National Survey of. Student Engagement NSSE. Lori Lindenberg Linda Baeza Porter Carmen Williams Office of Institutional Research March 4, 2014

Transcription

1 National Survey of 2013 Student Engagement NSSE Lori Lindenberg Linda Baeza Porter Carmen Williams March 4, 2014

2 Executive Summary The National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) is the best known national project for measuring student engagement. The survey, administered by the Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research, measures the extent to which students engage in practices understood to be effectively linked with learning outcomes, personal development, student satisfaction, and graduation. Students actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities have been found to gain more from the college experience than those who are not involved. In the spring of 2013, 2,728 first-year (FY) students and 3,076 senior (SR) students were invited to participate in NSSE at ; 446 FY students and 655 SR students responded to the survey, for an adjusted response rate of 22%. This was the eighth time has participated in NSSE. The updated NSSE summarizes results into four themes and one additional area: 1. Academic Challenge An institution s ability to establish a challenging intellectual and creative environment for students. 2. Learning with Peers - The level at which students are asked to collaborate with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material. 3. Experiences with Faculty The extent to which students interact with faculty members inside and outside of the classroom. 4. Campus Environment The extent to which institutions cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus. 5. High Impact Practices An institution s ability to foster complementary learning opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom to augment academic programs. In 2013, in addition to the standard survey, opted into two additional sets of questions. 6. Transferable Skills Student engagement in activities that develop useful skills in the work place such as verbal and written fluency and analytic inquiry. 7. Experiences with Writing The amount and type of writing emphasizing three areas of the writing process: interactive writing, meaning-making writing, and writing clarity. Changes to the NSSE structure in 2013 have made longitudinal study problematic but these changes provide a clearer picture of student engagement overall. Many of the changes incorporated into the new 2013 NSSE assist in a better examination of current student engagement practices. For example, new techniques for evaluating student satisfaction with administrative and student advising are areas where survey realignment may better highlight opportunities for improvements. The charts on the following page summarize a few of the main areas explored by the NSSE survey. In general, s results indicate higher engagement from our senior population and lower engagement from first-year students. More detail on these and other areas is offered in the full NSSE 2013 report. University of North Dakota Page i

3 National Survey of Student 2013 Engagement at Would You Attend Again? if you could start over Yes No Of 1,101 students (446 first-year and 655 seniors) 22% participated in the 2013 NSSE FY = first-year students, SR = seniors, Carnegie = Carnegie Peers Percent of Students Participating in High-Impact Educational Practices Carnegie 17% 15% 17% 15% 16% 14% 17% 13% 13% 16% 56% 84% 07 83% 87% 87% First Year 86% Carnegie 13 84% 07 85% 83% 85% Seniors 83% Carnegie 13 8% 9% 8% 6% 18% 28% 33% 41% 46% 49% 40% 50% 40% 47% 50% Learning Communities Community Service Practicum, Internship, Co-op First Years 22% 21% 30% 43% Culminating Senior Experience 8% Seniors 10% 11% 9% Study Abroad 14% 24% 25% 18% 18% 16% Research with Faculty Mean Comparisons for Engagement Indicators Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment Higher order learning Reflective and Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quanitative Reasoning Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others Effective Teaching Practices Student Faculty Interactions Campus Environment Academic Challenge Learning with Peers Experiences with Faculty University of North Dakota 13 FY Carnegie 13 FY 13 SR Carnegie 13 SR Page ii

4 Table of Contents Contents 2013 National Survey of Student Engagement at... 1 Comparison Groups... 2 Statistical Evaluation... 2 Chart Explanation... 3 Performance Overall on NSSE Themes... 3 Academic Challenge Theme... 5 Behind the Data... 6 Results by Major Groupings... 7 Learning with Peers... 8 Behind the Data... 9 Results by Major Groupings... 9 Experiences with Faculty Behind the Data Results by Major Groupings Campus Environment Behind the Data A Closer Look: Quality of Interactions Results by Major Groupings High Impact Practices Behind the Data Results by Major Groupings Senior HIP Participation: Other Highlights Summary Questions Perceived Gains Among Seniors The Entire Educational Experience Attend Again Topical Modules Development of Transferrable Skills Behind the Data Experiences with Writing Behind the Data Summary Conclusions University of North Dakota Page iii

