GGC and Student Engagement.  NSSE  Overall: 32%  First Year: 30%  Seniors: 33%  GGC  Overall: 28%  First Year: 26% (381)  Seniors: 38% (120)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gary Whisenand Director, Institutional Research August 26, 2011.
Advertisements

Gallaudet Institutional Research Report: Annual Campus Climate Survey: 2010 Pat Hulsebosch: Executive Director – Office of Academic Quality Faculty Senate.
Prepared by: Fawn Skarsten Director Institutional Analysis.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Comparisons of the survey results for UPRM Office of Institutional Research and Planning University of Puerto.
Using the 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement in Student Affairs Indiana State University.
You will be familiar with the five NSSE benchmarks and the survey items that make up each benchmark. You will be familiar with the comparison groups.
DATA UPDATES FACULTY PRESENTATION September 2009.
Indiana State University Assessment of General Education Objectives Using Indicators From National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Gallaudet University Results on National Survey of Student Engagement Office of Institutional Research August, 2007.
Student Engagement In Good Educational Practices Findings From the 2004 and 2007 National Surveys of Student Engagement Cathy Sanders Director of Assessment.
First Year & Senior Student Experiences The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2011 Office of Institutional Research and Policy Studies.
National Survey of Student Engagement Department of Institutional Research and Planning December 2006.
Presentation to Student Affairs Directors November, 2010 Marcia Belcheir, Ph.D. Institutional Analysis, Assessment, & Reporting.
NSSE When?Spring, 2008 Who?Freshmen and Seniors random sample How?Electronic and Snail mail follow up Respondents?30% response rate 26% freshmen.
Mind the Gap: Overview of FSSE and BCSSE Jillian Kinzie NSSE.
Benchmarking Effective Educational Practice Community Colleges of the State University of New York April, 2005.
National Survey of Student Engagement University of Minnesota, Morris NSSE 2004.
BENCHMARKING EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES What We’re Learning. What Lies Ahead.
National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008 Results for UBC-Okanagan.
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services.
St. Petersburg College CCSSE 2011 Findings Board of Trustees Meeting.
Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011 Office of Institutional Research February 9, 2012.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement CCSSE 2014.
Selected Results of NSSE 2003: University of Kentucky December 3, 2003.
1 N ational S urvey & F aculty S urvey of S tudent E ngagement (NSSE) & (FSSE) 2006 Wayne State University.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2006 Marcia Belcheir Institutional Analysis, Assessment & Reporting.
An Introduction: NSSE and the Concept of Student Engagement.
CCSSE 2013 Findings for Cuesta College San Luis Obispo County Community College District.
Note: CCSSE survey items included in benchmarks are listed at the end of this presentation 1. Active and Collaborative Learning Students learn more when.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
Student Engagement: 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Office of Institutional Research and Planning Presentation to Senate November 2008.
NSSE 2005: Student Perceptions of Enriching Educational Experiences Kathryn Doherty, Ed.D. January 18, 2006.
National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008 Results for UBC-Vancouver.
Gallaudet Institutional Research Report: National Survey of Student Engagement Pat Hulsebosch: Executive Director – Office of Academic Quality Faculty.
APSU 2009 National Survey of Student Engagement Patricia Mulkeen Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
Topic #4 - EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING Evidence: PowerPoint of Key Evidence Produced by AC Office of Outcomes Assessments 1.
ESU’s NSSE 2013 Overview Joann Stryker Office of Institutional Research and Assessment University Senate, March 2014.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2009 Missouri Valley College January 6, 2010.
CCSSE 2010: SVC Benchmark Data Note: Benchmark survey items are listed in the Appendix (slides 9-14)
National Survey of Student Engagement 2007 Results for Students in Graduate and Professional Studies.
NSSE 2005 CSUMB Report California State University at Monterey Bay Office of Institutional Effectiveness Office of Assessment and Research.
Looking Inside The “Oakland Experience” Another way to look at NSSE Data April 20, 2009.
SASSE South African Survey of Student Engagement Studente Ontwikkeling en Sukses Student Development and Success UNIVERSITEIT VAN DIE VRYSTAAT UNIVERSITY.
Student Engagement as Policy Direction: Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Skagit Valley College Board of Trustees Policy GP-4 – Education.
De Anza College 2009 Community College Survey of Student Engagement Presented to the Academic Senate February 28, 2011 Prepared by Mallory Newell Institutional.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Comparison on the survey results at UPRM with peers Office of Institutional Research and Planning University.
Jennifer Ballard George Kuh September 19, Overview  NSSE and the Concept of Student Engagement  Select Linfield results:  NSSE 2011  Brief explanation.
NSSE Working Student Study Assessment Day Presentation Office of Assessment Fitchburg State College.
1 NSSE Results Fort Lewis College (2010) Richard A. Miller Exec. Dir – OIRPA.
UNDERSTANDING 2012 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) RESULTS Nicholls State University October 17, 2012.
GGC and Student Engagement.  NSSE  Overall: 27% (down 5%)  First Year: 25% (down 5%)  Seniors: 28% (down 5%)  GGC  Overall: 35% (up 7%)  First.
 NSSE Results Austin Peay State University.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 Results & Recommendations Presented by: November, 2005 S. J. Sethi, Ph.D.
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 1 The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
The University of Texas-Pan American Susan Griffith, Ph.D. Executive Director National Survey of Student Engagement 2003 Results & Recommendations Presented.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2013 Presented by: November 2013 Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2014 Presented by: October 2014 Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness.
Faculty Senate Pat Hulsebosch, Office of Academic Quality 11/17/08.
The University of Texas-Pan American
NSSE 2004 (National Survey of Student Engagement)
UTRGV 2016 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
The University of Texas-Pan American
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services
UTRGV 2018 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
The University of Texas-Pan American
UTRGV 2017 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
GGC and Student Engagement
Faculty In-Service Week
2013 NSSE Results.
Presentation transcript:

