Encouraging Student Engagement and Educational Effectiveness at UW Oshkosh

Jillian KinzieAssociate Director

NSSE Institute and Indiana University Center for

Postsecondary Research

Agenda

1.1. Welcome and IntroductionsWelcome and Introductions

2.2. Why student engagement mattersWhy student engagement matters

3.3. Some insights from NSSE Some insights from NSSE

4.4. NSSE, FSSE and UW OshkoshNSSE, FSSE and UW Oshkosh

5.5. Effective Educational Practice Effective Educational Practice

6.6. Creating an Action PlanCreating an Action Plan

7.7. Keeping the Engagement Agenda Keeping the Engagement Agenda manageablemanageable

8.8. Wrap Up and Next StepsWrap Up and Next Steps

The Challenge:

“With respect to college, people have thought that there were two important issues: first, getting in & being able to afford college, and second, to finish and have a degree. But very few people have asked the question, What happens in the four or five years in between those two points? And we’re beginning to find out that what’s going on in that black box called college is less than we had hoped; that maybe the ‘higher’ in higher education is lower than we think.”

- RICHARD H. HERSH, Former - RICHARD H. HERSH, Former President, Trinity College (CT)President, Trinity College (CT)

The Challenge

“We can tell people almost anything We can tell people almost anything about education except how well about education except how well students are learning.”students are learning.”

“Higher Education is stalled despite high school improvement.”

– Patrick M. Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

Student Engagement Quiz

What percent of full-time seniors study, on average, more than 20 hours per week?

(a) 14% (b) 23% (c) 32% (d) 41% (e) 50%

Time on Task – Average Hours Per Week

First-Year Students Seniors

Task Part-time Full-time Part-time Full-time

Studying 9 13 10 14

Working on-campus 2 3 3 4

Working off-campus 18 5 20 10

Participating in co-curricular 1 5 2 5

Relaxing and socializing 10 12 10 11

Caring for dependents 13 2 12 4

Commuting to class 5 4 5 5

Student Engagement Quiz

What percent of first-year students believe their institution provides the support they need to succeed academically?

(a) 44% (b) 55% (c) 66% (d) 77% (e) 88%

Student Perceptions of Their Campus Environment

Percent students say institution provides substantial* emphasis:

First-Year Students

Seniors

 Part-

timeFull-

timePart-

timeFull-

time

Spending significant amounts of time studying

72% 81% 77% 81%

Providing academic support 66% 78% 67% 73%

Helping with non-academic responsibilities

27% 33% 22% 26%

* substantial = ‘quite a bit’ or ‘very much’

The Challenge

How might we more effectively use data about quality in undergraduate education to:provide evidence of student learning motivate and inspire institutional improvement promote student success?

Lessons from the Research

• What matters most to desired outcomes is what students do, not who they are

A key factor is the quality of effort students devote to educationally purposeful activities

Educationally effective institutions channel student energy toward the right activities

Good Practices in Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005)

Student-faculty contactStudent-faculty contact

Active learningActive learning

Prompt feedbackPrompt feedback

Time on taskTime on task

High expectationsHigh expectations

Experiences with diversityExperiences with diversity

Cooperation among studentsCooperation among students

Engagement Really Matters

Pascarella & Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 2005, p. 602

Because individual effort and involvement are the critical determinants of college impact, institutions should focus on the ways they can shape their academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings to encourage student engagement.

Foundations of Student Engagement

Time on task (Tyler, 1930s)

Quality of effort (Pace, 1960-70s)

Student involvement (Astin, 1984)

Social, academic integration (Tinto,1987, 1993)

Good practices in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987)

College impact (Pascarella, 1985)

Student engagement (Kuh, 1991, 2005)

Defining Student Engagement

Two components to student engagement

What students do —time and energy devoted to educationally purposeful activities

What institutions do —using effective educational practices to induce students to do the right things

Student Engagement is…

“… the time and energy students devote to educationally sound activities inside and outside the classroom, and the policies and practices that institutions use to induce students to take part in these activities.”

(George Kuh, Change, March/April 2003)

Promise ofStudent Engagement

“If faculty and administrators use principles of good practice to arrange the curriculum and other aspects of the college experience, students would… write more papers, read more books, meet with faculty and peers, and use information technology appropriately, all of which would result in greater gains in such areas as critical thinking, problem solving, effective communication, and responsible citizenship.”

Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, Student Success in College, 2005

Taking a look at NSSE:

Based on effective educational practices

Designed and tested for high validity and reliability

Relatively stable over time

High credibility of self-reported data

Students will participate Actionable data Psychometric properties

document on website*What questions do you have about the items??

NSSE: The College Student Report

Student Behaviors

Institutional Actions & Requirements

Reactions to College

Student BackgroundInformation

Student Learning &

Development

Five Indicators ofEffective Educational Practice

Level of Academic Challenge

Active & Collaborative

Learning

EnrichingEducational Experiences

SupportiveCampus

Environment

StudentFaculty

Interaction

NSSE Project ScopeNSSE Project Scope

Launched in 2000Launched in 2000 First Years & First Years &

SeniorsSeniors Spring Spring

AdministrationAdministration Database =613,500 Database =613,500

students from 850+ students from 850+ different schools different schools

50 states, PR, 50 states, PR, CanadaCanada

40+ consortia40+ consortia 41% response rate41% response rate

Oshkosh 2004 Stats:

Spring 2004, Web Admin33% Response Rate (38% WI system)

Sample error 3.7%302 FY / 302 Seniors

What have we learned from NSSE so far?

The single best predictor of student satisfaction with college is the degree to which they perceive the college environment to be supportive of their academic and social needs.

Effective educational practices measured by NSSE are independent of institutional selectivity.

Schools that have a lower student-faculty ratio, more full-time faculty, and more classes with fewer than 20 students generally score higher on all five NSSE benchmarks.

Grades, persistence, student satisfaction, and engagement go hand in hand.

Benchmark Scores for All Students by Undergraduate Enrollment

Benchmark Scores for All Students by Undergraduate Enrollment Intervals

25

35

45

55

65

0 -1000

1001 -1500

1501 -2000

2001 -2500

2501 -3000

3001 -4000

4001 -5000

5001 -7500

7501 -10000

10001 -15000

15001 -20000

20001 -25000

25001 -highest

Enrollment Intervals

Level ofAcademicChallenge

Active andCollaborativeLearning

StudentInteractionswith FacultyMembersEnrichingEducationalExperiences

SupportiveCampusEnvironment

Academic Challenge at Two Public Universities

Student engagement varies more within than between institutions.

First-year students*

Seniors*

Academic Challenge .60 .46

Active & Collaborative Learning .23 .09

Student Faculty Interaction .28 .37

Enriching Educational Experiences

.53 .48

Supportive Campus Environment

.38 .26

Relationship between NSSE & Graduation Rates

*All correlations are significant at p<.01

NSSE Promising Findings

More than 75% of “A” students say they are highly motivated to succeed compared with only half of the “C” students.

At institutions where faculty members use effective educational practices more frequently in their classes, students are more engaged over all and gain more from college.

A majority of students (54% of first-year students and 63% of seniors) says they often discuss ideas from readings or classes with others outside of class, and well over 90% do this at least sometimes.

Engagement Challenges & Responses

CHALLENGES

Institutional size

Varied levels of engagement within institution

Research mission competes with undergraduate education

EFFECTIVE RESPONSES

University of Kansas

Research Mission but focus on undergraduate teaching

Miami University

Student – faculty research emphasis

NSSE Disappointing Findings

Three of ten first-year students reported working just hard enough to get by.

Between 40% and 50% of first-year students never used career planning, financial advising, or academic tutoring services.

Almost half of all students (43% first-years, 48% seniors) spend no time on cocurricular activities.

Considering Student Engagement at UW OshkoshExercise #1:Exercise #1:

1. Assess Oshkosh’s effectiveness on 1. Assess Oshkosh’s effectiveness on the five NSSE Clusters of Effective the five NSSE Clusters of Effective Educational Practice Educational Practice

Ratings:Ratings:+ we do this very well we do this pretty well- we could improve in this area? not sure

What do we know about Academic Challenge at UW Oshkosh?

Students indicate how much (1 = “very little” to 4 = “very much”) coursework emphasized:

1.1. AnalyzingAnalyzing basic elements basic elements of ideaof idea

2.2. SynthesizingSynthesizing and and organizing ideas organizing ideas

Students indicate extent institution emphasizes (1 = “very little” to 4 = “very much”) :

3.3. Spending significant Spending significant amounts of time amounts of time studying and on studying and on academic workacademic work

Oshkosh – Seniors(% quite a bit, very

much)

1. 85% (=)

2. 71% (=)

3. 71% (=)

[= to UW system; - < UW system][= to UW system; - < UW system]

Student Engagement at Oshkosh

True or False?