5 2013 National Survey of Student Engagement at The National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) is the best known and longest running national project for measuring student engagement. The survey, administered by the Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research, measures the extent to which students engage in practices generally understood to be effectively linked with learning outcomes, personal development, student satisfaction, persistence, and graduation. Students actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities have been found to gain more from the college experience than those who are not involved. NSSE has been collecting information annually from samples of first-year (FY) 1 and senior students (SR) 2 about the nature and quality of their undergraduate experience. The 2013 survey represents the eighth administration of NSSE at, with prior administrations in 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and In the spring of 2013, 2,728 FY students and 3,076 SR students were invited to participate in NSSE via ; 446 FY students and 655 SR students responded to the survey, for an adjusted response rate of 22%. This year NSSE underwent one of the largest changes in its history. These changes will allow a better understanding of student engagement and align with the changing dynamics of postsecondary education. The survey expanded definitions of diversity, moving beyond traditional notions of ethnicity and gender to encompass many other diverse measures including economic status, disability, spiritual identity and more. NSSE Benchmarks that have been used previously in the reporting of results have been restructured into Engagement Indicators and High Impact Practices. Twenty five new questions were added and sixteen deleted. The questions were then reorganized into major themes rather than the traditional benchmarks. While these new themes are not whole-scale reinventions of the previous organizational techniques, care should be given to note these changes when data is viewed longitudinally. The updated NSSE summarizes results into the following as themes: 1. Academic Challenge An institution s ability to establish a challenging intellectual and creative environment for students. 2. Learning with Peers - The level at which students are asked to collaborate with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material. 3. Experiences with Faculty The extent to which students interact with faculty members inside and outside of the classroom. 4. Campus Environment The extent to which institutions cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus. 5. High Impact Practices An institution s ability to foster complementary learning opportunities both inside and outside of the classroom to augment academic programs. 1 First year students include all students that were designated as freshmen at the beginning of fall First year students are referred to as FY throughout this report. 2 Senior students include all students that were designated as seniors at the beginning of spring Senior students are referred to as SR. University of North Dakota Page 1

6 In 2013, in addition to the standard survey, opted for two additional sets of questions. 6. Transferable Skills Student engagement in activities that develop useful skills in the work place such as verbal and written fluency and analytic inquiry. 7. Experiences with Writing The amount and type of writing emphasizing three areas of the writing process: interactive writing, meaning making writing, and writing clarity. This report will summarize s performance in 2013 on the particular themes and other survey areas, compare s performance to that of similar peer institutions, and present results broken down by major groupings. Comparison Groups s results from the NSSE 2013 were compared to two main groups of peer institutions: Carnegie Classification and Plains Public. Carnegie Classification includes institutions that are considered research universities with a high level of research activity. This group contains 48 institutions including The University of Colorado Denver, Texas Tech University, Boston College and others. Plains Public was created by s to group together other four-year public institutions in the Midwest. This group contains 29 similar institutions including North Dakota State University, Iowa State University, Minnesota State University Moorhead and others. Results will also be presented in groups of student majors to allow for comparisons across disciplines. Major groupings include: Arts & Humanities Aviation, Computer, and Atmospheric Biology, Math and Physical Business Education Engineering Health Social Statistical Evaluation NSSE provides two variables, statistical significance and effect size, from which institutions can compare their survey results to selected comparison groups. Statistical significance indicates results where mean differences are larger than would be expected by chance alone. The larger the significance level, the greater probability the difference between results and the comparison group is not due to chance. Since NSSE results are generated from large sample sizes, statistically significant results can appear even though the difference between two values is small. To demonstrate relationship strength, NSSE also provides effect size as a statistical measure. Effect sizes less than 0.2 are often considered small, 0.5 moderate, and 0.8 large. Combining effect size with statistical significance can point to those areas where may want to focus attention to improve the student experience. University of North Dakota Page 2

7 Chart Explanation s performance on each benchmark will be presented in a box and whisker chart as shown in Figure 1. This chart uses whisker lines extending from the top and bottom of each box to present the range of responses for a particular question. These whiskers also identify the 5 th percentile and the 95 th percentile. The box outlines the 25 th percentile, 50 th percentile (median), and 75 th percentile scores. The dot indicates the mean score for the particular theme or question, allowing you to see the average response of all students. Figure 1. Chart Description 95 th Percentile 75 th Percentile Mean th Percentile 25 th Percentile 5 th Percentile First Year Performance Overall on NSSE Themes Although longitudinal comparisons are difficult due to the many changes with NSSE 2013, overall s most recent performance is very similar to the performance on the 2011 NSSE when compared to our Carnegie Peers. As shown in Figure 2, s 2013 NSSE results are significantly lower than our Carnegie Peers in many of the NSSE Engagement Indicators. s results in a few areas were comparable to our Carnegie Peers, but in no category did student responses result in significantly higher performance. In one Engagement Indicator, Discussions with Diverse Others, s senior student results were both significantly lower than peers and with an effect size considered large. Due to these results, the Learning with Peers theme was the lowest performing compared to Carnegie Peers. Positive results for include our performance in the Engagement Indicators of Quantitative Reasoning and Student-Faculty Interaction and also students participation in High Impact Practices (HIPs). For both first-year and senior students, s results in Quantitative Reasoning and Student-Faculty Interaction were statistically comparable to our Carnegie Peers. Also, FYs participate in one HIP at the same rate as our Carnegie peers and SRs participate in two or more HIPs at a higher rate than Carnegie SRs. See Figure 2 for a summary of these results. University of North Dakota Page 3