GGC and Student Engagement

 NSSE  Overall: 32%  First Year: 30%  Seniors: 33%  GGC  Overall: 28%  First Year: 26% (381)  Seniors: 38% (120)

GGC Population (Fall 09) GGC Sample (Spring 10) NSSE Sample (Spring 10) FYSRFYSR Full Time70%80%58%95%83% Female48%67%64% Traditional (18-23)67%83%14%93%64%

 “Colleges and universities promote high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance.”  Benchmark is computed from items assessing hours spent in academic work, quantity of reading and writing, coursework and campus emphasis

GGCSoutheast PublicCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 NSSE 2010 Top 50% NSSE 2010 Top 10% ClassMean Sig Effect SizeMeanSig Effect SizeMeanSig Effect SizeMeanSig Effect size MeanSig Effect size First-Year *** *** ***-.60 Senior ** *** ***-.59

GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *** Senior ** GGCCarnegie BasicNSSE 2009 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year Senior GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2008 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year Senior

Level of Academic ChallengeGGCNSSEGGCNSSEGGCNSSE To what degree is studying and spending time on academic work emphasized? % of FY students feel that this institution places substantial emphasis on academics Do faculty hold students to high standards? % of FY students frequently work harder than they thought they could to meet faculty expectations How much time do students spend on homework each week? % of FY students spend more than 15 hours per week preparing for class. % spend 5 hours or less What types of thinking do assignments require? First-year students report substantial emphasis on the following activities: Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods: Analyzing basic elements of an idea or theory: Synthesizing and organizing ideas: Making judgments about value of information: Applying theories or concepts: How much writing is expected? % of FY students write more than 10 papers between 5 and 19 pages and % have written a paper more than 20 pages in length How much reading is expected during the school year? % of FY students read more than 10 assigned books and packs of course readings. % read fewer than Do exams require students to do their best work? % of FY students report that their exams strongly challenge them to do their best work

 “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.”  Benchmark is computed from items assessing frequency of engagement in activities focused on academic material that require interaction with classmates and others both in and out of class.

GGCSoutheast PublicCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 NSSE 2010 Top 50% NSSE 2010 Top 10% ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c First-Year *** * *** ***-.23 Senior *** ** ***

GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year * ***.26 Senior ** ***.37 GGCCarnegie BasicNSSE 2009 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *** ***.49 Senior *** ***.56 GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2008 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *** ***.55 Senior *.35

Active and Collaborative LearningGGCNSSEGGCNSSEGGCNSSE How often are topics from class discussed outside of the classroom? % of FY students frequently discuss readings or ideas from coursework outside of class Do students work together on projects – inside and outside of class? % of FY students frequently work with other students on projects in class, % work with peers on assignments outside of class How often do students make class presentations? % of FY students report that they make frequent presentations in class How many students participate in community-based projects in regular courses? % of FY students frequently participate in service-learning or community- based projects during a given year. % never took part in such activities How many students apply their classroom learning to real life through internships or off-campus field experiences? By their senior year, % of students have participated in some form of practicum, internship, field experience, co-op, or clinical assignment Do students have opportunities to tutor or teach other students? % of seniors frequently assist their fellow students by tutoring or teaching them