1. More Oshkosh seniors than first year students report that they worked harder than they thought they could to meet an instructors standards or expectations.

What do we know about Active & Collaborative learning at UW Oshkosh?

Students indicate how often (1 = “never” to 4 = “very often”) they’ve done the following:

1.1. Asked questions in class or Asked questions in class or contributed to class contributed to class discussionsdiscussions

2.2. Made a class presentationMade a class presentation

3.3. Worked with other Worked with other students on projects in students on projects in classclass

4.4. Worked with classmates Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare outside of class to prepare assignmentsassignments

5.5. Participated in a Participated in a community-based project community-based project (e.g. service learning) as (e.g. service learning) as part of a coursepart of a course

Oshkosh – First-Years(% often, very often)

1. 39% (-)

2. 25% (=)

3. 39% (=)

4. 26% (-)

5. 5% (-)

[= to UW system; - < UW system][= to UW system; - < UW system]

Student Engagement at Oshkosh

True or False?

2. More Oshkosh seniors than first year students report that they frequently* worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments.

(*% reporting “often” and “very often”)

Student Engagement at Oshkosh

3. What percent of Oshkosh seniors “never” participated in a community based project as part of a course?

(a) 75% (b) 60% (c) 54% (d) 48% (e) 40%

Students indicate how often (1 = “never” to 4 = “very often”) they’ve done the following:

1.1. Discussed ideas from your Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty readings or classes with faculty members outside of classmembers outside of class

2.2. Received prompt feedback Received prompt feedback from faculty on academic from faculty on academic performanceperformance

Seniors indicate if they have done the following:

3.3. Practicum, internship, co-opPracticum, internship, co-op

4.4. Community serviceCommunity service

5.5. Work on a research project Work on a research project with faculty member outside with faculty member outside course or program course or program requirementsrequirements

Oshkosh – FY and Seniors

(% often, very often OR “Done”)

1. FY 8% (=/-)

SR 17% (=)

2. FY 43% (=)

SR 61% (=)

3. SR 46% Done (=/-)

4. SR 58% Done (=)

5. SR 10% Done (-)

What do we know about Student-Faculty Interaction and Enriching Educational Experiences at UW Oshkosh?

Student Engagement at Oshkosh

4. What percent of Oshkosh seniors “never” talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor?

(a) 50% (b) 43% (c) 30% (d) 27% (e) 21%

Student Engagement at Oshkosh

5. What percent of Oshkosh first-year students rate the quality of advising as “good” or “excellent”?

(a) 60% (b) 68% (c) 74% (d) 80% (e) 85%

Some Findings for Oshkosh First-Years (FY)

Only 48% of FY “often-very often” prepared 2 or more drafts of a paper/assignment before turning it in

Few FY worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments

FY have limited interaction with faculty – they infrequently discuss grades or assignments, rarely email faculty, and don’t interact much with faculty in co-curricular settings

Oshkosh FY students are not engaged as much as their peers at other WI schools in active learning, and report limited use of practices associated with enriched learning (multiple drafts, talking with faculty, studying with peers, attending arts, theater events)

How can expectations for active learning be raised for first years?

Some Findings for Oshkosh Seniors

58% of seniors report spending 0 hrs. a week in co-curricular activities (vs. 38% at UW syst)

61% of seniors report little institutional emphasis on attending campus events (vs. 43% at UW syst)

Oshkosh seniors report limited engagement in activities associated with enriched learning for seniors (working with faculty on research, or in out-of-class activities, co-curricular involvements, attending cultural activities)

How can Seniors’ experience be enriched?

Considering Student Engagement at Oshkosh

1.1. Do these data fit your Do these data fit your perceptions?perceptions?

2.2. What surprised you?What surprised you?3. Where might you look to

improve?4.4. Around which benchmarks and Around which benchmarks and

data points do you want more data points do you want more evidence?evidence?

Effective Educational Practice at UW Oshkosh

Exercise #2:Exercise #2: 1.1. Which activity listed in NSSE question Which activity listed in NSSE question

#1 if increased would lead to #1 if increased would lead to greatestgreatest learning and development for first-learning and development for first-year students? for seniors?year students? for seniors?

