National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Slippery Rock - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

National Survey

• f Student

Engagement (NSSE)

Slippery Rock University

Student Engagement

 NSSE collects information from first-year

and senior students about their experiences in and outside of the classroom through survey

 This survey is used to measure the extent

to which students engage in effective practices for overall development

Why use a survey to measure engagement?

 Focuses on students’ practices involving

learning and personal development

 Brings knowledge to the university about

what to improve on

 Shows comparative results against

• pposing universities

NSSE Project Overview

 More than 1600 bachelor’s-granting

colleges/universities have been used for measurements

 Approximately 1.5 million first-year/senior

students from 531 institutions were invited to participate in NSSE 2019

 504 in the US, 19 in Canada, and 8 in other

countries

 Of this population 281,136 responded to the

survey from 510 institutions

Selected Comparison Groups

 Group 1: PASSHE

 PA State System universities participating in NSSE

 Group 2: Public Master’s Large

 All other current and prior year larger public

NSSE institutions sharing the Carnegie classification (Master’s Colleges and Universities)

 Group 3: Mid-east Universities

 Universities located in the Mid-East for regional

comparison.

Response Rates

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% First Year Senior SRU PASSHE Public Master's Large Mid-East Universities

Description of SRU NSSE Results

Engagement Indicators High-Impact Practices (HIP) Multi-Year Report

NSSE Engagement Indicators

 Higher-Order Learning  Reflective & Integrative Learning  Learning Strategies  Quantitative Reasoning  Collaborative Learning  Discussions with Diverse Others  Student-Faculty Interaction  Effective Teaching Practices  Quality of Interactions  Supportive Environment

Academic Challenge Learning with Peers Experiences with Faculty Campus Environment

Engagement score scale

▲ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude. △ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.

• - No significant difference.

▽ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude. ▼ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.

• Engagement Indicators are

summary measures based on sets of NSSE questions examining key dimensions of student engagement.

• Use the following key:

SRU scores vs. comparison groups (First-year)

First-Year Students

Theme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment

Academic Challenge

• Learning with

Peers PASSHE Public Master's Larg

• Mid-East Univ

▽

Your first-year students compared with Your first-year students compared with Your first-year students compared with

• Campus

Environment Experiences with Faculty

SRU scores vs. Comparison groups (Seniors)

Seniors

Theme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment

Academic Challenge

▽ ▲

Experiences with Faculty PASSHE

• Campus

Environment Your seniors compared with Your seniors compared with Your seniors compared with

• ▲
• Learning with

Peers

• ▲

▽

Public Master's Larg

• Mid-East Univ

High-Impact Practices (HIP)

 Participation involving:

 Service-Learning  Learning Community  Research with Faculty  Internship or Field Experience (Seniors)  Study Abroad (Seniors)  Culminating Senior Experience (Seniors)

High-Impact Practices (HIP)

 First-year

11% 10% 10% 13% 49% 50% 48% 56% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Mid-East Univ Public Master's Larg PASSHE SRU Participated in two or more HIPs Participated in one HIP

High-Impact Practices (HIP)

 Seniors

68% 57% 60% 67% 22% 28% 26% 24% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Mid-East Univ Public Master's Larg PASSHE SRU Participated in two or more HIPs Participated in one HIP

Multi-Year Report

 Presents year-to-year results of key

academic challenge items

 These results are used to illustrate patterns

• f change or stability

Multi-Year Report (First-year)

Academic Challenge: First-year students

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning

Academic Challenge (additional items): First-year students

Preparing for Class (hrs/wk) Course Reading (hrs/wk)a Assigned Writing (pages)a Course Challengeb Academic Emphasisc

36.0 34.9 35.6 35.8 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 40.9 39.0 40.3 39.3 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 27.9 27.7 26.7 27.4 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 13.5 12.2 14.4 14.2 10 20 30 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 6.7 6.0 6.3 6.5 10 20 30 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 42.9 42.9 38.0 44.7 50 100 150 200 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.5 1 3 5 7 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 39.7 38.8 37.3 38.6 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Multi-Year Report (Seniors)

Academic Challenge: Seniors

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning

Academic Challenge (additional items): Seniors

Preparing for Class (hrs/wk) Course Reading (hrs/wk)a Assigned Writing (pages)a Course Challengeb Academic Emphasisc

42.3 42.4 40.8 40.0 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 39.4 40.4 38.8 38.7 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 40.6 40.4 37.7 37.9 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 30.6 30.7 29.9 29.1 15 30 45 60 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 14.1 13.9 15.3 13.6 10 20 30 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 6.4 6.3 6.5 5.7 10 20 30 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 68.0 72.6 66.2 70.6 50 100 150 200 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.5 1 3 5 7 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 1 2 3 4 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Areas of improvement

 Collaborative Learning and Experiences

with Faculty Senior scores could be higher in comparison to the other groups involving engagement indicators

 Discussion with Diverse Others is on par

with PASSHE, but we underperform Public Masters (seniors) and all Mid-east Universities (first-years and seniors)

Areas of improvement Cont

 The Multi-year Academic Challenge

results have been stagnant or declining slightly in most areas

 Academic Emphasis in particular, has

been steadily declining for first-years and seniors since 2013.

Strengths

 Participation of High-Impact practices  First-year SRU students had the highest

percentage of HIPs versus the other comparison groups

 Senior students had the second-highest

percentage of participation in more than

• ne HIP

Strengths (Cont)

 First-year students had higher scores in

academic emphasis versus other comparison groups

 Both First-year and Senior students had

• ver a 3% increase in response rates

 Both First-year and Senior students rated

their “Overall Experience” higher than

• ther PASSHE schools