8 Figure 2: NSSE Themes and High Impact Practices Summary Theme Engagement Indicator Class Comparison Groups Carnegie Plains Public Higher-Order Learning First-Year Senior Academic Challenge Reflective and Integrative Learning Learning Strategies First-Year Senior First-Year Senior Quantitative Reasoning First-Year Senior Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others First-Year Senior First-Year Senior Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices First-Year Senior First-Year Senior Campus Environment Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment First-Year Senior First-Year Senior USE THE FOLLOWING KEY: s average result is significantly higher than comparison group with a large effect size s average result is significantly higher than comparison group with a small effect size s average result is comparable to (not significantly different than) comparison group s average result is significantly lower than comparison group with a small effect size s average result is significantly lower than comparison group with a large effect size University of North Dakota Page 4

9 Academic Challenge NSSE states, 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. s results in this theme demonstrate the extent to which our institution is succeeding in providing a challenging academic environment. This theme is divided into four parts. Each part is analyzed by reviewing the results to a specific set of questions. This structure is outlined below: o o o o Higher-Order Learning Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in-depth by examining its parts Evaluating a point of view, decision or information source Forming a new idea from or understanding of various pieces of information Reflective and integrative learning Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments Connected your learning to societal problems or issues Included diverse perspectives (political, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or an issue Tried to better understand someone else s view by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective Learned something that changed the way you understand a concept or an issue Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge Learning Strategies Identified key information from reading assignments Reviewed your notes after class Summarize what you learned in class or course information Quantitative Reasoning Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.) Used numerical information to examine a real world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.) Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information University of North Dakota Page 5

10 Behind the Data Several items stand out when evaluating s results with regard to overall level of academic challenge: FY Higher-Order Learning: Compared to Carnegie Peers, FY respondents were significantly less likely to feel that their coursework emphasized in-depth analysis of an idea or point-of-view. FY Reflective and Integrative Learning: FY respondents were also significantly less likely than our Carnegie peers to spend time connecting learning to societal problems or to their own prior experiences and knowledge. Learning Strategies: Both FY and SR respondents were significantly less likely than Carnegie peers to spend time reviewing notes, summarizing what they have learned, and identifying key information from reading assignments. Quantitative Reasoning: Both FY and SR respondents results were comparable to Carnegie peers in this category. s results in Quantitative Reasoning also were comparable to institutions designated as NSSE top performers. s FY results were comparable to NSSE s top 50% performing institutions and s SR results were comparable to both NSSE s top 50% and 10% institutions Figure 3. Academic Challenge (First Year) Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Higher Order Learning Reflective and Integrative Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning 75th Percentile 25th Percentile Mean Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Higher Order Learning Figure 4. Academic Challenge (Senior) Reflective and Integrative Learning Strategies 75th Percentile 25th Percentile Mean Quantitative Reasoning University of North Dakota Page 6

11 Results by Major Groupings As shown in Figures 5a-d, s results in the four components of this theme vary across groupings by major. Although s overall results indicated strength in the area of Quantitative Reasoning, there is definite variation in the results when broken down by discipline (see Figure 5d). Students with majors in Biology, Math, Physical had the highest results for FY respondents in this area and students with majors in Engineering disciplines had the highest SR results. For both FY and SR respondent groups, students with majors in the field of Education were the lowest for. The distribution of results in all other Engagement Indicators was fairly consistent amongst major groupings. Figure 5a. Higher-Order Learning FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social Figure 5b. Reflective & Interactice Learning FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social University of North Dakota Page 7

12 Figure 5c. Learning Strategies FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social Figure 5d. Quantitative Reasoning FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social Learning with Peers NSSE states, Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and developing interpersonal and social competence prepares students to deal with complex, unscripted problems that they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators and eight questions make up this theme. o Collaborative Learning Asked another student to help you understand course material Explained course material to one or more students Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students Worked with other students on course projects or assignments University of North Dakota Page 8