2.2. What could What could youyou do to influence this do to influence this item?item?

3.3. What activities in NSSE question #1 What activities in NSSE question #1 are most interesting to UW Oshkosh?are most interesting to UW Oshkosh?

4.4. What other NSSE items (#2-30) are of What other NSSE items (#2-30) are of interest to you?interest to you?

Encouraging Educational Effectiveness: Lessons from Project DEEP

Project DEEP: Project DEEP:

To discover, To discover, document, and document, and describe what 20 describe what 20 high performing* high performing* institutions do to institutions do to achieve their achieve their notable level of notable level of effectiveness.effectiveness.

*better-than-predicted graduation *better-than-predicted graduation rates and student engagement rates and student engagement scoresscores

DEEP - Six Shared Conditions

1.1. ““Living” Mission and “Lived” Living” Mission and “Lived” Educational PhilosophyEducational Philosophy

2.2. Unshakeable Focus on Student Unshakeable Focus on Student Learning Learning

3.3. Environments Adapted for Environments Adapted for Educational EnrichmentEducational Enrichment

4.4. Clearly Marked Pathways to Clearly Marked Pathways to Student SuccessStudent Success

5.5. Improvement-Oriented Ethos - Improvement-Oriented Ethos - “Positive Restlessness”“Positive Restlessness”

6.6. Shared Responsibility for Shared Responsibility for Educational Quality Educational Quality

Student-Faculty Interaction

Student role in campus governance

All University of Kansas committees are required to have 20% student representation, including search and screen committees. Therefore, new faculty recruits interact with students from the start.

Supportive Campus Environment

Intentionally orchestrated, educationally purposeful peer interaction

Longwood University values “students helping other students” as a catalyst to promote student achievement and learning and “to wake up students’ volunteerism and academic pursuits.” Peer mentors in the Longwood Seminar, residence halls leadership roles, and the strong co-curricular program makes this possible.

Unshakeable Focus on Student Learning

Timely and Apt Feedback

GMU, Ursinus, CSUMB…students use electronic technology (email, Blackboard) to submit drafts of papers for feedback. “E-mailing a professor is a much more efficient way to interact. . . . It reduces the wait between when I have a question and when I can get a response from my professor.”

Environments Adapted for Educational Enrichment

Physical space promotes collaboration

Wofford’s Milliken Building -- its science center -- was intentionally designed with plenty of “fishbowls” and other areas for group work space. “Homework lounges,” adjacent to faculty offices, also promote interactive learning.

Redundant early warning systems -“Tag Teaming”

Wheaton’s first-year student advising team includes faculty, student preceptors, librarians and administrative staff.

At Ursinus, Miami, and Wheaton representatives from both academic affairs and student affairs serve as academic advisors.

Clearly Marked Pathways to Student Success

Engaging ALL Students in Learning: Lessons from DEEP

CSUMB anchored in an “assets philosophy” – students prior knowledge is used to foster learning

UTEP learning communities emphasize active and collaborative learning, structured group presentations, peer evaluation, and meetings outside of class

Sewanee emphasizes importance of prompt, detailed, meaningful feedback

George Mason, Wheaton focus on upper division experiential learning in the form of internships, field studies, service learning, capstone courses

DEEP issues to ponder:

1.1. To what degree are all students having a To what degree are all students having a quality learning experience?quality learning experience?

2.2. What might be done to improve the conditions What might be done to improve the conditions for student success?for student success?

3.3. How might curricular and co-curricular How might curricular and co-curricular opportunities be integrated to enrich student opportunities be integrated to enrich student learning?learning?

4.4. How do new students learn what it takes to How do new students learn what it takes to succeed? How does this differ for seniors?succeed? How does this differ for seniors?

5.5. To what degree are faculty and staff To what degree are faculty and staff encouraged to adopt new approaches to encouraged to adopt new approaches to engaged learning?engaged learning?

