Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Student Engagement Task Force Cindy Horn and John Thorp, Co-Chairs December 15, 2005.
Advertisements

Gary Whisenand Director, Institutional Research August 26, 2011.
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.
2003 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) SVC Office of Institutional Research Dr. Maureen Pettitt, Director Leslie Croot, M.S., Analyst.
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.
Student and Faculty Perceptions on Student Engagement: ISU’s NSSE and FSSE Results 2013 Ruth Cain, Assessment Coordinator Dan Clark, Department of History.
NSSE and MSU Retention Chris Fastnow Office of Planning and Analysis December 4, 2008.
Response rateFirst-year Senior GGC Southeast Public Carnegie ClassNSSE 2013 GGC Southeast Public Carnegie ClassNSSE %15%23%21% 22%21%29%26% Representativeness.
GGC and Student Engagement.  NSSE  Overall: 32%  First Year: 30%  Seniors: 33%  GGC  Overall: 28%  First Year: 26% (381)  Seniors: 38% (120)
Presentation to Student Affairs Directors November, 2010 Marcia Belcheir, Ph.D. Institutional Analysis, Assessment, & Reporting.
Mind the Gap: Overview of FSSE and BCSSE Jillian Kinzie NSSE.
Achievement of Educational Outcomes: Seniors’ Self- evaluations from 2004 & 2007 National Surveys of Student Engagement (NSSE) Cathy Sanders Director of.
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 2002.
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.
2008 – 2014 Results Chris Willis East Stroudsburg University Office of Assessment and Accreditation Spring 2015
Report of the Results of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement William E. Knight and Jie Wu Office of Institutional Research Presentation to the Faculty.
SURVEY OF RECENT GRADUATES AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR ASSISTING IN THE ASSESSMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS Dr. Teresa Ward Ms. Beth Katz Office of Institutional.
Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011 Office of Institutional Research February 9, 2012.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement CCSSE 2014.
NSSE – Results & Connections Institutional Research & Academic Resources California State Polytechnic University, Pomona October 2, 2013 – Academic Senate.
National Survey of Student Engagement 2006 Marcia Belcheir Institutional Analysis, Assessment & Reporting.
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services.
Student Engagement at Northeastern Illinois Analysis and Use of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) 2009.
CCSSE 2013 Findings for Cuesta College San Luis Obispo County Community College District.
 Assessing Student Engagement.  1. Amount of time/effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities  2. How institutional.
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.
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)
1 This CCFSSE Drop-In Overview Presentation Template can be customized using your college’s CCFSSE/CCSSE results. Please review the “Notes” section accompanying.
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.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-PLATTEVILLE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT RESULTS & ANALYSIS.
1 NSSE Results Fort Lewis College (2010) Richard A. Miller Exec. Dir – OIRPA.
Diversity at Stetson: Perspectives of Students and Faculty John Tichenor Associate Professor of Decision and Information Science.
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.
Learning Communities at Ventura College. What are learning communities? Interdisciplinary learning Importance of sense of community for learning Student.
The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2014 Presented by: October 2014 Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness.
The University of Texas-Pan American
Jackson College CCSSE & CCFSSE Findings Community College Survey of Student Engagement Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement Administered:
NSSE Results for Faculty
The University of Texas-Pan American
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services
Helping US Become Knowledge-Able About Student Engagement
Faculty In-Service Week
2013 NSSE Results.
Presentation transcript:

Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services

Achievement ACCUMULATION OF LEARNING Outcomes: GRE, NCLEX, RD exam, etc. Learning CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR, THINKING, ETC. Outcomes: Advanced skills, critical thinking, etc. Engagement PROCESSES THAT SUPPORT LEARNING Processes: Time studying, tutoring, interaction with faculty, services, etc. Persistence CONSEQUENCES OF LEARNING Outputs: Graduation, retention, satisfaction, utilization, etc. Direct Indirect

 What is student engagement? ◦ Amount of time and effort put into academic and co- curricular activities ◦ Ways institution allocates resources and organizes opportunities for students to participate in activities linked to student learning From the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) website,

 What is student engagement? ◦ Amount of time and effort put into academic and co- curricular activities ◦ Ways institution allocates resources and organizes opportunities for students to participate in activities linked to student learning  How can information on student engagement be used? ◦ Identify areas of excellence ◦ Identify opportunities for improvement ◦ Used in discussions related to teaching and learning From the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) website,

 National Survey of Student Engagement – NSSE ◦ Spring 2010

 National Survey of Student Engagement – NSSE ◦ Spring 2010 ◦ Total  595 institutions  393,630 students

 National Survey of Student Engagement – NSSE ◦ Spring 2010 ◦ Total  595 institutions  393,630 students ◦ At Illinois State – 1,777 students participated (22%)  869 first-year students  908 senior students

 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement – FSSE ◦ Spring 2011

 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement – FSSE ◦ Spring 2011 ◦ Total  157 institutions  19,854 faculty members

 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement – FSSE ◦ Spring 2011 ◦ Total  157 institutions  19,854 faculty members ◦ At Illinois State – 314 faculty members participated (40%)  63 lower division  226 upper division  14 other  11 missing course level

Year Survey BCSSENSSE--BCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSE Student Cohort 1 B4FYSR Student Cohort 2 B4FYSR Student Cohort 3 B4FY

Year Survey BCSSENSSE--BCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSE Student Cohort 1 B4FYSR Student Cohort 2 B4FYSR Student Cohort 3 B4FY

Year Survey BCSSENSSE--BCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSE Student Cohort 1 B4FYSR Student Cohort 2 B4FYSR Student Cohort 3 B4FY

