1. National Survey of Student Engagement University of Minnesota, Morris NSSE 2004

2. Program Overview What is NSSE and why is engagement important? University of Minnesota, Morris Data Using NSSE Data Questions and Discussion

3. What Really Matters in College: Student Engagement The research is unequivocal: students who are actively involved in both academic and out- of-class activities gain more from the college experience than those who are not so involved Pascarella & Terenzini. (1991). How college affects students.

4. Effective Educational Practices Student-faculty contact Active learning Prompt feedback Time on task High expectations Cooperation among students Respect for diverse talents and ways of learning Chickering and Gamson. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education.

5. What is NSSE? (pronounced “nessie”) Evaluates the extent to which first-year and senior students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development NSSE is conducted by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research Co-sponsored by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning Since 2000, almost 900 different colleges and universities from 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Canada have participated Data from more than 620,000 students

6. Administered to all UMM first-year & senior students via the Web UMM’s response rate = 47% (Nat’l response rate = 38%) 67% were female; 33% were male 53% were freshmen; 47% were seniors 53% lived on campus; 47% lived off campus 12% were students of color NSSE 2004 Response Rates

7. Benchmark Introduction The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) annually assesses the extent to which undergraduate students are involved in educational practices empirically linked to high levels of learning and development. National Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice NSSE created the National Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice representing clusters of items on the survey (expressed in 100-point scales): –Level of academic challenge –Active and collaborative learning –Student-faculty interactions –Enriching educational experiences –Supportive campus environment

8. Level of Academic Challenge 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 Level of Academic Challenge Items: Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, etc. related to academic program) Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between 5 and 19 pages; and number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages Coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory Coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships Coursework emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods Coursework emphasizing application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work 2002 2004

9. Active and Collaborative Learning 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. Active and Collaborative Learning Items: Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions Made a class presentation Worked with other students on projects during class Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments Tutored or taught other students Participated in a community-based project as part of a regular course Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.) 2002 2004

10. Student-Faculty Interactions 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. Student-Faculty Interactions Items: Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Talked about career plans with a faculty member or adviser Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student-life activities, etc.) Received prompt feedback from faculty on your academic performance (written or oral) Worked or planned to work with a faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements 2002 2004

11. Enriching Educational Experiences Complementary learning opportunities in and out of classroom augment 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. Enriching Educational Experiences Items: Participating in co-curricular activities (organizations, publications, student government, sports, etc.) Practicum, internship, field experience, co- op experience, or clinical assignment Community service or volunteer work Foreign language coursework and study abroad Independent study or self-designed major Culminating senior experience (comprehensive exam, capstone course, thesis, project, etc.) Serious conversations with students of different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity Using electronic technology to discuss or complete an assignment Campus environment encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds 2002 2004

12. Supportive Campus Environment Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success as well as the working and social relations among different groups on campus. Supportive Campus Environment Items: Campus environment provides the support you need to help you succeed academically Campus environment helps you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) Campus environment provides the support you need to thrive socially Quality of relationships with other students Quality of relationships with faculty members Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices 2002 2004

13. Generalizations from the 2004 NSSE Survey How similar were the ‘02 and ‘04 results? Item by item responses of both ‘02 and ‘04 UMM freshmen and seniors are very similar. Of 67 items repeated in ‘02 and ‘04 surveys, freshman readings differed considerably only 12 times. Seniors differed considerably only 10 times. In 2004, benchmark scores again improved substantially between freshmen and seniors in level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interactions, and enriching educational experiences. Both the freshmen and seniors score UMM very high as a supportive campus environment. Compared to other college norms, many freshmen give UMM mediocre ranking for academic challenge and active and collaborative learning. Even senior ranking in academic challenge is disappointing. Freshmen and seniors give high marks on enriching educational experiences, student- faculty interaction, and supportive campus environment.

14. 2004 Benchmark Scores Comparison The UMM scores were higher or lower than other college benchmark norms as shown below (“+” means UMM scores were above the norm, “-” means UMM scores were below the norm).

15. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they spent more than 15 hours per week studying, writing, rehearsing, etc. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Hours Spent Studying

16. Percent of SENIOR students who said they spent more than 15 hours per week studying, writing, rehearsing, etc. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Hours Spent Studying

17. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said, during the current academic year, they have written at least 5 papers or reports of 5-19 pages. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Written at least 5 Papers

18. Percent of SENIOR students who said, during the current academic year, they have written at least 5 papers or reports of 5-19 pages. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Written at least 5 Papers

19. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said coursework emphasizes synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Synthesizing Ideas

20. Percent of SENIOR students who said coursework emphasizes synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Synthesizing Ideas

21. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said coursework emphasizes making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Making Judgments

22. Percent of SENIOR students who said coursework emphasizes making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Making Judgments

23. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said coursework emphasizes applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Applying Theories

24. Percent of SENIOR students who said coursework emphasizes applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Applying Theories

25. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they often worked harder than they thought they could to meet an instructor’s standards. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Worked Hard

26. Percent of SENIOR students who said they often worked harder than they thought they could to meet an instructor’s standards. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Worked Hard

27. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said the campus emphasizes studying and academic work. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Study/Academic Work

28. Percent of SENIOR students who said the campus emphasizes studying and academic work. 2002 & 2004 Academic Challenge: Emphasis on Study/Academic Work

29. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said their experience at this institution contributed to writing clearly and effectively. Other Academic Experiences: Writing Clearly and Effectively

30. Percent of SENIOR students who said their experience at this institution contributed to writing clearly and effectively. Other Academic Experiences: Writing Clearly and Effectively

31. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said their experience at this institution contributed to speaking clearly and effectively. Other Academic Experiences: Speaking Clearly and Effectively

32. Percent of SENIOR students who said their experience at this institution contributed to speaking clearly and effectively. Other Academic Experiences: Speaking Clearly and Effectively

33. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said their experience at this institution contributed to thinking critically and analytically. Other Academic Experiences: Thinking Critically and Analytically

34. Percent of SENIOR students who said their experience at this institution contributed to thinking critically and analytically. Other Academic Experiences: Thinking Critically and Analytically

35. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they were challenged by their examinations to do their best work. Other Academic Experiences: Challenging Examinations

36. Percent of SENIOR students who said they were challenged by their examinations to do their best work. Other Academic Experiences: Challenging Examinations

37. 2004 Summary of Academic Challenge Benchmark Norms UMM benchmark scores were different from the other norms to a statistically significant degree on the following items (“+” means UMM scores were above the norm, “-” means UMM scores were below the norm):

38. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they have often or very often made a class presentation. Active and Collaborative Learning: Class Presentations

39. Percent of SENIOR students who said they have often or very often made a class presentation. Active and Collaborative Learning: Class Presentations

40. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who have often asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions. Active and Collaborative Learning: Contributed to Class Discussion

41. Percent of SENIOR students who have often asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions. Active and Collaborative Learning: Contributed to Class Discussion

42. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who have often worked with other students on projects during class. Active and Collaborative Learning: Collaborated During Class

43. Percent of SENIOR students who have often worked with other students on projects during class. Active and Collaborative Learning: Collaborated During Class

44. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who have often worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments. Active and Collaborative Learning: Collaborated to Prepare Assignments

45. Percent of SENIOR students who have often worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments. Active and Collaborative Learning: Collaborated to Prepare Assignments

46. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who have often tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary). Active and Collaborative Learning: Tutored Other Students

47. Percent of SENIOR students who have often tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary). Active and Collaborative Learning: Tutored Other Students

48. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who have participated in a community-based project as part of a regular course during the current year. Active and Collaborative Learning: Community-Based Project in Class

49. Percent of SENIOR students who have participated in a community- based project as part of a regular course during the current year. Active and Collaborative Learning: Community-Based Project in Class

50. 2004 Summary of Active & Collaborative Learning Benchmark Norms UMM benchmark scores were different from the other norms to a statistically significant degree on the following items (“+” means UMM scores were above the norm, “-” means UMM scores were below the norm):

51. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who often discussed career plans with faculty members or advisers. Student-Faculty Interactions: Discussed Career Plans with Faculty

52. Percent of SENIOR students who often discussed career plans with faculty members or advisers. Student-Faculty Interactions: Discussed Career Plans with Faculty

53. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who often discussed ideas from their readings or classes with faculty members outside of class. Student-Faculty Interactions: Out-of-Class Discussions with Faculty

54. Percent of SENIOR students who often discussed ideas from their readings or classes with faculty members outside of class. Student-Faculty Interactions: Out-of-Class Discussions with Faculty

55. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they often received prompt feedback from faculty on their academic performance (written or oral). Student-Faculty Interactions: Received Prompt Feedback

56. Percent of SENIOR students who said they often received prompt feedback from faculty on their academic performance (written or oral). Student-Faculty Interactions: Received Prompt Feedback

57. Percent of students who worked on a research project with a faculty member outside of a course or program. Student-Faculty Interactions: Research with Faculty Member

58. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who often worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.). Student-Faculty Interactions: Activities Other than Coursework

59. Percent of SENIOR students who often worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.). Student-Faculty Interactions: Activities Other than Coursework

60. 2004 Summary of Student-Faculty Interaction Benchmark Norms UMM benchmark scores were different from the other norms to a statistically significant degree on the following items (“+” means UMM scores were above the norm, “-” means UMM scores were below the norm):

61. Percent of students who said they have studied abroad. Enriching Educational Experiences: Study Abroad

62. Percent of students who said they have taken foreign language coursework. Enriching Educational Experiences: Foreign Language Coursework

63. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they participated in co- curricular activities (organizations, campus publications, student government, etc.). Enriching Educational Experiences: Participating in Co-Curricular Activities

64. Percent of SENIOR students who said they participated in co- curricular activities (organizations, campus publications, student government, etc.). Enriching Educational Experiences: Participating in Co-Curricular Activities

65. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they often used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment. Enriching Educational Experiences: Using Electronic Media

66. Percent of SENIOR students who said they often used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, Internet, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment. Enriching Educational Experiences: Using Electronic Media

67. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said the college encouraged contact between students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds. Enriching Educational Experiences: Contact with Different Ethnic Backgrounds

68. Percent of SENIOR students who said the college encouraged contact between students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds. Enriching Educational Experiences: Contact with Different Ethnic Backgrounds

69. 2004 Summary of Enriching Educational Experiences Benchmark Norms UMM benchmark scores were different from the other norms to a statistically significant degree on the following items (“+” means UMM scores were above the norm, “-” means UMM scores were below the norm):

70. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said the campus environment emphasized providing the support needed to help them succeed academically. Supportive Campus Environment: Campus Provides Academic Support

71. Percent of SENIOR students who said the campus environment emphasized providing the support needed to help them succeed academically. Supportive Campus Environment: Campus Provides Academic Support

72. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said the campus environment emphasized providing the support they need to thrive socially. Supportive Campus Environment: Providing Support to Thrive Socially

73. Percent of SENIOR students who said the campus environment emphasized providing the support they need to thrive socially. Supportive Campus Environment: Providing Support to Thrive Socially

74. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they had high quality relationships with other students. Supportive Campus Environment: Quality of Relationships with Students

75. Percent of SENIOR students who said they had high quality relationships with other students. Supportive Campus Environment: Quality of Relationships with Students

76. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they had high quality relationships with faculty members. Supportive Campus Environment: Quality of Relationships with Faculty

77. Percent of SENIOR students who said they had high quality relationships with faculty members. Supportive Campus Environment: Quality of Relationships with Faculty

78. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who said they had high quality relationships with administration and offices. Supportive Campus Environment: Quality of Relationships with Administration

79. Percent of SENIOR students who said they had high quality relationships with administration and offices. Supportive Campus Environment: Quality of Relationships with Administration

80. 2004 Summary of Supportive Campus Environment Benchmark Norms UMM benchmark scores were different from the other norms to a statistically significant degree on the following items (“+” means UMM scores were above the norm, “-” means UMM scores were below the norm):

81. Percent of FIRST-YEAR students who evaluated their entire educational experience as excellent. Evaluation of Entire Experience

82. Percent of SENIOR students who evaluated their entire educational experience as excellent. Evaluation of Entire Experience

83. Percent of students who said that during this academic year they have strongly or very strongly experienced a sense of community at this college. COPLAC Consortium

84. Percent of students (not living at home) who said that they stayed on campus 12-15 weekends during the semester. COPLAC Consortium

85. Percent of students (not living at home) who said that they stayed on campus 6 or fewer weekends during the semester. COPLAC Consortium

86. Using NSSE Data Discover current levels of engagement Determine if current levels are satisfactory Target areas for improvement Modify programs and policies accordingly Teach students what is required to “succeed” Monitor student & institutional performance Areas of Effective Educational Practice Areas for Institutional Improvement

87. Campus Uses (Internal) Institutional improvement General assessment Gauge status of campus priorities Assess student growth (first to senior years) Assess campus progress over time Encourage dialogue about good practice Link with other data to test hypotheses, evaluate programs Improve curricula, instruction, services

88. Campus Uses (External) Public accountability Prospective students, parents, alumni Accreditation bodies, Regents, State policy makers Assess status vis-à-vis peers, competitors Identify, develop, market distinctive competences Encourage collaboration in consortia Provide evidence of accountability for good processes (while awaiting improvement in outcomes) Focus on “right things” Media/telling our story