1. 2017 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)IR
Office of Institutional Research

2. What is the NSSE? IR Engagement is linked to: Retention Satisfaction
And why is it important?
National Survey of Student Engagement:
Student Engagement Survey
10 Engagement Indicators
6 High-Impact Practices
Administered every 3 years
20 CSU Campuses ( )
Engagement is linked to:
Retention
Satisfaction
Graduation Initiative 2025
Engagement and Well-Being
What is the NSSE?
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) measures student engagement through 10 Engagement Indicators and 6 High-Impact Practices. These will be explained in greater detail later.
At SF State this survey is administered every 3 years.
For 2017, SF State’s results were compared to 20 other CSU campuses who also took the NSSE in 2016 or 2017.
Why is this important?
Student Engagement is important for outcomes such as retention, graduation and satisfaction.
In fact, improving student engagement and well-being is a part of the CSU wide Graduation Initiative 2025 IR
Office of Institutional Research

3. NSSE Student Sample IR First-Year Respondent Profile (2017)*
First-Year (n = 471)
In 2017, 471 First-Year students took the NSSE survey. 65% of the First-year respondents were female, and 97% of respondents were Full-Time.
The response rate for First-Year students increased from 11% in 2014 to 13% in 2017.
notifications and Social Media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) were used to recruit students in 2017
The sample was representative when compared to the gender, enrollment status, and ethnicity of the SF State population.
*Sample was representative of the population at SF State IR
Office of Institutional Research

4. NSSE Student Sample IR Senior Respondent Profile (2017)*
Senior (n = 1,490)
In 2017, 1,490 Seniors took the NSSE survey. Which resulted in a 17% response rate. 57% of the Senior respondents were female and 77% of Seniors were Full-time students.
The response rate for Seniors increased from 16% in 2014 to 17% in 2017.
notifications and Social Media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) were used to recruit students in 2017
The sample was representative when compared to the gender, enrollment status, and ethnicity of the SF State population.
*Sample was representative of the population at SF State IR
Office of Institutional Research

5. Engagement Indicators
Theme 1 - Academic Challenge:
Higher-Order Learning (How much has your coursework emphasized evaluating a point of view, decision or information source?)
Reflective and Integrative Learning (How often have you connected your learning to societal problems or issues?)
Learning Strategies (How often have you reviewed your notes after class?)
Quantitative Reasoning (How often have you used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue?)
Theme 2 - Learning With Peers:
5. Collaborative Learning
(How often have you asked another student to help you understand course material?)
6. Discussions with Diverse Others (How often have you had discussions with people from a race or ethnicity other than your own?)
The NSSE measures student engagement through a survey of questions from 10 Engagement Indicators which come from four overarching themes.
Here are the first 2 two themes: Academic Challenge and Learning with Peers. These themes cover the first 6 engagement indicators. One example survey item from each indicator is included to help explain the different themes and indicators. IR
Office of Institutional Research

6. Engagement Indicators
Theme 3 - Experiences with Faculty:
7. Student-Faculty Interaction
(How often have you talked about career plans with a faculty member?)
8. Effective Teaching Practices
(To what extent have your instructors clearly explained course goals and requirements?)
Theme 4 - Campus Environment:
9. Quality of Interactions
(Indicate the quality of your interactions with academic advisors)
10. Supportive Environment
(How much does your institution emphasize providing support to help students succeed academically?)
Here are the last 2 two themes: Experiences with Faculty and Campus Environment . These themes cover the last 4 engagement indicators. As for the first set of Indicators, one example survey item from each indicator is included to help explain the different themes and indicators. IR
Office of Institutional Research

7. Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
There were no significant differences between first-year SF State students and CSU students in academic challenge indicators.
First-Year
Academic Challenge Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Higher-Order Learning
38.6
37.7
+0.9
non-significant --
Reflective & Integrative Learning
36.8
36.0
35.3
+0.7
Learning Strategies
36.1
36.5
36.9
-0.4
Quantitative Reasoning
27.0
27.7
27.2
+0.5
Each of the Engagement Indicators on the NSSE 2017 have a score range of 0 – 60, with 60 being the most desirable score.
There was little change in the means of SF State First-year students from 2014 to 2017 in the four Academic Challenge Indicators.
There were no significant differences between SF State and the other CSU campuses for first-year students in 2017. IR
Office of Institutional Research

8. Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
Senior SF State students scored significantly higher than CSU students in reflective and integrative learning indicator.
Senior
Academic Challenge Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Higher-Order Learning
40.0
40.6
40.1
+0.5
non-significant --
Reflective & Integrative Learning
38.9
39.3
38.3
+1.0
significant (p <.05)
.08 (small)
Learning Strategies
39.7
37.9
-0.4
Quantitative Reasoning
28.7
30.2
29.9
+0.3
Senior SF State students scored significantly higher than CSU students in Reflective and Integrative Learning indicator in However the .08 effect size was only a small effect.
This was the only indicator in which SF State performed significantly better than the other CSU campuses in 2017.
The mean of Quantitative Reasoning indicator increased from 2014 to 2017, but it is unknown whether this difference is significant until further analysis is completed. IR
Office of Institutional Research

9. Engagement Indicators
Learning with Peers (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
There was a significant difference between first-year SF State students and CSU students in the collaborative learning indicator.
First-Year
Learning with Peers Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Collaborative Learning
31.6
30.1
33.2
-3.1
significant (p < .05)
-.23 (small)
Discussions with Diverse Others
40.3
38.4
39.4
-1.0
non-significant --
There was a significant difference between first-year SF State students and the other CSU students in the collaborative learning indicator in 2017.
The mean for collaborative learning also decreased from 2014 to 2017 for SF State First-Years.
The score for Discussions with Diverse Others also decreased from 2014 to 2017, but was not significantly lower than the other CSU campuses in 2017. IR
Office of Institutional Research

10. Engagement Indicators
Learning with Peers (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
There were significant differences between senior SF State students and CSU students in both learning with peers indicators.
Senior
Learning with Peers Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Collaborative Learning
32.6
33.6
35.3
-1.7
significant (p <.05)
-.13 (small)
Discussions with Diverse Others
41.3
40.5
41.9
-1.4
-.09 (small)
There were significant differences between senior SF State students and CSU students in both Learning with Peers Indicators in 2017.
The CSU seniors scored significantly higher then senior SF State students in all indicators under this theme in While both of these were significant, the effect sizes were relatively small. IR
Office of Institutional Research

11. Engagement Indicators
Experiences with Faculty (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
There was a significant difference between first-year SF State students and CSU students in the student-faculty interaction indicator.
First-Year
Experiences with Faculty Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Student-Faculty Interaction
17.5
15.7
18.4
-2.7
significant (p <.05)
-.20 (small)
Effective Teaching Practices
39.0
38.1
38.7
-0.6
non-significant --
SF State first-year students rated student-faculty interaction as significantly worse than at other CSU campuses in 2017.
The mean for SF State first-years, also dropped from 2014 to 2017 for Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. However the latter was not significantly lower than the CSU average for 2017. IR
Office of Institutional Research

12. Engagement Indicators
Experiences with Faculty (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
There was a significant difference between senior SF State students and CSU students in the student-faculty interaction indicator.
Senior
Experiences with Faculty Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Student-Faculty Interaction
20.0
21.2
22.5
-1.3
significant (p <.05)
-.08 (small)
Effective Teaching Practices
39.7
39.1
39.4
-0.3
non-significant --
SF State senior students rated student-faculty interaction as significantly worse than at other CSU campuses in 2017.
The repeated appearance of this indicator as significantly worse, shows that both groups of students at SF State view the student-faculty interactions worse than those of the other CSU campuses in 2017.
However, the mean score on Student-Faculty Interaction for SF State seniors increased from 2014 to 2017 which may indicate that this factor is improving even though it remained significantly below the score for the other campuses. IR
Office of Institutional Research

13. Engagement Indicators
Campus Environment (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
There were significant differences between first-year SF State students and CSU students in campus environment indicators.
First-Year
Campus Environment Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Quality of Interactions
36.6
35.7
39.4
-3.7
significant (p <.05)
-.27 (small)
Supportive Environment
33.1
31.0
36.1
-5.1
-.37 (medium)
Both Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment indicators were significantly lower for SF State First-year students than other CSU students in 2017.
In addition, these significant differences had the largest effect size of any of the engagement indicator comparisons with the CSUs in the NSSE These significant effects and decreasing scores from 2014 to 2017 indicate that this is an area where we need improvement. IR
Office of Institutional Research

