Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011

1. Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011 Office of Institutional Research February 9, 2012

2. What We’ll Talk About • What is Student Engagement and Why Do We Measure It? • NSSE Background • Survey Administration • Selected AUC Results • Satisfaction • What We Do Well • What Needs Work • Directions for Action

3. What is Student Engagement? • What students do -- time and energy devoted to studies and other educationally purposeful activities • Research shows this is the single best predictor of their learning and personal development. • What institutions do-- using resources and effective educational practices to induce students to do the right things • Educationally effective institutions channel student energy toward the right activities

4. NSSE Background • Designed to assess the extent to which students are engaged in effective educational practices and what they gain from their college experiences. • Main content represents student behaviors highly correlated with many desirable learning and personal development outcomes of college.

5. NSSE Background • More than 2,395,000 students from over 1,400 colleges and universities have participated to date. • Institution types, sizes, and locations represented in NSSE are largely representative of U.S. baccalaureate institutions.

6. Survey Administration • All first-year and senior students with working email addresses in the student information system. • Administration in spring term • Web-based • Multiple follow-ups to increase response rates

7. NSSE 2011 Survey Population and Response • Almost two million first-year and senior students from 751 institutions were invited to participate in the 2011 NSSE administration. Of this survey population, 537,605 students responded. • At AUC, 1,690 First-Years and 656 Seniors were invited to participate.

8. NSSE 2011 Response Rates • AUC’s response rate = 34% • FY = 32%, SR = 39% • FY = 539 respondents, SR = 257 respondents • Comparison Groups: • Basic Carnegie Class = 27% • Middle East/Asia = 44% • All NSSE 2011 = 28%

9. Comparison Groups • Basic Carnegie Class (MA, Large): 165 • Middle East/Asia: 8 • American University of Afghanistan • American University of Sharjah • Carnegie Mellon, Qatar Campus • Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar • Lebanese American University • Northwestern University in Qatar • Texas A&M University at Qatar • Virginia Commonwealth University in Qatar • All NSSE 2010 Institutions: 751

10. Selected AUC Results

11. Demographics of AUC Respondents in 2011 • % Full-time: • Gender: • % Residence On Campus: • % International:

12. Satisfaction -- Evaluation of Entire Educational Experience • 88% of first-years and seniors reported that their entire educational experience at AUC was good or excellent. • No significant differences from Carnegie and NSSE peers.

13. Satisfaction -- Percent Would Go To Same Institution Again, If Starting Over • 85% of first-years and 84% of seniors would go to AUC, if they could start over again. • No significant differences from comparison group peers.

14. Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice A '+' symbol score is higher than comparison group and a '-' symbol indicates a lower score (p <.05). A blank space indicates no significant difference.

15. Level of Academic Challenge • AUC first-years and seniors report coursework emphasized memorizationless often than all comparison groups. • AUC first-years and senior report coursework emphasized analyzing data, synthesizing and organizing ideas, and making judgments at rates not significantly different than comparison groups.

16. Level of Academic Challenge • Needs work: AUC first-years and seniors report coursework emphasized applying theory to practice less often than Carnegie Class and NSSE peers. * Level of significance

17. Level of Academic Challenge • AUC first-years and seniors report writing more papers or reports of lengths from fewer than 5 pages to more than 20 pages than peers in comparison groups. • AUC first-years report reading slightly more on their own than peers. • Needs attention: First-years report slightly fewer overall reading assignments than peers.

18. First-years and seniors report significantly higher involvement in activities that contribute to active and collaborative learning than Carnegie Class peers. Active and Collaborative Learning * Level of significance

19. Student-Faculty Interaction • Areas of strength: * Level of significance

20. Student-Faculty Interaction • Areas needing improvement: * Level of significance

21. Enriching Educational Experiences • Areas of strength: AUC seniors report participating in these experiences at significantly higher levels than all comparison groups. * Level of significance

22. Enriching Educational Experiences • Areas of strength: * Level of significance

23. Enriching Educational Experiences • Areas of strength: * Level of significance

24. Enriching Educational Experiences • Areas needing improvement: * Level of significance

25. Supportive Campus Environment • First-year students report less satisfaction than all comparison groups with items related to the university’s commitment to their success. • Areas needing improvement: * Level of significance

26. Supportive Campus Environment • Areas needing improvement: * Level of significance

27. Supportive Campus Environment • Areas needing improvement: * Level of significance

28. Student Comments:

29. Directions for Action • Examine, share, and use results to make improvements. • What are areas of interest? • Who needs to be involved? • What are AUC’s priorities? • In addition to comparison with peers, what should our absolute targets/benchmarks be? • Tie results to: • University outcomes • MSCHE standards • Standards of professional accrediting bodies • AUC’s strategic goals

30. Directions for Action • First-Years: • Encourage faculty to assign more reading material • Improve support provided in the first year to set the stage for academic and social success. • Expand encounters with racial, religious, political, ethnic, etc. diversity in first-year courses

31. Directions for Action • Both first-years and seniors: • Increase opportunities for applying theory in courses • Increase opportunities for student-faculty interaction • Stress to faculty the importance of prompt feedback on assignments • Improve academic advising and increase faculty mentoring • Increase opportunities for interaction with different, diverse groups • Work with faculty and staff to stress the importance of availability and a student-centered service culture

32. Examples of Using NSSE Data • University of Tennessee: Hired FT academic advisors to provide more assistance to students, improved orientation to give students more one-one-one advising time. • UNLV: Hired more academic advisors, required advising for freshman and transfers, created Academic Success Center to consolidate and enhance academic support services. • Illinois State U: Uses NSSE data as input to solution-based programming. • Univ. of Akron: Used NSSE results to create more exposure to diversity in FY and gen-ed courses; more professional development for faculty and admin. who work with FY students; better ways of communicating with FY students, etc.

33. Assessment Committee is reviewing and analyzing results. • Detailed reports are available on OIR website: http://www.aucegypt.edu/RESEARCH/IR/ASSESS/Pages/NSSE.aspx • Reports by major grouping are available with the Deans and Associate Deans. • For more information or analysis, contact OIR at oir@aucegypt.edu.