree within 8 years of first enrollment? (a) 18% (b) 33% (c) 43% (d) 61% (e) 70% e. 70%

23. Grades, persistence, student satisfaction, and engagement go hand in hand

24. NSSE & Graduation Rates *All correlations are significant at p<.01

25. Behold the compensatory effects of engagement

30. Does institutional size matter to engagement? Yes, size matters. Smaller isgenerally better.

31. Benchmark Scores for All Students by Undergraduate Enrollment

32. Academic Challenge, Active Learning, & Student-Faculty Interaction by Enrollment

33. Student engagement varies more within than between institutions.

34. Supportive Campus Environment: Seniors at Master's Institutions Percentile 10 Percentile 50 Percentile 90 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Master's Institutions

35. Academic Challenge by Institutional Type 75 75 Seniors First-Year Students 70 70 65 65 60 60 55 55 50 50 Benchmark Scores 45 45 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 Bac LA Bac Gen Doc Ext Doc Int Bac LA Bac Gen Nation Doc Ext Doc Int MA MA Nation

36. Academic Challenge at Two Public Universities

37. T-test: p<.000; Effect Size: -.29 Senior Scores by Transfer Status

38. Senior Scores by Transfer Status T-test: p<.000; Effect Size: -.28

39. Worth Pondering How do we reach our least engaged students?

40. Who’s more engaged? • Women • Fraternity & sorority members • Full-time students • Students who live on campus • Learning community students • Students with diversity experiences • Distance learners

41. First-year Senior Standardized Y- Standardized Y- Regression Standardized Regression Standardized Coefficient Sig. Effect size Coefficient Sig. Effect size Engagement Activities .16 .32 .12 .28 Academic Efforts *** *** .20 .40 .15 .35 Higher Order Thinking *** *** .19 .39 .16 .38 Academic Integration *** *** .26 .53 .24 .54 Active and Collaborative Learning *** *** .30 .60 .22 .51 Interactions with Faculty *** *** .21 .41 .16 .36 Diversity Experiences *** *** Perception of Campus Environment .12 .23 .08 .17 Quality of Academic Advising *** *** .19 .37 .14 .32 Supportive Campus Environment *** *** .13 .25 .10 .23 Satisfaction *** *** Learning Outcomes .24 .48 .18 .40 Gains in Personal and Social *** *** .22 .45 .16 .36 Gains in Practical Competence *** *** .18 .36 .11 .24 General Education Gains *** *** Effects of Learning Communities on Engagement

42. More Students of color Traditional-age students Women First-year students Less White students Older students Men Upper-division students Who Is Most Likely to Experience Diversity?

44. College Outcomes Quiz What percent of 1999-2000 college graduates attended two or more institutions? (a) 14% (b) 26% (c) 33% (d) 42% (e) 59% e. 59%

45. Finish degree sooner 47% Finances 23% Better course schedule 21% l Easier courses 17% , 12% Other reasons Course not available 9% l Take extra courses 9% Prepare to transfer 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Reasons for Concurrent Enrollment

46. Institutional Reflection Areas of Effective Educational Practice Areas of Question or Improvement

47. Using NSSE Data:What Can We Do? Administrators Faculty Members Students

48. 1. Get the ideas right Focus on a real problem • Persistence • Under-engaged students • Fragmented gen ed program • Tired pedagogical practices • Poor first-year experience • Low academic challenge • Connections to real world • Capstone experiences

49. 2. Examine the results from multiple perspectives • Link results to other information about the student experience and complementary initiatives

50. Merge NSSE data with school records Identify engagement patterns by student characteristics Predict retention, degree attainment, grades, other outcomes Track student engagement year to year Compare vs. peer, aspirational, same-region schools Program evaluation Accreditation Consortium and system data sharing Student outcomes research Public reporting A national reporting template?!? Possibilities