14. Engagement Indicators
Campus Environment (2014 to 2017)
Key Finding:
There were significant differences between senior SF State students and CSU students in campus environment indicators.
Senior
Campus Environment Indicators
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Difference w/ CSU
Significant Difference
Effect Size
Quality of Interactions
39.8
38.6
41.3
-2.7
significant (p <.05)
-.21 (small)
Supportive Environment
29.3
28.5
32.6
-4.1
-.28 (small)
For Seniors at SF State, both indicators in the Campus Environment theme were found to be significantly lower than that of the other CSU campuses.
In addition, average scores in both these indicators dropped from 2014 to 2017 among SF State seniors. Although it is not apparent if this drop was of a significant amount, this does show a need for better focus on these indicators to impede scores from dropping even further in 2020. IR
Office of Institutional Research

15. High-Impact Practices
High-Impact Practices (HIPs)
Undergraduate opportunities which have positive associations with student learning and retention
Service-Learning
Courses that included a community-based project
Learning Community
Formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together
Research with Faculty
Work with a faculty member on a research project
Internship or Field Experience
Internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement
Study Abroad
Culminating Senior Experience
High-Impact Practices (HIPs) are the second major measure of engagement found in the NSSE. Above is a list of the HIPs and some example activities that qualify for each.
HIPs are opportunities or activities that have an important impact on the lives of undergraduate students. To complete they require considerable time and effort in addition to the effort being spent on classwork. It is recommended that students complete at least 2 HIPs before graduation.
There is 6 total HIPs measured, but the last three (Internship/Field Experience, Study Abroad, and Culminating Senior Experience) are only measured in the Senior year. Due to this First-years may only report participation in Service Learning, Learning Community, or Research with Faculty, while Seniors may report from any of the 6 categories. IR
Office of Institutional Research

16. High-Impact Practices
First-Year Students
57%
57%
HIPs for first year students include Learning Community, Service-Learning and Research with Faculty.
Participation in one or more HIPs stayed the same from 2014 to 2017 for first-year students. However, the rate of participation in 2 or more High impact practices dropped to 6% in 2017 from 9% in 2014.
Our overall first-year student HIP participation was below the average for CSU campuses by 5% in 2017.
62%
Key Finding: Participation in one HIP increased from 2014 to 2017 IR
Office of Institutional Research

17. High-Impact Practices
Senior Students
82%
81%
HIPs for Senior students is expanded to also include Internships, Study Abroad, and Culminating Senior Experience.
There was a slight decrease in HIP participation among Senior students from 2014 to 2017.
While we remain below the average for CSU Campuses, in 2017 over 80% of Seniors had taken part in at least one HIP during their time at SF State.
86%
Key Finding: Participation in one HIP increased from 2014 to 2017. IR
Office of Institutional Research

18. Preparing for Class
Average Hours per Week Spent Preparing for Class
On average our First-Year students reported spending 13.4 hours preparing for class each week in 2017.
This increased from 12.6 hours in 2014.
Our Senior students hours also increased from 2014 by a small amount.
Our average hours spent preparing for class was less than that of the CSU’s by less than 1 hour for First-Years and Seniors.
Key Finding: Average hours spent preparing for class increased from 2014 to 2017 for first-year and senior students. IR
Office of Institutional Research

19. Assigned Reading IR Average Hours per Week on Course Readings
Our First-Year students reported spending on average 6.8 hours per week on assigned readings in This number did not change from 2014.
In addition our Senior students reported spending approximately 8 hours on assigned readings each week in school year.
Both Senior and First-Year students spent on average more time reading each week than the CSU campus comparison group for 2017.
Key Finding: Hours of Assigned reading remained relatively stable from 2014 to 2017 IR
Office of Institutional Research