 “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.”  Benchmark is computed from items assessing the frequency of one-on-one interactions with faculty both in and out of class

GGCSoutheast PublicCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 NSSE 2010 Top 50% NSSE 2010 Top 10% ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c First-Year *** ** *** **-.16 Senior * * ***-.39

GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year ** ***.29 Senior *.20 GGCCarnegie BasicNSSE 2009 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *** ***.50 Senior **.28 GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2008 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *** ***.60 Senior **.44

Student-Faculty InteractionGGCNSSEGGCNSSEGGCNSSE Are faculty members accessible and supportive? % of FY students say their faculty are available, helpful and sympathetic How many students work on research projects with faculty? By their senior year, % of students have done research with a faculty member Do students receive prompt feedback on academic performance? % of FY students indicate that they frequently get prompt verbal or written feedback from faculty members How often do students talk with advisors or faculty members about their career plans? % of seniors at least occasionally discuss career plans with faculty. 4 % never talk with faculty members about career plans Do students and faculty members work together on committees and projects outside of course work? % of FY students at least occasionally spend time with faculty members on activities other than coursework

 “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.”  Benchmark is computed from items assessing frequency of engagement in a variety of co-curricular and experiential development opportunities.

GGCSoutheast PublicCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 NSSE 2010 Top 50% NSSE 2010 Top 10% ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c First-Year *** *** ***-.51 Senior * *** *** *** ***-1.18

GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *** Senior *** ***-.28 GGCCarnegie BasicNSSE 2009 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *.16 Senior *** GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2008 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First-Year *** **.33 Senior

Enriching Educational ExperiencesGGCNSSEGGCNSSEGGCNSSE What types of honors courses, learning communities, and other distinctive programs are offered? During their first year, % of students participate in a learning community. By their senior year, % of students have taken an independent study class How often do students interact with peers with different social, political, or religious views? % of FY students say they frequently have serious conversations with students who are different from themselves in terms of their religious, political, or personal beliefs How often do students interact with peers from different racial or ethnic backgrounds? % of FY students frequently have serious conversations with those of a different race How many students study in other countries? By their senior year, % of students have studied abroad Do students participate in activities that enhance their spirituality? % of FY students frequently engage in spiritually enhancing activities such as worship, meditation, or prayer What percentage of students participate in community service? By the time they are seniors, % of students have participated in community service or volunteer work

 “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.”  Benchmark is computed from items assessing perceived campus support and quality of relationships.

GGCSoutheast PublicCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 NSSE 2010 Top 50% NSSE 2010 Top 10% ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c First-Year ** * * ***-.32 Senior ** ** *-.21

GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2010 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First- Year *.14 Senior **.26 GGCCarnegie BasicNSSE 2009 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First- Year ***.26 Senior ***.36 GGCCarnegie ClassNSSE 2008 ClassMean a Sig b Effect Size c Mean a Sig b Effect Size c First- Year ** ***.35 Senior ** ***.66

Supportive Campus EnvironmentGGCNSSEGGCNSSEGGCNSSE How well do students get along with other students? % of FY students report that their peers are friendly, supportive, and help them feel as if they belong Are students satisfied with their overall educational experience? % of FY students report a favorable image of this institution; % of seniors would choose this school again if they could start their college career over How much time do students devote to co-curricular activities? % of FY students spend more than 15 hours a week participating in co- curricular activities. % spend no time participating in co-curricular activities How well do students get along with administrators and staff? % of FY students find the administrative personnel and offices helpful, considerate, and flexible To what extent does the school help students deal with their academic and social needs? % of FY students feel that this institution has a substantial commitment to their academic success. % feel well-supported by the institution regarding their social needs

 GGC’s benchmark scores have declined in comparison to earlier years  But, we still receive scores higher than average, higher than peers and (probably) in top 50% in  Active and Collaborative Learning  Student –Faculty Interaction  Supportive Campus Environment (Seniors)

 However, we now have scores significantly lower than our peers in  Level of Academic Challenge  Enriching Educational Experiences  These could be fruitful areas for focused effort over the next year.