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

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

8. NSSE 2003 Respondent Characteristics

9. What percent of UK students participate in community service or volunteer work on a weekly basis? What Do We Know AboutCollege Student Engagement? First-Year Seniors 30% 39%

10. What percent ofUKstudents spent more than 20 hours per week preparing for class? What Do We Know AboutCollege Student Engagement? First-Year Seniors 19% 20%

11. What percent ofUKstudents spent more than 5 hours per week participating in co-curricular activities? What Do We Know AboutCollege Student Engagement? First-Year Seniors 24% 21%

12. 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)

13. 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

14. Level of Academic Challenge 2001 2003

15. Observations about the Academic Challenge Benchmark • UK first-year students and seniors scored near the 50th 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

16. Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Level of Academic Challenge *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.

17. 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

18. Active and Collaborative Learning 2001 2003

19. Observations about Active and Collaborative Learning • Between 2001 and 2003, the gap between UK freshmen and their peers widened slightly • Freshmen scored between the 10th and 20th percentiles and seniors scores at the 50th 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

20. Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Active and Collaborative Learning

21. 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

22. Student-Faculty Interaction 2001 2003

23. Observations about Student-Faculty Interaction • UK freshmen and seniors scored well above students from other doctoral/research ext. institutions—between the 60th and 70th 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

24. Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Student-Faculty Interaction

25. 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

26. Enriching Educational Experiences 2001 2003

27. 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 10th 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

28. Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Enriching Educational Experiences

29. 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

30. Supportive Campus Environment 2001 2003

31. 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 60th percentile and senior scored above the 50th 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.

32. Actual vs. Predicted Scores:Supportive Campus Environment

33. Number of NSSE Benchmarks on Which UK Students Exceeded the Predicted Score 2001 and 2003

34. Quality of Academic Advising 2001 2003

35. Satisfaction with Entire Educational Experience 2001 2003

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

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

38. 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

39. Learning Communities 1st Year & Senior Experience Academic Affairs Enrollment Managemt Institutional Improvement Faculty Developmt General Assessment Peer Comparison Institutional Research Student Affairs Academic Advising

40. 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

41. Questions and Comments?

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