13 o Discussion with Diverse Others: Had discussions with People from a race or ethnicity other than your own People from an economic background other than your own People with religious beliefs other than your own People with political views other than your own Behind the Data Results in this theme are similar to results from comparable themes in past NSSE results in that both FY and SR respondents had lower results than their peers, particularly when dealing with areas of diversity. A few of the key findings in this theme are as follows: SR Collaborative Learning: SR respondents were significantly less likely than their Carnegie peers to prepare for examines with other students and explain course work to fellow students. SR & FY Collaborative Learning: FYs and SRs did ask other students for help with course material at a higher rate than peers. Discussions with Diverse Others: Both FY and SR respondents were significantly less likely to report that they often had discussions with people who were different from themselves compared to Carnegie peers. respondents were particularly less likely to have frequent discussions with people from a different race or economic background Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Collaborative Learning FY Figure 6: Learning with Peers (First Year & Senior) First Year Discussions with Diverse FY Collaborative Learning SR Senior Discussions with Diverse SR 75th Percentile 25th Percentile Mean Results by Major Groupings Average results in the Collaborative Learning indicator ranged from a low of 28.1 to a high of Arts & humanities had the lowest results in Collaborative Learning and students in Education majors had the highest results for both FY and SR respondents. Performance in Discussions with University of North Dakota Page 9

14 Diverse Others was a particularly low overall, however, as shown in Figures 7a and 7b, FY students with majors in the discipline of Business had the lowest performance and SR results were lowest for students with majors in Engineering. The highest results in this Engagement Indicator were for FY students in Arts & Humanities majors and SR students in Education. Figure 7a. Collaborative Learning FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social Figure 7b. Discussions with Diverse Others FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social Experiences with Faculty NSSE states, 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. Two indicators are included in this theme: o Student-Faculty Interactions Talked about career plans with a faculty member Worked with a faculty member on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups) Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class University of North Dakota Page 10

15 Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member o Effective Teaching Practices: Instructors Clearly explained course goals and requirements Taught course sections in an organized way Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments. Behind the Data Similar to past NSSE results, s performance in student-faculty interaction was comparable to Carnegie peers. However, our results were significantly lower than our peers in the newly added category of Effective Teaching Practices. Highlights from this section are as follows: Effective Teaching Practices: FY and SR respondents were less likely than Carnegie peers to feel that instructors often explained course requirements clearly, taught courses in an organized manner, and used examples to explain difficult points. FY Effective Teaching Practices: 59% of FY respondents felts that instructors provided prompt feedback on completed coursework compared to the exact same rate (59%) of Carnegie peers. Student-Faculty Interaction: Both FYs and SRs responded at a higher rate than Carnegie peers that they often or very often talked about career plans with a faculty member. FY Student-Faculty Interaction: FY students had lower results compared to SRs with an average of 18 compared to SR respondents with an average of FY students had particularly lower results compared to SRs in the areas of working with faculty members on activities other than coursework and discussing course topics or ideas with faculty outside of class Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Student Faculty Interaction FY Figure 8: Experiences with Faculty: First Year and Senior First Year Effective Teaching Practices FY Student Faculty Interaction SR Senior Effective Teaching Practices SR 75th Percentile 25th Percentile Mean University of North Dakota Page 11

16 Results by Major Groupings Although Student-Faculty Interactions is a strong area for overall, results by area of discipline vary greatly. As shown in Figure 9a, the range of average results spans from a low of 16.0 for FY students with majors in Business to a high of 27.2 for SR students with majors in Education. Although FY students have lower results overall in Student-Faculty interactions, FYs in Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric Science majors have the highest average result at 23.2, which exceeds the overall average SR result. SRs tend to have higher results in this area; however students with majors in the Health area have the lowest SR result of Results vary only slightly between majors in the Engagement Indicator of Effective Teaching Practices. Figure 9a. Student-Faculty Interactions FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Figure 9b. Effective Teaching Practices FY SR Social Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social University of North Dakota Page 12

