1. The University of Texas-Pan American
National Survey of Student Engagement
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Presented by:
Welcome to the presentation of the NSSE survey.
Leroy E. Philbrook
Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness
September 2008

2. 6 Year Response Rates 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 30% 35% 29% 13%
UTPA
30%
35%
29%
13%
18%
24%
UT System
34%
32%
27%
23%
25%
Selected Peers
42%
36%
26%
NSSE
Nationwide
43%
38%
37%
33%               
Our response rate has been somewhat less but not dramatically less than other UT schools until this last survey. This was the first time we administered the survey by . This reduced the cost to administer the survey and also reduced the response rate. This year we are again administering the NSSE via and will try some strategies to improve the response rate. Strategy: We will have a work study call the students who are part of the sample and encourage them to complete the online survey.

3. 5 Benchmarks for Student Engagement
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.
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.
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
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.
In addition to the demographic item, 60 items are ranked by the students in the NSSE and the faculty in the FSSE.
6 items are used to measure the Level of Academic Challenge.
5 items are used to measure the Student-Faculty Interaction
6 items are used to measure the Active and Collaborative Learning
6 items are used to measure the Supportive Campus Environment
9 items are used to measure the Enriching Educational Experiences

4. NSSE Benchmark 2008 Scores for UTPA
First Year
Senior
NSSE Benchmark
UTPA Score
Compared with …
UT System
Selected Peers
NSSE 2007
Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) 49 _ 56
Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) 41 a 55
Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) 36 44
Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE) 25 35
Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) 65 64            
These are the scores for each benchmark from the most recent NSSE the scores are on a scale of 100
+ can be considered as good and the – considered as not so good. The blanks represent no statistically significant difference.
*I considered putting in smiley faces but that would be a little ostentatious. So I decided to stick with +s and –s.*
We are mostly above the average of the comparison groups on ACL, SFI and SCE.
LAC are mostly neutral, compared to UT System and Selected Peers. Only with NSSE First Year, are we below.
EEE for the first year students we are on par all three and with senior is this a draw. 1 up 1 down and 1 in the middle..
Freshman and Senior are about equal 9 +’s, 5 blanks and 1 –.           
The Scale is 100
indicates the score of UTPA is less than this comparison group
Indicates the score of UTPA is greater than this comparison group
Blank indicates no statistically significant difference
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

5. LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC)
This is a table to show our history of benchmark scores for one Benchmark. This is for the Level of Academic Challenge. The dark green is UTPA. The Orange is UT System. The Blue is the Selected Peers. And the Red is for the National NSSE. The square is for 1st Year and the triangle is for Seniors. The chart is for a general impression. If you want the particular numbers please let me know. This shows our 1st Year student similar to UT system and below the others. With a little more variation, our seniors are on a similar level with the others.
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

6. ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL)
Here we switch to the Active and Collaborative Learning. Both, our 1st Year student and Senior student scores have grown to a out pace the comparison groups on this benchmark.
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

7. STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI)
Now to Student-faculty Interaction. Both student groups come out on top but there is an increase in the general fluctuations on the benchmark.
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

8. ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE)
Enriching Educational Experiences. The 3 Es. Our 1st Year students don’t show a lot of difference from the comparison groups is the last 3 years. With our seniors, the scores are pretty flat, while UT System and the Selected Peers have come down in their scores. By the way, between 2003 and 2004, this benchmark was altered. The scores from the 2003 survey are not comparable to the later scores.
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

9. SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE)
This benchmark is different from the others. The 1st Year score tend to be higher than the Senior scores. Our 1st Year students have consistently given our campus a high score. And our seniors have also given our campus a high score. Even higher then many of the 1st year scores for the comparison groups. The obvious exception on this chart is the 2003 Seniors. There must have been something upsetting that happened with the seniors at that time. This was before I got here, so it wasn’t my fault.
Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

10. Highest Performing Areas 2008
Percent of students who…
UTPA
UT System
Selected Peers
National 2007
8a. Quality of relationships with other students (4 or above out of 7)
95%
89%
90%
8b. Quality of relationships with faculty members(4 or above out of 7)
87%
86%
8c. Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices(4 or above out of 7)
80%
77%
78%
7b. Community service or volunteer work (Have done or Plan to do)
79%
10b. Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically (Quite a bit or Very Much)
75%
76%
93%
92%
8b. Quality of relationships with faculty members (4 or above out of 7)
88%
91%
2b. Coursework emphasizes: Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory (Quite a bit or Very Much)
84%
83%
81%
2e. Coursework emphasizes: Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations (Quite a bit or Very Much)
10a. Spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work (Quite a bit or Very Much)
First Year Students
This is to highlight the areas where we were highest performing.
1 Combination of students responding ‘very often’ or ‘often’ or
2 Rated at least 5 on a 7 point scale
3 Combination of student responding ‘very much’ or ‘quite a bit’
Take a look at these highest performing areas.
Which surprised you?
Which did you say ‘I knew that’ or ‘Of Course’?
Which ones should we highlight?
Seniors

11. Lowest Performing Areas 2008
Percent of students who…
UTPA
UT System
Selected Peers
National 2007
3d. Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages (5 or more)
20%
25%
31%
33%
1s. Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.) (Often or Very often)
18%
13%
16%
1j. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary) (Often or Very often)
17%
14%
1k. Participated in a community-based project (e.g. service learning) as part of a regular course (Often or Very often)
12%
3c. Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more (5 or more) 8% 7% 6%
7g. Independent study or self-designed major (Have done or Plan to do)
28%
26%
27%
21%
22%
24%
19%
10% 9%
First Year Students
This is the other side. The lowest performing areas.
Take a look at these lowest performing areas.
Which surprised you?
Which did you say ‘I knew that’ or ‘Of Course’
Which ones should we highlight?
Seniors

12. Areas of Highest Difference 2008 First Year to Senior
Percent of students who…
UTPA
UT System
Selected Peers
National 2007
1b. Made a class presentation (Often or Very often)
43%
30%
28%
27%
72%
23%
53%
37%
64%
34%
61%
1h. Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments (Often or Very often)
36%
17%
16%
35%
71%
41%
58%
40%
57%
42%
2b. Coursework emphasizes: Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory (Quite a bit or Very much)
14% 3% 6% 5%
70%
84%
80%
83%
77%
79%
1a. Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions (Often or Very often)
13%
12%
51%
44%
59%
1r. Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations (Often or Very often) 7%
56%
69%
52%
55%
60%
7 f. Study abroad (Have done or Plan to do)
-21%
-23%
-22%
45%
24%
47%
20%
46%
7e. Foreign language coursework (Have done or Plan to do)
-15%
-9%
-7%
-5%
50%
3e. Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages (5 or more)
-10% 0%
54%
65%
10d.Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)
-12%
-11%
25%
38%
26%
7c. Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more (Have done or Plan to do)
Increase
This is the 10 with the Highest Difference. The increases were on areas would seem to be inherent in modern higher education and what you would hope would be happening. Also, I would like to point out that positive change is, for the most part, greater than the comparison groups.
The ones decreasing need to be looked at more closely.
What can we to do to deal with these shifts?
Decrease
Difference
1st Yr
Senior

13. Benchmarks in need of attention:
Recommendations
Benchmarks in need of attention:
Enriching Educational Experiences
Level of Academic Challenge
Student-Faculty Interactions
Need to be celebrated:
Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)
Benchmarks the planning and implementation groups need to be looking at.

14. Questions & Discussion
Contact Information:
Leroy Philbrook
Phone: (956)
This presentation is online at: