Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 Presented by: March 2010 Leroy E. Philbrook Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness

What is Student Engagement? 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 Copied from National Survey of Student Engagement Center for Postsecondary Research Indiana University Bloomington

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 5 Benchmarks for Student Engagement Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance. Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) Students learn more when they are intensely involved in their education and asked to think about what they are learning in different settings. Collaborating with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material prepares students for the messy, unscripted problems they will encounter daily during and after college. Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve practical problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside the classroom. As a result, their teachers become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, life-long learning Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success and cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus. Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE) Complementary learning opportunities enhance academic programs. Diversity experiences teach students valuable things about themselves and others. Technology facilitates collaboration between peers and instructors. Internships, community service, and senior capstone courses provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge.

NSSE 2009 Respondent Characteristics Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness #1 Fall 2008 Enrollment Age groupsFreshmanSenior 24 & over5.0%45.9% Under %54.1%

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness Comparison Groups UT System The University of Texas at Arlington The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas at Brownsville The University of Texas at Dallas The University of Texas at El Paso The University of Texas at San Antonio The University of Texas at Tyler The University of Texas of the Permian Basin The University of Texas-Pan American Current Status Peers California State University – Los Angeles California State University – Northridge CUNY City College of New York CUNY Herbert H. Lehman College Stephen F. Austin State University The University of Texas at San Antonio Consortium for the Study of Writing in College (CSWC) Berry College Calvin College Carlow University Case Western Reserve University Central Michigan University Chowan University The College of New Jersey CUNY Bernard M Baruch College CUNY Brooklyn College CUNY City College of New York CUNY College of Staten Island CUNY Herbert H. Lehman College CUNY Hunter College CUNY John Jay College Criminal Justice CUNY Medgar Evers College CUNY New York City College of Technology CUNY Queens College CUNY York College Earlham College Eastern Michigan University The Evergreen State College Fayetteville State University Ferrum College Fort Hays State University Francis Marion University Georgian Court University Graceland University-Lamoni Husson University Indiana University Kokomo Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis Lafayette College Limestone College Marshall University McNeese State University Mercer University Miami University-Oxford Millsaps College North Carolina State University North Dakota State University Occidental College Oklahoma City University Pittsburg State University Portland State University Salem State College Seton Hill University Spring Hill College Temple University Towson University Trine University University of Cincinnati University of Colorado at Colorado Springs University of Denver University of Maine at Farmington University of Michigan-Flint University of New Mexico University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina Wilmington University of Northern Iowa University of South Florida University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi The University of Texas at El Paso The University of Texas of the Permian Basin University of Toledo The University of Virginia's College at Wise University of Washington Tacoma University of Wyoming Western Carolina University Wheaton College William Paterson University of New Jersey Winthrop University Woodbury University Wright State University 74 Institutions in the Consortium

NSSE 2009 Mean Comparisons Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness #2 p3 #2 p4

NSSE 2009 Mean Comparisons Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness #2 p17   

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions #3 p3

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions #3 p5

#3 p17 Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions #3 p19

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions #3 p21

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparison #4 p3

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparison #4 p4

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparison #4 p5

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparison #4 p6

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparison #4 p7

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparison

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Multi-Year Benchmark Report #5 p4 First –Year Students #5 p6 Senior Students

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions by Major Field #6 p5 #6 p23

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparisons by Major Field #7 p3

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness The University of Texas-Pan American Faculty Survey of Student Engagement 2009 Presented by: March 2010 Leroy E. Philbrook Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness

FSSE 2009 Respondent Characteristics Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness #8 p3 Fall 2009 CollegeCountPercent ARH23729% BUA8410% EDU13817% HSH9812% SBS8210% SCE17021% UNI101% Grand Total819100% Fall 2009 RankCountPercent Professor11714% Associate Professor15118% Assistant Professor19624% Other Faculty35543% Grand Total819100%

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness FSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions #9 p1

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness #10 p3 FSSE-NSSE Combined Report

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 26 #10 p1 FSSE-NSSE Combined Report #10 p8 #10 p3 Highest difference between Faculty Perception and Student Response 1 st Year Students

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness #10 p13 FSSE-NSSE Combined Report #10 p5 #10 p8 Highest difference between Faculty Perception and Student Response Senior Students #10 p9

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 28 Questions & Discussion Contact Information: Leroy Philbrook Phone: (956) This presentation is online at: Under Student Survey Results

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 29 From Session for NSSE “Veterans” Shimon Sarraf, Research Analyst Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research 1900 East 10th Street Eigenmann Hall, Suite 419 Bloomington, IN Ph:

Packet content NSSE Executive Snapshot NSSE 2009 Respondent Characteristics 2.NSSE 2009 Mean Comparisons 3.NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions 4.NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparisons 5.NSSE 2009 Multi-Year Benchmark Report 6.NSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions by Major Field 7.NSSE 2009 Benchmark Comparisons by Major Field 8.FSSE 2009 Respondent Characteristics 9.FSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions 10.FSSE – NSSE Combined Report Consortium for the Study of Writing in College 2009 (CSWC) Participants NSSE 2009 Codebook page 13 Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 30