17 Campus Environment NSSE states, Students benefit from and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Two indicators are included in this theme. o o Quality of Interactions With students With academic advisors With faculty With student services staff (career service, student activities, housing, etc.) With other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) Supportive Environment Providing support to help students to succeed academically Using learning support services (tutoring, writing center, etc.) Encouraging contact among students of different backgrounds (social, racial/ethnic, religion, etc.) Providing opportunities to be involved socially Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, healthcare, counseling, etc.) Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues Behind the Data In some ways, this new theme combines the old Enriching Educational Experience and Supportive Campus Environment benchmarks. A few of the variables in this theme only experienced minor changes from the 2011 NSSE methodology and the results can be compared longitudinally, however most of the other variables are only available in a snapshot from this year due to major methodological changes. Overall, a few of the highlighted results are as follows: FY Quality of Interactions: FYs responded with significantly lower satisfaction with the quality of interactions with faculty, advisors, and other staff than their Carnegie peers. However, FYs rated their quality of interactions with other students similarly to their Carnegie peers. Supportive Environment: Both FYs and SRs were significantly less likely to feel that they have experienced a supportive environment compared to their Carnegie peers. o Both groups of students had particularly lower results than their peers when asked if their institution encouraged contact among students of different backgrounds. o However, both groups of students had slightly higher results than their peers when asked if their institution provides support for overall well-being including recreation, health care and counseling. University of North Dakota Page 13

18 Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Carnegie Quality of Interactions FY Figure 10: Campus Environment: First Year and Senior First Year Supportive Environment FY Quality of Interactions SR Senior Supportive Environment SR 75th Percentile 25th Percentile Mean A Closer Look: Quality of Interactions Average overall results for Quality of Interactions are calculated based on the number of students that respond with either a 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 (Poor) to 7 (Excellent). The following summary highlights the highest and lowest performing areas for : Highest Performing: s highest performing category is Students. This is also the highest performing category compared to Carnegie peers for FYs, which respond with a 6 or 7 at the same rate as their peers. SRs highest performing category compared to Carnegie peers is Academic Advisors, where SRs respond with a 6 or 7 at a 3% higher rate than peers. Lowest Performing: As shown in Figure 11, s lowest performing category is Other Administrative Staff, which includes Registrar, Financial Aid, and similar offices. However, this is also the lowest performing category for Plains Public and Carnegie peers. s lowest performing category compared to Carnegie peers is Faculty, where FYs responded with a 6 or 7 at a rate of 39% compared to Carnegie peer FYs at a rate of 48% and SRs at a rate of 52% compared to Carnegie SRs at a rate of 57%. Most Dissatisfaction: students respond with a 1 or 2 at the highest rate for Other Administrative Staff, however these results are followed closely by a high level of dissatisfaction (FYs at 13% and SRs at 11%) expressed for Academic Advisors. The NSSE 2013 methodology made only slight changes to the evaluation of quality interactions with students and faculty. Therefore, we are able to look at historical results for these two categories. As shown in Figure 12, FY faculty interactions and SR student interactions have declined over time, while FY student interactions and SR faculty interactions have remained relatively stable. University of North Dakota Page 14

19 Figure 11: Quality of Interactions 7-Excellent Poor 26% 28% 20% 24% 12% 21% 15% 14% 11% 13% 34% 33% 18% 25% 26% 31% 19% 18% 19% 20% FY SR FY SR FY SR FY SR FY SR Students Academic advisors Faculty Student Services Staff Other Administrative Staff Figure 12: Historical Quality of Interactions 75% Students SR Students FY Faculty SR Faculty FY 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 69% 61% 50% 64% 61% 60% 58% 54% 52% 45% 44% 40% 40% 39% 35% 30% University of North Dakota Page 15

20 Results by Major Groupings As shown in figures 13, FY students with majors in Arts & Humanities had the highest results for Supportive Environment, while Business students had the lowest FY result. SR students with majors in Education had the highest SR results, while Engineering students had the lowest SR results. Since the Quality of Interactions engagement indicator consists of such diverse subcategories, each of these areas is broken out and discussed separately by major grouping below. Figure 13: Supportive Environment FY SR Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Social Figure 14 presents the rate at which students in each grouping responded with either a 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) for quality of interactions with each population. Highlights from these results are as follows: Students: SR students in Education and FY students in Health majors have the highest results between major groupings. The lowest results for both FY and SR respondents are for students in Engineering majors. Academic Advisors: SR students with majors in the Social had a much lower rate of satisfaction with academic advisors compared to FY students and SR students in other major groupings. FY students with majors in Education had the opposite results, with much high satisfaction than other SR students and FY students in other major groupings. Faculty: SR students in Business and Education majors had the highest rate of satisfaction compared to the lowest rate for FYs in the Health majors. Student Services Staff: The highest rate of satisfaction was from FY students with majors in the Social. The lowest satisfaction was from SR students in both Health majors and Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric Science majors. Other Administrative Staff: Although this category is the lowest performer for overall, FYs with majors in Arts & Humanities have the highest result with 50% of FY students responding with a 6 or 7. However, this is a stark contrast to the result for SR students in this same major grouping with the lowest result at only 20% of SR students responding with a high level of satisfaction. University of North Dakota Page 16

