Insert Your Presentation Title Here

1. Insert Your Presentation Title Here What Students Are Telling Us About Their OU ExperienceResults from the 2007 NSSE Survey Laura Schartman Director, Institutional Research & Assessment January 2008

2. Presentation Overview • An Introduction: NSSE & Student Engagement • 2007 NSSE Selected Oakland University Results • Using NSSE Data to Improve – Examples from “engaging universities” • Questions & Discussion • Resources

3. An Introduction:NSSE and the Concept of Student Engagement

4. 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) Foundations of Student Engagement

5. 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

6. 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

7. National Survey of Student Engagement(pronounced “nessie”) College student survey that assesses the extent to which students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development

8. Seven Principles of Good Practice 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

9. NSSE Indicators ofEffective Educational Practice Active & Collaborative Learning Level of Academic Challenge Enriching Educational Experiences Supportive Campus Environment Student – Faculty Interaction

10. Why a National Survey? • Refocus conversations about undergraduate quality to what matters most • Enhance institutional improvement efforts • Inform accountability efforts • Provide systematic national data on “good educational practices”

11. NSSE Project Scope • Approximately 1,200 different colleges and universities • 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Canada • Data from more than 1,552,000students • Institutions include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and single-gender colleges

12. Survey Administration • Administered to random samples of first-year & senior students • Paper & Web-based survey • Flexible to accommodate consortium questions • Multiple follow-ups to increase response rates

13. How Valid is Self-Reported Data? Research Confirms Self-Reported Data Validity When Following Conditions Exist… • Requested information is known to respondents • Questions are clear and unambiguous • Respondents take questions seriously and thoughtfully • Answering does not threaten, embarrass, or violate privacy or compel a socially desirable response The NSSE survey instrument was designed to meet these conditions For more details, see: NSSE Psychometric Portfolio at http://nsse.iub.edu/html/NSSE_Psychometric_Portfolio.cfm

14. NSSE 2007 Selected Oakland University Results -Do we do what we say we do? (or - How distinctive is undergraduate education at OU?)

15. NSSE 2007 Survey Population and Respondents • More than one millionstudents were invited to participate in NSSE 2007, with 323,147responding • 4871Oakland students were invited to participate, and 1692 (35%) responded

16. NSSE Indicators ofEffective Educational Practice Active & Collaborative Learning Level of Academic Challenge Enriching Educational Experiences Supportive Campus Environment Student – Faculty Interaction

17. Benchmark Comparisonwith Top 50%

18. Selected Peer Comparison • OU equals average on this item under Level of Academic Challenge; is close to average on many others

19. Selected Peer Comparison • OU is consistently below means on higher level mental activities for both FY and senior students

20. Selected Peer Comparison • Fewer OU students say courses emphasize application

21. Data by School/College & Peer • Most OU units lower than peer for both FY & SR students on application of theories or concepts

22. Benchmark Comparison: Academic Challenge • OU’s LAC scores are close to the means for many items, but tend to be low on objective measures of student effort, e.g. numbers of papers written, reading assignments and hours spent studying • Also lower on higher order mental activities, especially for first year students • New General Education writing requirement should improve the writing assignment scores.

23. NSSE 2007 Oakland Findings What percentage ofOUstudents spent more than 16 hours per week preparing for class (studying, reading, homework, lab work, analyzing data, rehearsing, and other academic activities?

24. NSSE 2007 Oakland Findings What percentage ofOUstudents spent more than 16 hours per week working for pay off-campus?

25. Benchmark Comparisonwith Top 50%

26. Selected Peer Comparison • OU seniors score above average on this item under Active and Collaborative Learning

27. Selected Peer Comparison • OU is consistently below means on most ACL activities for both FY and senior students

28. Selected Peer Comparison • The % of OU seniors who made class presentations is close to comparisons, but FY students are lower in this item from ACL

29. Data by School/College & Peer • SBA is consistently above peers in making class presentations for both FY & senior students

30. Benchmark Comparison:Active & Collaborative Learning • There are no “high performing areas” in ACL • OU’s ACL scores are below the means for most items • Items that are consistently low include asking questions in class, making class presentations, and discussing ideas from class outside of class

31. Benchmark Comparisonwith Top 50%

32. Selected Peer Comparison • OU scores close to mean for seniors, but lower for FY students on Prompt Faculty Feedback

33. Selected Peer Comparison • OU tends to be below the means on most measures of interaction with faculty outside of class

34. Selected Peer Comparison • OU also tends to be below the means on student research

35. Selected Peer Comparison • OU students are significantly less likely to work with faculty members outside of class

36. Data by School/College & Peer

37. Benchmark Comparison: Student Faculty Interaction • There are no “high performing areas” in SFI • Items that are consistently low include discussing grades, career plans, or readings with faculty and working with faculty on anything outside of class • OU Students also rate their relationships with faculty lower than the comparisons

38. Benchmark Comparisonwith Top 50%

39. Selected Peer Comparison • The one NSSE item where OU consistently scores well is in foreign language coursework

40. Selected Peer Comparison • OU seniors score closer to peers on diversity questions than FY students do

41. Selected Peer Comparison • OU still lags in learning communities and study abroad

42. NSSE 2007 Oakland Findings What percentage ofOUstudents spent more than 5 hours per week participating in co-curricular activities?

43. Selected Peer Comparison • The % of OU seniors who have had an applied experience is close to comparisons

44. Data by School/College & Peer • Prospective teachers and nurses are most likely to have had practical experience

45. Benchmark Comparison: Enriching Educational Experiences • Foreign language study is OU’s only consistent “high performing” measure • OU’s EEE scores tend to be low on specific activities, especially “high impact” educational practices like learning communities, study abroad & culminating senior experiences • New General Education capstone requirement may have some impact here

46. Benchmark Comparisonwith Top 50%

47. Selected Peer Comparison • How OU students perceive relationships with faculty

48. Benchmark Comparison: Supportive Campus Environment • There are no “high performing areas” in SCE • OU’s SCE scores tend to be low on measures of relationships with other students and staff, as well as faculty • Also lower on measures of support

49. OU Benchmark ScoresOver Time

50. OU Benchmark ScoresOver Time