National Survey of Student Engagement

College student survey that assesses the extent to which students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development

Complements NSSE; To measure faculty expectations for student engagement in educational practices known to be empirically linked with high levels of learning and development

(pronounced “nessie” and “fessie”)

Faculty Survey of Student Engagement

NSSE – FSSE Oshkosh Learning Activity

Importance - Frequency GapOshkosh Upper Div. Faculty Importance (very important - imp)

ITEM Oshkosh SENIOR

89% Practicum, Internship

48% “Done”

55% Work on research project

10% “Done”

59% Work with classmates

outside of class to prepare

assignments

61% “Often or Very Often”

66% Put together ideas or concepts from different courses

65% “Often or Very Often”

NSSE-FSSE Gap – UW Oshkosh Prompt Feedback

FACULTY gave prompt feedback often or very often

STUDENTS received prompt feedback often or very often

84% | 97%

Lower Division

Upper Division

43% | 61%

1st yr. Students Seniors

NSSE-FSSE Educational Gains Gap

[Oshkosh Seniors]Upper Div. Fac

Structure Courses Quite a bit/Very

much so students develop

ITEM % SENIOR Frequency (very much/Quite a bit)

63% Write Clearly 70% (=)

49% Speak Clearly 66% (-)

57% Work with others 73% (-)

92% Think Critically & Analytically

83% (=)

67% Solve Complex Real Problems

49% (=)

77% Acquiring Work-related Knowledge

72% (=)

NSSE-FSSE GapsWhat to make of this?

1. When faculty members emphasize certain educational practices, students engage in them to a greater extent than their peers elsewhere.

2. Conversation starters about expectations for teaching and learning

Creating an Action Plan around Student Engagement and Educational

Effectiveness

“NSSE is a great way to stimulate reflection and debate about what we do more and less well, and why. For us it’s proving an exciting and enlivening tool for self-reflection and self-improvement.”

--Michael McPherson, President of The Spencer Foundation (former President of Macalaster College)

Using NSSE Results…Stimulating Conversation on

Campus

Best Practices in Using NSSE Results: Institutional Examples

NSSE pivotal tool to document general characteristics of undergrad ed

Used by colleges (College of Arts and Sciences)

NSSE data used by different stakeholders FY data more useful for Student Affairs, SR data more useful as a proxy for student learning in Acad

Affairs, Departments use NSSE items as “big picture” indicators Means of assessing strategy and priority for quasi-academic

programs (ADP, service learning) Fodder for department meetings “Just another piece of the assessment puzzle” Future ideas: Find ways to incorporate NSSE more directly into

departmental assessment (primarily for Gen Ed classes); Continue to share NSSE widely; Many want data on seniors/graduates: Alumni, Endowment, Student Affairs; Use the freshmen data much more in Academic Affairs

Best Practices in Using NSSE Results: Institutional Examples

Used NSSE items in 11a-p to assess Used NSSE items in 11a-p to assess institutional impact on college-level institutional impact on college-level competencies competencies (a.k.a., indirect measures of (a.k.a., indirect measures of student learning outcomes) student learning outcomes)

Undergraduate Undergraduate seniors seniors 2005 NSSE 2005 NSSE results confirmed findings from 2004results confirmed findings from 2004

Most seniors (75%+) reported that Most seniors (75%+) reported that KSU experience had “substantial KSU experience had “substantial impact” (VM+QAB) in 9 or 16 college-impact” (VM+QAB) in 9 or 16 college-level competencieslevel competencies

KSU rank ordered competencies, KSU rank ordered competencies, showing connection to mission, and showing connection to mission, and compared to other master’s instit compared to other master’s instit where KSU was sig. higher, where KSU was sig. higher, comparable, sig. lower on comparable, sig. lower on competenciescompetencies

Best Practices in Using NSSE Results: Institutional Examples

NSSE results framed a “Sophomore Experience”

2005 = Pace’s 5th year of participation

Concern regarding SP- JR persistence; FY results offers context for understanding exp. as students enter SP year

Established “SP Experience Working Group” to investigate if FY exp. carried over in SP year. Focused on low NSSE score items, conducted focus groups, created sophomore survey. Led to pilot of “Pace Plan” (mentoring), includes Career Exploration Course, Sophomore Kick-Off Day

NSSE also used in strategic indicators, Accred, NCATE, AACSB, Faculty Development/Colloquia, items used by offices (Technology, Multicultural Affairs), studies performed by Enrollment Mngmt.

Best Practices in Using NSSE Results: Institutional Examples

Concerned about FY-SP retention. Concerned about FY-SP retention. Used NSSE to identify conflict Used NSSE to identify conflict between UC image and student between UC image and student experience. Shared with stakeholders to experience. Shared with stakeholders to brainstorm around retention.brainstorm around retention.