Year Survey BCSSENSSE--BCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSE Student Cohort 1 B4FYSR Student Cohort 2 B4FYSR Student Cohort 3 B4FY

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Work on a paper or project that requires integrating ideas or information from various sources 79%85%6% Tutor or teach other students 24%18%6% Discuss ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class 43%60%17% Examine the strengths and weaknesses of their/your views on a topic or issue 68%48%20% Learn something that changes the way they/you understand an issue or concept 90%66%24% Percentages of ‘Important’ and ‘Very important’ Percentages of ‘Often’ and ‘Very often’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills 77%73%4% Thinking critically and analytically91%85%6% Learning effectively on their/your own84%74%10% Developing a deepened sense of spirituality 8%22%14% Analyzing quantitative problems37%72%35% Using computing and information technology 35%78%43% Percentages of ‘Quite a bit’ and ‘Very much’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Work with other students on projects during class 55%51%4% Participate in a community-based project as part of your/a course 18%14%4% Have serious conversations (in your course) with students of a different race or ethnicity than their/your own 24%46%22% Percentages of ‘Often’ and ‘Very often’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Have class discussions or writing assignments that include diverse perspectives 38%60%22% Receive prompt written or oral feedback from you/faculty on their/your academic performance 89%66%23% Have serious conversations (in your course) with students who are very different from them/you in terms of their/your religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values 23%52%29% Percentages of ‘Often’ and ‘Very often’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions 72%71%1% Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations 87%82%5% Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships 79%85%6% Percentages of ‘Quite a bit’ and ‘Very much’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components 87%80%7% Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form 25%71%46% Percentages of ‘Quite a bit’ and ‘Very much’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Using computers in academic work91%90%1% Helping students/you cope with their/your non-academic responsibilities 30%33%3% Attending campus events and activities 65%68%3% Percentages of ‘Quite a bit’ and ‘Very much’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Providing (students) the support they/you need to help them/you succeed academically 82%78%4% Providing (students) the support they/you need to thrive socially 39%47%8% Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds 44%55%11% Percentages of ‘Quite a bit’ and ‘Very much’

ItemFacultyStudentDifference Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment 86%87%1% Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together 41%37%4% Independent study or self-designed major 31%18%13% Culminating senior experience79%48%31% Percentages of ‘Important’ and ‘Very important’ Percentages of ‘Done’ and ‘Plan to do’

 Summary ◦ Of the 32 items examined...  21 (66%) had less than a 15% difference between faculty members’ and students’ perceptions  11 (34%) had more than a 15% difference between faculty members’ and students’ perceptions

 Summary ◦ Of the 32 items examined...  21 (66%) had less than a 15% difference between faculty members’ and students’ perceptions  11 (34%) had more than a 15% difference between faculty members’ and students’ perceptions ◦ Of the 11 items that had more than a 15% difference…  Faculty members agreed more on 4 (36%) items  Students agreed more on 7 (64%) items

ItemDifference Examined the strengths and weaknesses of their/your views on a topic or issue (important v. often) 20% Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance (often) 23% Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept (important v. often) 24% Culminating senior experience (important v. done/plan to do) 31%

ItemDifference Examined the strengths and weaknesses of their/your views on a topic or issue (important v. often) 20% Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance (often) 23% Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept (important v. often) 24% Culminating senior experience (important v. done/plan to do) 31%

ItemDifference Examined the strengths and weaknesses of their/your views on a topic or issue (important v. often) 20% Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance (often) 23% Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept (important v. often) 24% Culminating senior experience (important v. done/plan to do) 31%

ItemDifference Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (important v. often) 17% Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own (often) 22% Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments (often) 22% Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values (often) 29% Institutional contribution: Analyzing quantitative problems (amount) 35% Institutional contribution: Using computing and information technology (amount) 43% Coursework emphasized: Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form (amount) 46%

ItemDifference Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (important v. often) 17% Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own (often) 22% Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments (often) 22% Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values (often) 29% Institutional contribution: Analyzing quantitative problems (amount) 35% Institutional contribution: Using computing and information technology (amount) 43% Coursework emphasized: Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form (amount) 46%

ItemDifference Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (important v. often) 17% Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own (often) 22% Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments (often) 22% Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values (often) 29% Institutional contribution: Analyzing quantitative problems (amount) 35% Institutional contribution: Using computing and information technology (amount) 43% Coursework emphasized: Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form (amount) 46%

ItemDifference Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (important v. often) 17% Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own (often) 22% Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments (often) 22% Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values (often) 29% Institutional contribution: Analyzing quantitative problems (amount) 35% Institutional contribution: Using computing and information technology (amount) 43% Coursework emphasized: Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form (amount) 46%

 Conclusions ◦ More similarities than differences in perceptions ◦ Students are engaged both in and out of the classroom ◦ Learning is occurring outside of the classroom

 Conclusions ◦ More similarities than differences in perceptions ◦ Students are engaged both in and out of the classroom ◦ Learning is occurring outside of the classroom  Implications ◦ Making expectations for students clear ◦ Asking how course material is being used ◦ Showing how course material can be used

 Limitations ◦ Different years of administration ◦ Different populations  Students – first-year and senior  Faculty – lower and upper division ◦ Different items and scales

 Limitations ◦ Different years of administration ◦ Different populations  Students – first-year and senior  Faculty – lower and upper division ◦ Different items and scales  Future directions ◦ Use comparisons for programming (e.g., CTLT) ◦ Continue to examine similarities/differences in perceptions

 Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?

 Mr. Derek Herrmann, UAS Coordinator ◦ ◦  Dr. Ryan Smith, UAS Director ◦ ◦ 