21 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF STUDENT SERVICES STAFF FACULTY ACADEMIC ADVISORS STUDENTS Figure 14: Quality of Interactions by College Grouping Arts & Humanities Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical Business Education Engineering Health Social 58% 60% 67% 68% 50% 53% 76% 66% 68% 60% 59% 62% 63% 65% 63% 64% 42% 26% 49% 43% 51% 49% 59% 34% 47% 32% 47% 46% 56% 48% 38% 45% 51% 43% 46% 32% 47% 42% 60% 52% 60% 38% 47% 42% 51% 50% 50% 41% 42% 54% 25% 33% 29% 45% 26% 34% 38% 28% 38% 31% 25% 40% 35% 45% 42% 40% 27% 29% 42% 34% 27% 24% 30% 22% 31% 31% 29% 40% 20% 50% Arts & Humanities Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Biology, Math, Physical FY SR Social University of North Dakota Page 17

22 High Impact Practices High Impact Practices (HIPs) have been shown to be positively associated with learning and retention. According to NSSE, High impact practices (HIPs) share several traits: They demand considerable time and effort, facilitate learning outside the classroom, require meaningful interactions with faculty and students, encourage collaboration with diverse others, and provide frequent and substantive feedback. NSSE s goal is that all students participate in at least two of these practices. For the NSSE Survey, High Impact Practices include the following: Learning Community - Participating in a formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together Service Learning Participating in courses which include a community based project Research with a Faculty Member Working with a faculty member on a research project Internship or Field Experience Participating in an internship, co-op, field experience, student teaching, or clinical placement Study Abroad - Participating in a study abroad program Culminating Senior Experience Completing a capstone course, senior project or thesis, or comprehensive exam Behind the Data FY students participation in HIPs is significantly lower than both Plains Public and Carnegie peers. Slightly less than half of FYs participated in one HIP, compared to 59% of Plains Public FYs and 57% of Carnegie FYs. Only 5% of FYs participated in two or more HIPs compared to 13% of both Carnegie and Plains Public FY peers. s lowest participation in comparison to both Plains Public and Carnegie peers was with Learning 5% 44% Communities. Only 6% of FY students participate in learning communities while 18% of Plains Public 13% 46% Carnegie and 17% of Plains Public FY students do so. Carnegie Class 13% 44% Participated in two or more HIPs Participated in one HIP 63% 22% SR respondents participate in HIPs at a similar rate compared to peer institutions and Plains Public 64% 24% out-perform Carnegie SRs in participating in two Carnegie or more HIPs. SRs participation in a Class 61% 24% culminating senior experience is significantly Participated in two or more HIPs higher than that of SRs in both Plains Public and Participated in one HIP Carnegie comparison groups. However, SR participated significantly less often in learning communities and study abroad experiences than University of North Dakota Page 18

23 both Plains Public and Carnegie peers. Figures 17a and 17b summarize results for FY and SR groups in each category compared to Plains Public and Carnegie peer groups. 70% Figure 17a: First Year HIP Participation by Category Plains Public Carnegie 60% 50% 40% 46% 52% 49% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6% 17% 18% 3% 6% Learning Community Service-Learning Research with Faculty 5% Figure 17b: Senior HIP Participation by Category 70% Plains Public Carnegie 60% 50% 40% 61% 58% 53% 52% 50% 47% 56% 46% 43% 30% 20% 26% 24% 21% 25% 23% 24% 10% 0% Learning Community Service-Learning Research with Faculty 9% 13% 14% Internship Study Abroad Culminating Senior Experience University of North Dakota Page 19

24 Results by Major Groupings As shown in figures 18a-f, participation in HIPs varies greatly between college groupings. First-Years: Engineering FYs have the highest participation in Learning Communities, while FYs in Social had the lowest rate at 0%. For participation in Service- Learning, FYs with majors in Education had the highest rate, while Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric Science and Engineering majors tied for the lowest participation. FY participation in Research with Faculty was low across all majors, however Biology, Math, Physical majors had the highest rate of participation at 12%. Overall, students with majors in Education had the highest rate of participation in at least one HIP. FY students with majors in Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric Science had the lowest rate of participation in at least one HIP but the highest rate of participation in two or more HIPs Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Figure 18a: Learning Community FY SR 8 18 Biology, Math, Physical Figure 18b: Service-Learning FY SR 55 Biology, Math, Physical Figure 18c: Research with Faculty 51 FY SR 0 10 Social Social Seniors: SR students with majors in Education had the highest rates of participation in both Learning Communities and Service-Learning, while SR students with majors in the Social had the lowest Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science 12 Biology, Math, Physical Social University of North Dakota Page 20

25 participation in Learning Communities and SR students with majors in Engineering have the lowest in Service-Learning. SR students in Biology, Math, Physical majors have the highest rate of participating in Research with Faculty, while SRs with majors in Education have the lowest. Education SRs had the highest rate of participation in Internships, while students with majors in Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric Science had the lowest. The highest rate of participation in a Study Abroad experience was by far for students with majors in Arts & Humanities. The lowest participation was for students with majors in Engineering. Participation in a culminating senior experience was high across all majors; however SR students with majors in Biology, Math, Physical had the highest rate of participation at 75%. 44 Overall, SR students with majors in Education had the highest rate of participation in at least one and two or more HIPs. SR students with majors in Engineering had the lowest rate of participation in at least one and two or more HIPs. 29 Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science 25 Figure 18d: Internship or Field Experience (Seniors) 7 Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science Arts & Aviation, Humanities Computer Science, Atmospheric Science 53 Biology, Math, Physical Figure 18e: Study Abroad (Seniors) Biology, Math, Physical Figure 18f: Culminating Senior Experience (Seniors) 75 Biology, Math, Physical Social 8 Social 58 Social Senior HIP Participation: Other Highlights s results for senior respondents tend to provide more rich data since these students have had more opportunity to participate in High-Impact Practices and three of the six HIPs are assessed only for senior students. NSSE provides HIP participation data by ethnic group, age, first-generation status, and living on campus and off campus. This section highlights some of these detailed results for seniors. University of North Dakota Page 21

26 Ethnic Group As shown in Figure 19, students identifying with the ethnic group of White have the highest participation rate in three of the six categories. Students identifying with the Hispanic or Latino ethnic group have the lowest participation in four of the six categories and students identifying as Figure 19: Senior HIP Participation by Ethnic Group American Indian or Alaska Native Hispanic or Latino White Foreign or nonresident alien 58% 59% 46% 25% 23% 25% 15% 15% 41% 31% 25% 28% 19% 50% 38% 38% 31% 0% 0% 9% 28% 38% 38% 34% Learning Community Service-Learning Research with Faculty Internship Study Abroad Culminating Senior Experience Foreign or nonresident alien have the lowest in three of the six. Non-resident alien and American Indian students participate at a much higher rate in Service-Learning than do students from these two groups in any of the other five HIPs. Ethnic groups that are not pictured did not have results in any of the six HIP categories. Student Age As shown in Figure 20, there is considerable difference in participation rates between traditional age students (ages under 21) and non-traditional age students (over 21). Traditional age student participation exceeds that of non-traditional age students in all six HIP categories. 26% 12% Learning Community 61% Figure 20: Senior HIP Participation by Age Traditional Age (< 21) Nontraditional Age 41% Service-Learning 28% 19% Research with Faculty 56% 31% 11% 5% 67% 31% Internship Study Abroad Culminating Senior Experience First-Generation Status Figure 21 presents HIP participation rate comparisons between first-generation (first person in their family to go to college) and non-first generation students. Non-first generation students exceed first-generation students in participation in all categories except Service-Learning. University of North Dakota Page 22

27 Figure 21: Senior HIP Participation by First Generation Status Not First-generation First-generation 24% 17% 55% 57% 29% 20% 53% 41% 11% 6% 60% 51% Learning Community Service-Learning Research with Faculty Internship Study Abroad Culminating Senior Experience On Campus and Off Campus HIP participation for on campus and off campus SR students is relatively similar. However, as shown in Figure 22, SR students living on campus exceed participation of off campus students in all but two categories: students have the same rate of participation in Service-Learning and off campus students exceed on campus student participation in internships. Figure 22: Senior HIP Participation - Living On or Off Campus Living off campus Living on campus 21% 26% 56% 56% 24% 35% 49% 41% 8% 17% 56% 58% Learning Community Service-Learning Research with Faculty Internship Study Abroad Culminating Senior Experience Summary Questions Twelve questions are included at the close of the NSSE survey that summarize student s overall experience at. The first 10 ask students to respond as to how much they feel their experience at contributed to their knowledge and skills in certain areas. Although results are available for FY and SR students, these questions operate better when reflecting on a broader experience, and therefore the results presented below will focus on SR student responses. NSSE refers to these as perceived gains among seniors. NSSE also asks students to rate their entire educational experience thus far at this institution. The last question NSSE asks students is if they could start over again, would they go to the same institution they are now attending. The results from these questions are presented in the following sections. Perceived Gains Among Seniors Students respond on a scale of 1 (very little) to 4 (very much) for the extent to which their experience at has contributed to the following: Writing clearly and effectively University of North Dakota Page 23

