1. Selected Results of NSSE 2003: University of Kentucky December 3, 2003

2. Presentation Overview Why is student engagement important? The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) What do we know about the engagement of UK students? The five benchmarks of good practice Other important findings Ways to enhance student engagement

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. Good 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 “Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education” (Chickering and Gamson, 1987)

5. What is Student Engagement? Represents two important aspects of collegiate quality: – The amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other meaningful academic activities – How the institution deploys resources and organizes its curriculum and other learning opportunities Correlates with student learning and retention

6. What is the NSSE? (pronounced “nessie”) Refocuses conversations about quality in undergraduate education Assesses students’ engagement in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and personal development Provide systematic national data on “good educational practices” Enhances institutional improvement efforts

7. NSSE Design Parameters Relatively short survey administered to first-year and senior students at public and private 4-year institutions Items directly related to college outcomes – Student behaviors – Institutional requirements and practices – Student reactions to colleges Administered directly by credible third-party survey organization

8. What is Covered in The College Student Report? Student Behaviors in College Institutional Actions & Requirements Student Reactions to College Student Background Information Student Learning & Development

9. NSSE 2003 Respondent Characteristics UKNSSE 2003 Response rate34%43% Mode Paper Web F 56%; S 79% F 44%; S 21% F 42%; S 55% F 58%; S 45% No. of Students62693,393 Sampling Error Freshmen Seniors +/- 5.4% +/- 5.3% +/- 0.4%

10. What Do We Know About College Student Engagement? What percent of UK students participate in community service or volunteer work on a weekly basis? First-YearSeniors 30% 39%

11. What Do We Know About College Student Engagement? What percent of UK students spent more than 20 hours per week preparing for class? First-YearSeniors 19% 20%

12. What Do We Know About College Student Engagement? What percent of UK students spent more than 5 hours per week participating in co- curricular activities? First-YearSeniors 24% 21%

13. Five Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice Clusters of related activities, institutional actions, attitudes, and perceptions – Level of academic challenge – Active and collaborative learning – Student-faculty interaction – Enriching educational experiences – Supportive campus environment The results for 2001 and 2003 compare UK first- year students and seniors with peers at other doctoral research extensive institutions – ‘Absolute’ level of engagement (raw benchmark scores) – ‘Predicted’ level of engagement (statistically controlling for institutional and student characteristics)

14. I. Level of Academic Challenge Items on this benchmark include: Level of preparation for class Number of assigned books Number of written papers of varying length Types of cognitive demands emphasized by coursework

15. Level of Academic Challenge 2001 2003

16. Observations about the Academic Challenge Benchmark UK first-year students and seniors scored near the 50 th percentile on this benchmark Relative to their peers, UK freshmen: – Report spending more time preparing two or more drafts of an assignment – write significantly more short and mid-length papers than their KY peers Relative to their peers, UK seniors reported fewer numbers of assigned textbooks, books, or book- length packs of course readings

17. Actual vs. Predicted Scores: Level of Academic Challenge Students’ Class Actual Score Predicted Score Residual Standardized Residual First- Year 52.2*50.51.70.6 Senior54.4*52.91.50.5 *Note: The ‘actual’ benchmark scores in the above chart may differ slightly those reported in the NSSE Benchmark Report and the accompanying graph. The Benchmark Report scores are adjusted according to students’ enrollment status. This adjustment is not reflected in the actual scores in the chart because it was included in the regression model used to generate the predicted scores.

18. II. Active and Collaborative Learning Items on this benchmark include: Contributions to class discussions Class presentations Work with other students on projects Frequency of discussions about readings outside of class

19. Active and Collaborative Learning 2001 2003

20. Observations about Active and Collaborative Learning Between 2001 and 2003, the gap between UK freshmen and their peers widened slightly Freshmen scored between the 10 th and 20 th percentiles and seniors scores at the 50 th percentile Relative to their peers, UK freshmen: – Collaborated less with their classmates outside of class – Participated less in community-based projects as part of a regular course Both UK freshmen and seniors were less likely than their peers to discuss ideas from readings outside of class UK seniors reported more in-class collaboration on projects

21. Actual vs. Predicted Scores: Active and Collaborative Learning Students’ Class Actual Score Predicted Score Residual Standardized Residual First- Year 35.137.0-1.8-0.5 Senior46.245.80.40.1

