Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Using the 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement in Student Affairs Indiana State University.
Advertisements

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.
2012 National Survey of Student Engagement Jeremy D. Penn & John D. Hathcoat.
Student and Faculty Perceptions on Student Engagement: ISU’s NSSE and FSSE Results 2013 Ruth Cain, Assessment Coordinator Dan Clark, Department of History.
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.
1 Student Characteristics And Measurements of Student Satisfaction Prepared for: The Faculty Council Subcommittee on Retention The Office of Institutional.
Benchmarking Effective Educational Practice Community Colleges of the State University of New York April, 2005.
BENCHMARKING EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES What We’re Learning. What Lies Ahead.
National Survey of Student Engagement, 2008 Results for UBC-Okanagan.
Want to be first in your CLASSE? Investigating Student Engagement in Your Courses Want to be first in your CLASSE? Investigating Student Engagement in.
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.
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services.
San Luis Obispo Community College District SENSE 2012 Findings for Cuesta College.
St. Petersburg College CCSSE 2011 Findings Board of Trustees Meeting.
BCSSE 2013 Institutional Report Concordia University Chicago BCSSE 2013 Institutional Report Concordia University Chicago Elizabeth Owolabi, Ph.D. Director.
Results of AUC’s NSSE Administration in 2011 Office of Institutional Research February 9, 2012.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement CCSSE 2014.
The Students Said… (pt.2) Community College Survey of Student Engagement 2005 Findings Presenter: LaSylvia Pugh – August 29, 2006.
NSSE – Results & Connections Institutional Research & Academic Resources California State Polytechnic University, Pomona October 2, 2013 – Academic Senate.
Mountain View College Spring 2008 CCSSE Results Community College Survey of Student Engagement 2008 Findings.
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.
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.
March 3, TAIR, Waco, TX Now You See Them, Now You Don’t! The Role of Part-Time Students and Faculty in Student Engagement.
Maryland Consortium Findings from the 2006 CCSSE Survey.
Strategic Conversation: A Commitment to Student Engagement.
ENHANCING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AT IWU DR. MARY ANN SEARLE VICE PRESIDENT FOR ENROLLMENT & STUDENT AFFAIRS.
2009 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report Institutional Research & Information November 18, 2009.
Topic #1 – COMPLETERS (Graduation and Transfer) Key AC Evidence Provided by Amarillo College Offices of Institutional Research and Outcomes Assessments.
Topic #4 - EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING Evidence: PowerPoint of Key Evidence Produced by AC Office of Outcomes Assessments 1.
Assessing SAGES with NSSE data Office of Institutional Research September 25 th, 2007.
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.
BEAMS – Using NSSE Data: Understanding the Benchmark Reports.
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AT IU KOKOMO Administrative Council 26 September 2007.
Making Connections Dimensions of Student Engagement 2010 Findings.
NSSE 2005 CSUMB Report California State University at Monterey Bay Office of Institutional Effectiveness Office of Assessment and Research.
Office of Institutional Research CCSSE & Active and Collaborative Learning.
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.
Highlights of NSSE 2001: University of Kentucky December 10, 2001.
Student Engagement and Academic Performance: Identifying Effective Practices to Improve Student Success Shuqi Wu Leeward Community College Hawaii Strategy.
MAP the Way to Success in Math: A Hybridization of Tutoring and SI Support Evin Deschamps Northern Arizona University Student Learning Centers.
UNDERSTANDING 2012 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) RESULTS Nicholls State University October 17, 2012.
Presentation Title (Select: View > Master > Slide Master to edit) Department Name (Select: View > Master > Slide Master to edit) Reflecting on Students’
Today’s Topic Student Satisfaction and Engagement Hosted by IEPR.
Del Mar College Utilizing the Results of the 2007 Community College Survey of Student Engagement CCSSE Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness.
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.
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
2017 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
Derek Herrmann & Ryan Smith University Assessment Services
Helping US Become Knowledge-Able About Student Engagement
The Heart of Student Success
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,

 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) ◦ Assesses *  The time and effort entering, first-year students devoted to educationally purposeful activities in high school and expect to devote to during their first year of college  What these entering first-year students expect their institutions to provide them regarding opportunities and emphasis ◦ Compliments the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) * From the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) website,

 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) ◦ 2012 Administration at ISU  During Preview sessions  2,016 incoming students responded  65% of all students who attended Preview  89% of sampled students

Year Survey BCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSE Student Cohort 1 B4FYSR Student Cohort 2 B4FYSR Student Cohort 3 B4FY

Year Survey BCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSE Student Cohort 1 B4FYSR Student Cohort 2 B4FYSR Student Cohort 3 B4FY

Year Survey BCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSEFSSEBCSSENSSE Student Cohort 1 B4FYSR Student Cohort 2 B4FYSR Student Cohort 3 B4FY

ScaleMeanStandard Deviation Expected Academic Difficulty High School Academic Engagement Expected Academic Engagement Expected Academic Perseverance Importance of Campus Environment Perceived Academic Preparation Range:

 Expected Academic Difficulty ◦ Details  4 items  6-point scale (higher score indicates more difficulty) ◦ Highest means  Managing your time (M = 4.2; SD = 1.3)  Learning course material (M = 3.9; SD = 1.0) ◦ Lowest means  Interacting with faculty (M = 2.8; SD = 1.2)  Getting help with school work (M = 3.1; SD = 1.1)

 High School Academic Engagement ◦ Details  12 items  4-point scale (higher score indicates more often) ◦ Highest means  Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions (M = 3.1; SD = 0.8)  Worked with other students on projects during class (M = 2.9; SD = 0.7)

 High School Academic Engagement ◦ Highest means  Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions (M = 3.1; SD = 0.8)  Worked with other students on projects during class (M = 2.9; SD = 0.7) ◦ Lowest means  Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with teachers outside of class (M = 2.0; SD = 0.9)  Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments (M = 2.3; SD = 0.7)

 Expected Academic Engagement ◦ Details  8 items  4-point scale (higher score indicates more often) ◦ Highest means  Work with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments (M = 3.1; SD = 0.7)  Ask questions in class or contribute to class discussions (M = 3.0; SD = 0.7)

 Expected Academic Engagement ◦ Highest means  Work with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments (M = 3.1; SD = 0.7)  Ask questions in class or contribute to class discussions (M = 3.0; SD = 0.7) ◦ Lowest means  Discuss ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class (M = 2.6; SD = 0.8)  Discuss ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.) (M = 2.7; SD = 0.8)

 Expected Academic Perseverance ◦ Details  6 items  6-point scale (higher score indicates more certainty) ◦ Highest means  Finish something you have started when you encounter challenges (M = 5.0; SD = 0.9)  Ask instructors for help when you struggle with course assignments (M = 4.8; SD = 1.1)

 Expected Academic Perseverance ◦ Highest means  Finish something you have started when you encounter challenges (M = 5.0; SD = 0.9)  Ask instructors for help when you struggle with course assignments (M = 4.8; SD = 1.1) ◦ Lowest means  Participate regularly in course discussions even when you don’t feel like it (M = 4.1; SD = 1.1)  Study when there are other interesting things to do (M = 4.2; SD = 1.1)

 Importance of Campus Environment ◦ Details  6 items  6-point scale (higher score indicates more importance) ◦ Highest means  Support to help you succeed academically (M = 5.3; SD = 0.9)  Opportunities to attend campus events and activities (M = 4.9; SD = 1.1)

 Importance of Campus Environment ◦ Highest means  Support to help you succeed academically (M = 5.3; SD = 0.9)  Opportunities to attend campus events and activities (M = 4.9; SD = 1.1) ◦ Lowest means  Assistance coping with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) (M = 4.2; SD = 1.3)  Support to help you thrive socially (M = 4.4; SD = 1.3)

 Perceived Academic Preparation ◦ Details  7 items  6-point scale (higher score indicates more prepared) ◦ Highest means  Work effectively with others (M = 5.2; SD = 0.9)  Learn effectively on your own (M = 4.9; SD = 1.0) ◦ Lowest means  Analyze math or quantitative problems (M = 4.2; SD = 1.3)  Use computing and information technology (M = 4.4; SD = 1.1)

LY median = 6-10 hours per week EFY median = hours per week

LY median = hours per week EFY median = 6-10 hours per week

 Summary ◦ BCSSE Scales  Lowest average score – Expected Academic Difficulty  Highest average score – Perceived Academic Preparation ◦ Most difficulty expected  Managing time  Learning course material

 Summary ◦ Academic engagement  Most often  Ask questions in class or contribute to class discussions  Work with other students (LY during class; EFY outside of class)  Least often – discussing ideas with others outside of class

 Summary ◦ Most certain  Finish something when encounter challenges  Ask instructors for help ◦ Most important  Support to help achieve academic success  Opportunities to attend campus events and activities

 Summary ◦ Most prepared  Work effectively with others  Learn effectively on their own ◦ Last Year vs. Expected First Year  Expected to increase – Preparing for class  Expected to decrease – Participating in co-curricular activities  No change expected  Working for pay  Relaxing and socializing

 Conclusions ◦ Time management skills are a concern ◦ Lower expectations to discuss ideas with others outside of class ◦ Confident in asking instructors for help ◦ Having academic support and campus activities are important ◦ Feel prepared to work and learn with others

 Implications ◦ Emphasize scheduling time for assignments ◦ Encourage discussions of course materials ◦ Be available to provide assistance ◦ Provide information on resources and support ◦ Encourage learning individually and in groups

 Limitations ◦ Sample size ◦ Mean differences  Future directions ◦ Continue to disseminate information ◦ Look at student engagement longitudinally with the NSSE

 Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?

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