20. Assigned Writing IR Average Pages of Assigned Writing
First-year students reported writing approximately 52.3 pages during the school year. This amount is almost identical to the amount reported in 2014 and from the other CSUs.
Senior students reported assigned writing of 93.3 pages during the school year. This amount went up from 2014 and is more than the average for the CSU campuses in 2017.
Key Finding: Senior commitment to developing writing skills higher than the CSU average. IR
Office of Institutional Research

21. Challenging Students IR
Extent to which courses challenge students to do their best.
First-Year
Moderate Challenge
“To what extent did students’ courses challenge them to do their best work?”
High Challenge indicates a score of 6 or 7 on 7-item Likert type scale. (1=Not at all to 7 = Very Much)
Moderate Challenge indicates 3, 4, or 5
Low Challenge indicates 1 or 2
Amount of First-Year students reporting being highly challenged by their courses decreased from 2014 to 2017.
The majority of first-year students rated courses Moderate challenge, followed by High challenge in Percentage of High Challenge is lower than the CSU average, however the amount of Low Challenge courses was the same at SF State and the other CSUs in 2017.
High Challenge
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Key Finding: Majority of courses moderately challenging for students. The amount first-year students reported being highly challenged by their courses decreased from 2014 to 2017. IR
Office of Institutional Research

22. Challenging Students IR
Extent to which courses challenge students to do their best.
Senior
Moderate Challenge
Amount of Senior students reporting being highly challenged by their courses decreased from 2014 to 2017.
An equal amount of Seniors rated classes as High Challenge and Moderate Challenge in Percentage of Seniors who reported courses being Low Challenge doubled from 2014 to 2017.
High Challenge
SF State 2014
SF State 2017
CSU
Key Finding: Seniors reported equal amounts of high and moderately challenging courses. Seniors reporting low challenge from courses doubled from 2014 to 2017. IR
Office of Institutional Research

23. Academic Emphasis
Institution Emphasis on Studying and Academic Work
First-Year
Senior
Students who feel SF State “emphasizes spending significant time studying and on academic work” Quite a Bit or Very Much are represented in the chart.
SF State percentages were relatively high, but there was also a moderate percentage point difference between SF State and other CSU campuses in 2017.
The percentage of First-Years who reported “Very Much” or “Quite a Bit” dropped from , while there was only a slight increase in the SF State Seniors.
Key Finding: Students at SF State reported lower academic emphasis by the university than at other CSUs. IR
Office of Institutional Research

24. Item Comparisons IR Top 5 Scoring Items for 2017 First-Years
4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts.
2c. Included diverse perspectives (…) in course discussions or assignments.*
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information sources.
5d. Instructors provide feedback on a draft or work in progress.
6a. Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (…) +5
+ 6 +4
Item numbers which are gold indicate repeated items found in the Top 5 for Seniors and First-Years in An asterisk indicates repeat from 2014.
First-Year students spent more time on analyzing ideas and evaluating point of view, decisions, or information sources than students at other CSU campuses.
Diverse perspectives were more frequently included in First-Year course discussions and assignments than the comparison CSUs in 2014 and 2017. +3
Key Finding: SF State students spent more time analyzing ideas, experiences, and reasoning than other CSU Students.
* - Also in 2014 IR
Office of Institutional Research
Item - in top 5 for both First-Years and Seniors at SF State in 2017

25. Item Comparisons IR 5 Lowest Performing Items for 2017 First-Years
14h. Institution emphasis on attending campus activities and events (…)*
14e. Institution emphasis on providing opportunities to be involved socially
14f. Institution emphasis on providing support for your overall well-being
10. Extent to which courses challenged you to do your best work*
14a. Institution emphasis on studying and academic work
Emphasis on campus activities and events was the worst performing item for first years.
This was the same as from 2014, but with a larger difference from the CSUs in 2017
Courses challenging students to do their best work was also a low scoring item from 2014 which repeated in 2017
Mention Emily's experience in FOE
Key Finding: SF State is believed to emphasize campus activities less than other CSU campuses.
* - Also in 2014 IR
Office of Institutional Research
Item - in bottom 5 for both First-Years and Seniors at SF State in 2017