Only 50% of FY students reported that Only 50% of FY students reported that they participated in a “learning they participated in a “learning community,” though all were required. community,” though all were required. UC made LC goals, purpose more UC made LC goals, purpose more explicit, saw rise to 75% in next NSSE. explicit, saw rise to 75% in next NSSE.

UC mission focuses on writing, yet NSSE UC mission focuses on writing, yet NSSE data did not stand out. Used data to data did not stand out. Used data to propose new strategies around propose new strategies around developmental writing. developmental writing.

Saw 5% retention boost, over 2 years.Saw 5% retention boost, over 2 years.

Best Practices in Using NSSE Results: Institutional Examples

Created engagement agenda on Created engagement agenda on campuscampus

NSSE introduced to New Faculty NSSE introduced to New Faculty Teaching Scholars Teaching Scholars

Workshops held with academic Workshops held with academic leaders to link results with leaders to link results with University’s strategic indicatorsUniversity’s strategic indicators

NSSE items in course evaluations NSSE items in course evaluations Open forum to get student input Open forum to get student input

about ways to improve learning about ways to improve learning environmentenvironment

1. Get the ideas rightFocus on a real problem Persistence Under-engaged students Fragmented gen ed program Tired pedagogical practices Poor first-year experience Low academic challenge Connections to real world Capstone experiences

LESSONS FOR MAXIMIZING USE OF NSSE DATA

2. Get grass roots buy-in

Confirm/corroborate resultsConfirm/corroborate results

Drive data down to dept levelDrive data down to dept level

Gain consensus on student Gain consensus on student engagement prioritiesengagement priorities

3. Fashion data-informed monitoring systems

Use multiple sources of dataUse multiple sources of data ACT/SAT score reportsACT/SAT score reports BCSSEBCSSE NSSENSSE FSSEFSSE CIRP/CSSCIRP/CSS Noel LevitzNoel Levitz CLACLA ACT CAAPACT CAAP

Explain every number Consider a systematic review of Consider a systematic review of

policies and practices (ISES)policies and practices (ISES)

NSSE: Only one step towards educational effectiveness

Step #1: Survey Data

• Survey Students• Review Results• Develop Preliminary

List of Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement

Step #2: Feedback

• Share results with Faculty, Administrators & Students

• Identify Themes & Priorities

• Design Action Plan

Step #2: Feedback

• Share results with Faculty, Administrators & Students

• Identify Themes & Priorities

• Design Action PlanStep #3: Action Plan

• Finalize Plan• Share Plan with

Appropriate Groups• Link to Strategic

Plan• Implement Action

Step #4: Follow-up

• Use Results as Benchmarks to Monitor Progress

• Faculty & Student Focus Groups

Step #4: Follow-up

• Use Results as Benchmarks to Monitor Progress

• Faculty & Student Focus Groups

Institutional Effectiveness

Inventory for Student

Engagement and Success

A qualitative assessment of educational effectiveness

based on findings from Project DEEP (Documenting

Effective Educational Practice) regarding

conditions that matter to student success

5. Stay the course

Emphasize qualityEmphasize quality

Front-load resourcesFront-load resources

If it works, consider requiring itIf it works, consider requiring it

Scale up effective practicesScale up effective practices

Sunset ineffective programs Sunset ineffective programs

Beware the implementation dipBeware the implementation dip

Creating an Action Plan:

“Ready, fire, aim.” Weick, 1995, p. 168

Keeping the Engagement Agenda Manageable…

“The good-to-great transformations The good-to-great transformations never happened in one fell swoop. never happened in one fell swoop. There was no single defining action, There was no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Sustainable no miracle moment. Sustainable transformations follow a predictable transformations follow a predictable pattern of buildup and pattern of buildup and breakthrough…” breakthrough…” (Collins, 2001, p. (Collins, 2001, p. 186)186)

Exploring Next Steps at Oshkosh

• What steps might you take to generate more interest in student engagement and NSSE data?

• What is one thing you can commit to doing now?

• What do you hope to do next?

• How will you ensure the success of your 2006 NSSE administration?

• Which results do you hope to monitor?

Discussion and Comments

1900 East 10th StreetEigenmann Hall, Suite 419Bloomington, IN 47406 Ph: 812-856-5824Fax: 812-856-5150

nsse@indiana.edu

www.iub.edu/~nsse

Jillian Kinzie, PhD.NSSE Institute – Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research