28 Speaking clearly and effectively Thinking critically and analytically Analyzing numerical and statistical information Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills Working effectively with others Developing or clarifying a personal code of values and ethics Understanding people of other backgrounds (economic, racial/ethnic, political, religious, nationality, etc.) Solving complex real-world problems Being an informed and active citizen As shown in Figures 23a and b, s results in most of the perceived gains categories are very similar to both Plains Public and Carnegie peers. s SR responses were the lowest compared to both comparison groups for Understanding People from Different Backgrounds. s results were also significantly lower than both comparison groups for speaking skills and working with others. SRs out-performed their peers in a few areas. s results for Solving Real-Word Problems were significantly higher than Plains Public. Although not statistically significant, s results for Analyzing numerical information and Acquiring job-related knowledge were slightly higher than both Plains Public and Carnegie peers. 66% 68% 70% 62% 64% 66% Figure 23a: Percieved Gains Among Seniors % of Students Respoding "Very Much" or "Quite a Bit" 84% 83% 84% 65% 62% Plains Public Carnegie 71% 70% 64% 68% Writing clearly and effectively Speaking clearly and effectively Thinking critically and analytically Analyzing numerical information Acquiring job-related knowledge Figure 23b: Percieved Gains Among Seniors Continued % of Students Respoding "Very Much" or "Quite a Bit" Plains Public Carnegie 69% 73% 72% 57% 64% 58% 60% 57% 59% 60% 50% 63% 51% 53% 56% Working effectively with others Developing personal values Understanding people of other backgrounds Solving complex realworld problems Being an informed and active citizen University of North Dakota Page 24

29 The Entire Educational Experience As shown in Figure 24, s results on this question for FY students dropped slightly this year. FY students that reported their experience being excellent or good dropped from a high in 2009 and 2011 at 90% to 84% for This result is lower than Carnegie FYs who responded at 89%. Results for SR students match s 2011 high of 86%, which is also the same result for Carnegie SRs in Figure 24: Entire Educational Experience Percent Reporting "Excellent" or "Good" 85% 84% 90% 90% 84% 84% 85% 84% 86% 86% FY SR Results by Major Grouping s results present a few interesting variations when explored by major groupings. FY students with majors in Arts & Humanities have the highest rate of satisfaction with their entire experience at and students with majors in Social have the highest rate for SR respondents. However, FYs from Business majors and SRs from Aviation, Computer Science, Atmospheric majors have drastically lower rates of high satisfaction compared to students in other major groupings both at 78% for students rating their experience as excellent or good. 95% Figure 25: Entire Educational Experience by Major Percent Reporting "Excellent" or "Good" FY SR 90% 85% 91% 90% 88% 89% 92% 89% 90% 90% 85% 86% 88% 88% 87% 80% 82% 75% 78% 78% 70% Arts & Humanities Bio, Math, PhysSci Social Aviat, CSci, AtSc University of North Dakota Page 25

30 Attend Again s results for this question are very similar to the results for the entire educational experience. FY respondents experienced a decline from In 2013, 84% of FYs responded that they would choose again if given the chance to start over, which is a slightly lower result compared to Carnegie FYs who responded with 86%. SRs responded at the same rate of 84%, which was a slight increase from 2011 and exceeds Carnegie SR peers that responded with 83% choosing their same institution. Figure 26: Students Who Would Choose Again If Given the Chance To Start Over Percent Reporting "Definitely" or "Probably" 87% 84% 87% 87% 84% 81% 84% 85% 83% 85% FY SR Results by Major Grouping s results for this question also experience interesting variation between major groupings. FYs with majors in Engineering and SRs with majors in Education have the highest rate of likelihood for choosing again. Similar to the results from the Entire Educational Experience question, FYs with majors in Business and SRs with majors in Aviation, Computer, Atmospheric, had the lowest rate of likelihood for choosing again. 100% Figure 27: Attend Again by Major FY SR 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 88% 82% 80% 80% 83% 87% 78% 85% 83% 90% 94% 88% 83% 87% 87% 78% 70% Arts & Humanities Bio, Math, PhysSci Social Aviat, CSci, AtSc University of North Dakota Page 26