1. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 1 The University of Texas-Pan American National Survey of Student Engagement 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Presented by: March 2007 Leroy E. Philbrook Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness

2. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 2 What is the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)? (pronounced “nessie”)  National survey that assesses the extent to which first-year and senior students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development.  Supported by grants from Lumina Foundation for Education and the Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College.  Co-sponsored by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and The Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning.

3. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 3 Purpose of NSSE  To illuminate how students are engaged in their education.  Measure the perception of university’s support of student engagement  Provide an alternate look at teaching & learning at the university.  Determine if student behavior and institutional practices are headed in a similar direction.  Assist in measuring the extent to which the university advances polices and practices that encourage student learning and development.

4. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 4 Who Participated Nationally More than 1,100 different colleges and universities 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Canada Data from more than 1,225,000 students Institutions include Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and same sex colleges Year Colleges/ Universities 2001321 2002367 2003437 2004473 2005529 2006557

5. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 5 6 Year Response Rates 200120022003200420052006 UTPA 29%35%30%35%29%13% UT System --34%32%27%24% Carnegie Peers 43%39%42%36%35%32% NSSE Nationwide 42%41%43%38%37%35%

6. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 6 5 Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice 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. 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. 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.

7. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 7 UTPA Benchmarks Scores 59.934.042.355.153.62006 61.535.641.953.856.5 2005 60.633.137.951.954.6 2004 50.446.738.448.056.3 2003 Senior 65.225.332.842.749.12006 63.128.437.145.949.7 2005 64.023.130.838.048.4 2004 63.255.433.735.647.5 2003 First Year SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) STUDENT- FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC)

8. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 8 ●Class preparation. ●Coursework emphasis on analysis, synthesis, making judgments, application of theories or concepts. ●Level of work necessary to meet instructor’s expectations. ●Campus emphasis on study time and academic work. ●Number of assigned textbooks, etc. ●Number of written papers of 20+ pages, 5-19 pages, 1-5 pages. Level of Academic Challenge Benchmark Items Included:

9. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 9

10. 10 Class participation Class presentations Working with other students on projects Tutoring/teaching other students Participation in community-based project as part of course Discussion of ideas from readings/courses outside of class Active and Collaborative Learning Benchmark Items Included:

11. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 11

12. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 12 Student-Faculty Interaction Benchmark Items Included : Discussing grades/assignments with instructor Discussing career plans with faculty member/advisor Discussing class work with faculty outside of class Working with faculty on university activities other than coursework Receiving prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance Working with faculty on research project outside of course requirements

13. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 13

14. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 14 Enriching Educational Experiences Benchmark Items Included : Co-curricular activities Practicum, internship, clinical assignment, etc. Community service, volunteer Foreign language, study abroad Independent study, self-designed major Culminating senior experience Conversations with students of different beliefs, ethnicity Use of electronic technology to discuss/complete assignments Campus environment that encourages contact among students of different backgrounds.

15. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 15

16. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 16 Supportive Campus Environment Benchmark Items Include: Campus support for: –academic success –coping with non-academic responsibilities –thriving socially Quality of relationships with other students, faculty members, administrative personnel/offices

17. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 17

18. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 18 Comparison Groups  Carnegie Peers – Master’s Colleges and Universities from Carnegie classification  National – Schools participating in the NSSE survey nationwide  UT System – The other universities in the UT System  UTPA – The University of Texas-Pan American

19. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 19 UTPA to National Benchmarks LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC) ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) STUDENT- FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) First Year 2003 47.553.935.641.833.737.255.457.763.261.8 2004 48.453.638.042.330.833.323.126.764.062.8 2005 49.752.645.942.437.134.028.427.863.160.1 2006 49.151.842.741.332.832.125.326.765.259.1 Senior 2003 56.357.348.050.138.444.246.749.150.458.8 2004 54.657.651.951.437.944.033.140.960.659.7 2005 56.5 53.851.541.944.135.642.161.557.5 2006 53.655.855.150.442.341.334.039.959.956.6 Above Within.5 Below The Comparison Group

20. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 20 UTPA to Carnegie Peer Benchmark Above Within.5 Below The Comparison Group LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC) ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) STUDENT- FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) First Year 2003 47.552.735.641.133.735.755.4 63.261.1 2004 48.452.638.041.630.832.323.125.864.062.3 2005 49.751.745.942.537.133.928.426.763.160.1 2006 49.150.642.740.932.831.825.325.865.258.6 Senior 2003 56.356.448.050.238.442.446.746.650.458.6 2004 54.656.851.951.237.942.533.138.660.659.4 2005 56.556.053.852.241.943.635.640.461.558.0 2006 53.655.455.150.742.340.434.037.559.956.6

21. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 21 UTPA to UT System Benchmarks LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC) ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) STUDENT- FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) First Year 2003 47.549.935.636.733.731.955.452.463.259.4 2004 48.444.938.036.630.828.123.123.064.059.7 2005 49.749.345.937.637.129.628.428.263.156.5 2006 49.150.442.738.932.829.225.326.665.258.6 Senior 2003 56.354.448.046.038.436.846.743.050.455.7 2004 54.654.951.948.237.935.933.130.660.655.5 2005 56.554.553.847.741.938.635.636.061.554.4 2006 53.6 55.146.842.336.334.036.859.954.3 Above Within.5 Below The Comparison Group

22. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 22 Highest Performing Areas 2006 Percent of students who… UTPA UT System Carnegie Peers National 2006 Worked with other students on projects during class 63%36%42% Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor 42%28%27%28% Positively rated their relationships with admin. personnel and offices 66%55% 54% Said the institution substantially helps students cope w/ non academic matters 48%31%32% Said the institution provides substantial support for students' social needs 56%42% 43% Worked harder than you expected to meet an instructor's expectations 72%55%58%57% Made a class presentation 71%49%65%61% Worked with other students on projects during class 54%40%50%46% Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments 73%58%56%58% Said the institution provides substantial support for students' social needs 42%29%31%32% First Year Students Seniors

23. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 23 Lowest Performing Areas 2006 Percent of students who… UTPA UT System Carnegie Peers National 2006 Read more than 10 assigned books or book-length packs of readings 12%31%33%36% Wrote more than 4 papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages 16%27%31%33% Spent more than 10 hours/week preparing for class (studying, etc) 35%55%48%54% Had serious conversation w/ students of another race or ethnicity 33%51%48%49% Had serious conversation w/ students of other relig./politics/values 42%50%53%55% Spent more than 10 hours/week preparing for class (studying, etc) 43%54%52%55% Said the institution emphasizes studying and academic work 71%77%78% Had serious conversation w/ students of another race or ethnicity 37%58%52% Had serious conversation w/ students of other relig./politics/values 45%54% 55% Did a practicum, internship, field exp., clinical assgmt 39%47%50%53% First Year Students Seniors

24. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 24 Recommendations Benchmarks in need of attention: 1.Enriching Educational Experiences 2.Level of Academic Challenge 3.Student-Faculty Interactions

25. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 25 Recommendations NSSE findings should be considered in: Strategic planning at the university, college and program levels. Identifying strengths and areas of improvement regarding student engagement at the program level. Identifying short and long term modifications that would enhance student engagement. Rewarding teachers that engage students more fully. Modifying course requirements and/or course delivery to respond to concerns identified in the NSSE results.

26. Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness 26 Questions & Discussion Contact Information: Leroy Philbrook Phone: (956) 316-7146 This presentation is online at: http://www.oire.utpa.edu/publications/NSSE_03_to_06.ppt