26. Item Comparisons IR Top 5 Scoring Items for 2017 Seniors
2c. Included diverse perspectives (…) in course discussions or assignments*
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information sources
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue
5d. Instructors provided feedback on a draft or work in progress
7. Assigned more than 50 pages of writing* +7 +4 +3 +3
Inclusion of diverse perspectives in discussion and assignments was the highest performing item for Seniors in 2014 and 2017.
This shows this item was a consistent strength of SF State courses
However, the overall the percentage point differences from CSU’s were relatively small in the top scoring item group for SF State Seniors. +3
Key Finding: On average, SF State course discussions included more diverse perspectives than other CSU Campuses.
* - Also in 2014 IR
Office of Institutional Research
Item - in top 5 for both First-Years and Seniors at SF State in 2017

27. Item Comparisons IR 5 Lowest Performing Items for 2017 Seniors
14h. Institution emphasis on attending campus activities and events (…)*
14f. Institution emphasis on providing support for your overall well-being…*
8d. Discussions with… people with political views different than your own.*
14c. Institution emphasis on learning support services (…)*
11f. Completed a culminating senior experience (…) (HIP)*
Though the order changed, All of the items in the bottom 5 of performance for Seniors were found in 2014 and 2017.
Campus activities and events was once again tied for the worst scoring item.
The lack of improvement in these items suggests these are consistent issues at SF State and are areas for improvement heading into the 2020 NSSE.
Key Finding: Lowest performing items for Seniors were the same as in 2014.
* - Also in 2014 IR
Office of Institutional Research
Item - in bottom 5 for both First-Years and Seniors at SF State in 2017

28. Perceived Gains IR Skills and Knowledge Acquired by Seniors
Seniors rated how much their time at SF State increased their skills, knowledge or personal development in 10 areas.
The top rated improvements were in “Thinking Critically and analytically” and “Understanding people of other backgrounds”
Only 56% of Seniors felt they acquired “job or work related knowledge or skills” while at SF State.
Lowest scoring items of more applied real-world nature. While higher scoring items are more theoretical and abstract.
Key Finding: Seniors rated their ability to think critically and analytically was improved by attending SF State. IR
Office of Institutional Research

29. Satisfaction with SFSU
Overall Experience
First-Year
Senior
75% of First-Year students and 76% of Seniors rated their overall experience at SF State as “Excellent” or “Good”.
This is lower than the average for the CSU campuses by 8% for both groups in 2017.
The percentage for First-year students remained stable, while the senior students featured a small percentage drop from 2014.
Key Finding: 75% of First-Years and 76% of Seniors rated SF State “Excellent” or “Good” IR
Office of Institutional Research

30. Satisfaction with SFSU
Likelihood to Attend Again
First-Year
Senior
Although lower than the average for the other CSU campuses, over 74% and 75% of students would “Definitely” or “Probably” attend SF State again based on their experiences here.
SF State senior satisfaction remained stable from 2014, while the first-year students experienced a drop in scores.
Overall, both groups at SF State were lower than the CSU comparison groups in 2017.
Key Finding: 75% of Seniors and 74% of First-Year students would attend again. IR
Office of Institutional Research

31. Summary of NSSE IR The State of SF State Need for Improvement
Below CSU peers
Campus Environment
Decrements from 2014
Recurring Items
Positive Growth
Improvements from 2014
Reflective and Integrative Learning
Recurrent theme of diverse perspectives
“Good” or “Excellent”
The NSSE highlighted some areas which need work and some which improved from 2014.
Need for Improvement
We consistently scored below our CSU peers on many of the items, engagement indicators and amounts measured by the NSSE
All Engagement Indicators under the Campus Environment theme were significantly lower than the CSUs for First-Years and Seniors in 2017.
In addition, many of the worst scoring items and indicators were recurring from 2014 data, so attention is needed to mitigate these recurrent themes.
Good Signs
SF State featured some improvement in indicator scores over Although it is unclear if these are significant yet.
For the first time, one Indicator was significantly better then the other CSU campuses – Reflective and Integrative Learning
Among the best scoring items, understanding diverse perspectives is a recurrent theme
Despite poorly scoring items, 75% and 76% of First-Year and Senior students respectively, reported SF State as “Good” or “Excellent” IR
Office of Institutional Research