22. III. Student Interaction with Faculty Members Items on this benchmark include: Frequency of discussions with faculty on: – grades – assignments – career plans – readings Promptness of feedback Participation in research projects

23. Student-Faculty Interaction 2001 2003

24. Observations about Student-Faculty Interaction UK freshmen and seniors scored well above students from other doctoral/research ext. institutions—between the 60 th and 70 th percentiles—in 2001 and 2003 UK freshmen reported fewer experiences working with faculty on research outside of class requirements UK freshmen and seniors reported more frequent discussions of career plans with a faculty member of advisor

25. Actual vs. Predicted Scores: Student-Faculty Interaction Students’ Class Actual Score Predicted Score Residual Standardized Residual First- Year 34.433.11.30.3 Senior41.539.12.40.6

26. IV. Enriching Educational Experiences Items on this benchmark include: Participation in co-curricular activities Involvement in community service Participation in internships and co-ops Enrollment in capstone courses Study abroad

27. Enriching Educational Experiences 2001 2003

28. Observations about the Enriching Educational Experiences Benchmark In 2001 and 2003, UK students scored well below their peers from the KY consortium and research universities Freshmen scored below the 10 th percentile and seniors scored just below the 50th percentile The poor performance of UK freshmen can be traced to several questions about diversity UK first-year students reported: – their school placed less emphasis on contact among students from different backgrounds than other research universities – less frequent conversations with students of different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values Both UK freshmen and seniors reported fewer serious conversations with students of different races and ethnicities

29. Actual vs. Predicted Scores: Enriching Educational Experiences Students’ Class Actual Score Predicted Score Residual Standardized Residual First- Year 51.453.7-2.3-0.6 Senior46.745.90.80.2

30. V. Supportive Campus Environment Items on this benchmark include: Perceived support to succeed academically Perceived support to thrive socially Perceived quality of relationships with: – Other students – Faculty – Administrators

31. Supportive Campus Environment 2001 2003

32. 2001 Observations about the Supportive Campus Environment Benchmark Two years ago, UK students’ evaluations were well below their counterparts In 2003, freshmen scored above the 60 th percentile and senior scored above the 50 th percentile On most benchmark items, UK students’ ratings did not differ significantly from their peers Both freshmen and seniors assigned higher ratings to the quality of their relationships with administrative personnel and offices.

33. Actual vs. Predicted Scores: Supportive Campus Environment Students’ Class Actual Score Predicted Score Residual Standardized Residual First- Year 59.057.61.40.4 Senior53.752.71.00.2

34. Number of NSSE Benchmarks on Which UK Students Exceeded the Predicted Score 2001 and 2003 Students’ Class 2001 Exceeded/Total 2003 Exceeded/Total First-Year2/53/5 Seniors1/55/5

35. Quality of Academic Advising 2001 2003

36. Satisfaction with Entire Educational Experience 2001 2003

37. Perceived Institutional Contributions to Personal Development Means Scores of UK and Doctoral Research-Ext. Freshmen

38. Where do we go from here...?

39. Areas of Focus Increase the level of active and collaborative learning on campus – Develop more community-based projects as part of regular courses – Have students work together on projects outside of class Focus on enriching educational experiences – Admit more diverse students – Encourage interaction among diverse student groups – Promote study abroad programs, living learning communities, and undergraduate research outside of class or program requirements Enhance the overall academic climate on campus by creating higher expectations for student performance

40. InstitutionalImprovement 1 st Year & Senior Experience GeneralAssessment StudentAffairs LearningCommunities FacultyDevelopmt InstitutionalResearch Enrollment Managemt Managemt PeerComparison AcademicAdvising AcademicAffairs

41. Recommendations Colleges should ‘drill down’ into the NSSE data to evaluate their students’ levels of engagement Appoint an institution-wide NSSE taskforce charged with: – Learning how other institutions have used NSSE results for improvement – Developing university-wide initiatives to address our own shortcomings

42. Questions and Comments?

43. Office of Institutional Research Office of Institutional Research Roger Sugarman, Ph.D. rpsuga0@email.uky.edu Phone: 257-7989 www.uky.edu/IR/ For more information on NSSE: