nsse 2016 engagement indicators - kansas state university€¦ · 36.1 -.01 38.1 -.15 39.8 -.26...

NSSE 2016

Engagement IndicatorsKansas State University

IPEDS: 155399

About Your Engagement Indicators ReportTheme 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

Report Sections Supportive Environment

Overview (p. 3)

Theme Reports (pp. 4-13)

Mean Comparisons

Score Distributions

Performance on Indicator Items

Interpreting Comparisons

How Engagement Indicators are Computed

Rocconi, L., & Gonyea, R. M. (2015). Contextualizing student engagement effect sizes: An empirical analysis. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum,

Denver, CO.

Mean comparisons report both statistical significance and effect size. Effect size indicates the practical importance of an observed

difference. For EI comparisons, NSSE research has concluded that an effect size of about .1 may be considered small, .3 medium,

and .5 large (Rocconi & Gonyea, 2015). Comparisons with an effect size of at least .3 in magnitude (before rounding) are

highlighted in the Overview (p. 3).

EIs vary more among students within an institution than between institutions, like many experiences and outcomes in higher

education. As a result, focusing attention on average scores alone amounts to examining the tip of the iceberg. It’s equally important

to understand how student engagement varies within your institution. Score distributions indicate how EI scores vary among your

students and those in your comparison groups. The Report Builder—Institution Version and your Major Field Report (both to be

released in the fall) offer valuable perspectives on internal variation and help you investigate your students’ engagement in depth.

Each EI is scored on a 60-point scale. To produce an indicator score, the response set for each item is converted to a 60-point scale

(e.g., Never = 0; Sometimes = 20; Often = 40; Very often = 60), and the rescaled items are averaged. Thus a score of zero means a

student responded at the bottom of the scale for every item in the EI, while a score of 60 indicates responses at the top of the scale

on every item.

For more information on EIs and their psychometric properties, refer to the NSSE website: nsse.indiana.edu

Detailed information about EI score means, distributions, and tests of statistical significance.Detailed Statistics (pp. 16-19)

NSSE 2016 Engagement IndicatorsAbout This Report

Comparisons with High-

Performing Institutions (p. 15)

Comparisons of your students’ average scores on each EI with those of students at institutions whose

average scores were in the top 50% and top 10% of 2015 and 2016 participating institutions.

Displays how average EI scores for your first-year and senior students compare with those of students at

your comparison group institutions.

Academic Challenge

Learning with Peers

Experiences with Faculty

Campus Environment

Engagement Indicators (EIs) provide a useful summary of

the detailed information contained in your students’ NSSE

responses. By combining responses to related NSSE

questions, each EI offers valuable information about a

distinct aspect of student engagement. Ten indicators,

based on three to eight survey questions each (a total of 47

survey questions), are organized into four broad themes as

shown at right.

Detailed views of EI scores within the four themes for your students and those at comparison group

institutions. Three views offer varied insights into your EI scores:

Responses to each item in a given EI are summarized for your institution and comparison groups.

Box-and-whisker charts show the variation in scores within your institution and comparison groups.

Straightforward comparisons of average scores between your students and those at comparison

group institutions, with tests of significance and effect sizes (see below).

2 • NSSE 2016 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

Engagement Indicators: Overview

▲ 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.

First-Year Students

Theme Engagement Indicator



Learning Strategies







Supportive Environment

Seniors




Learning Strategies








△▽

△▽△

▽ ▽

▽△

--

▽

--

△

△

△ △ △

△▽

△△ --

▽

△

Carnegie Class

△

--

All NSSE

△

--

△Campus

Environment

Campus

Environment △

Your seniors

compared with

Your seniors

compared with

Your seniors

compared with

Experiences

with Faculty

△

▽

△

△ △

--

△

------

Learning with

Peers

△

▽Academic

Challenge

▽△

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

The ten indicators are organized within four broad themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and

Campus Environment. The tables below compare average scores for your students with those in your comparison groups.

Use the following key:

Learning with

Peers

2025 Peers Carnegie Class

--

All NSSE

--

△--

Your first-year students

compared with


compared with


compared with

----

▽

Experiences

with Faculty

2025 Peers

--

NSSE 2016 Engagement Indicators

Academic

Challenge

--

▽

△△----

Kansas State University

Overview

△--

NSSE 2016 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 3

Academic Challenge: First-year students

Mean Comparisons

Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning *

Reflective & Integrative Learning *

Learning Strategies * ***

Quantitative Reasoning *

Score Distributions

Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote

student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are

part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning.

Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

K-StateYour first-year students compared with

2025 Peers Carnegie Class All NSSE

NSSE 2016 Engagement IndicatorsAcademic Challenge


Effect

size

38.0 37.0 .08 38.5 -.04 38.7 -.05

Mean Mean

Effect

size Mean

Effect

size Mean

-.05

37.2 36.3 .06 38.2 -.08 39.1 -.13

34.9 33.9 .09 35.1 -.02 35.6

.06Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard

deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning

Quantitative ReasoningLearning Strategies

28.9 29.0 -.01 29.0 -.01 27.8

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores.

The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

0

15

30

45

60

K-State 2025 Peers Carnegie Class All NSSE

0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)



%

4b. 76

4c. 70

4d. 66

4e. 65


2a. 56

2b. 51

49

2d. 61

65

2f. 64

2g. 77

Learning Strategies

9a. 72

9b. 64

9c. 57


55

42

6c. 40


Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…



The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your

students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the

comparison group. Orange bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.

Percentage point difference a between your FY students and

K-State

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

+2 +1 +1

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

+1 -2 -3Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments

+4 -1 -4

+3 +1 +3

-3 -2+1

2c.Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course

discussions or assignments

+3 -1 -2

+5 -0 -2

+1 +0 -2

Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

+2 +1 +0

2e.Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his

or her perspective

+2 -1 -2Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

+1 -2 -3



+1 -4 -6

-1 -6 -7

+4 +1 -2

Identified key information from reading assignments

Reviewed your notes after class

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your

Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.

a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not

display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

6b.Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment,

climate change, public health, etc.)

-0 -1 +2

6a.Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers,

graphs, statistics, etc.)-2 -1 +2

+2 +1 +2

Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information


Academic Challenge: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Higher-Order Learning ** ***

Reflective & Integrative Learning ***

Learning Strategies *** ***

Quantitative Reasoning *

Score Distributions

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard



31.4 32.1 -.05 31.0 .02 30.3 .06

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores.

The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

All NSSE

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Mean

Effect

size Mean

Effect

size Mean

38.7 -.02 39.4 -.07 40.8 -.17

36.6 .03



-.04 38.7 -.13

36.1 -.01 38.1 -.15 39.8 -.26

Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote

student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are

part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning.

Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Your seniors compared with

Effect

size


37.5

K-State

Mean

38.4

37.0

35.9

0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued)



%

4b. 78

4c. 73

4d. 64

4e. 66


2a. 73

2b. 61

47

2d. 60

66

2f. 65

2g. 84

Learning Strategies

9a. 71

9b. 57

9c. 57


60

46

6c. 47

-8

-1 -3 -7

+1

-3




Percentage point difference a between your seniors and


Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…

Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

-1 +0 -1

+0 -1 -3

+3

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

K-State

+0 +2 +2

-2 -8

+0 -2 -6



Academic Challenge

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments


-9


-3 -8 -10

Reviewed your notes after class

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

Identified key information from reading assignments

6b. -0 +1

-22e.

+0 -4

-1 +2

+5 +1

2c.Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course

discussions or assignments

Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his

or her perspective

+3 -3

+1

-3 -1 +2





Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment,

climate change, public health, etc.)


6a.Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers,

graphs, statistics, etc.)+4

-5

-0 -3 -5

+3 +3 +1

+4 -1 -6


Learning with Peers: First-year students

Mean Comparisons


Collaborative Learning * *** ***

Discussions with Diverse Others ***

Score Distributions



%

1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 64

1f. Explained course material to one or more students 65

1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 61

1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 58


8a. People from a race or ethnicity other than your own 65

8b. People from an economic background other than your own 73

8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own 69

8d. People with political views other than your own 71


Learning with Peers


+13+2

-10

-2

-4

-0

+3





-2

-1





Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

+4

+4

-6

+1

+1

Mean

All NSSE


K-State



Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile

scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

35.2 .07

+1

+8

+11

+5

32.3

40.5 -.03 -.14


-4

+2

.13

-1

+7

+3

+6

Mean

36.1

40.0

Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and developing interpersonal and social competence prepare students to

deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this

theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of

your comparison groups.

Your first-year students compared with

2025 Peers Carnegie Class All NSSEK-State

40.342.2

.26

-.02

34.3

Effect

sizeMean

Effect

size Mean

Effect

size

0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



Learning with Peers: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Collaborative Learning ** *** ***

Discussions with Diverse Others *** ***

Score Distributions



%

1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 52

1f. Explained course material to one or more students 65

1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 53

1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 67


8a. People from a race or ethnicity other than your own 62

8b. People from an economic background other than your own 70

8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own 66

8d. People with political views other than your own 72


Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…





-2 -7 -3

-0 +0 +2

-3 -14 -11

-1 -5 -3

+3

39.4






K-State

36.1 -.08 33.5 .10

Mean

35.0

Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and developing interpersonal and social competence prepare students to

deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this

theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of

your comparison groups.


K-State

NSSE 2016 Engagement IndicatorsLearning with Peers


+10

Mean

32.5

-.05 42.5 -.20 41.3Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard


Effect

sizeMean

Effect

size Mean

.17

40.2

Effect

size

-.12

-6 +2


-1 +4 +7

-1 +4 +6

Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others



-0 +7

0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



Experiences with Faculty: First-year students

Mean Comparisons


Student-Faculty Interaction ** *** ***

Effective Teaching Practices *** *

Score Distributions


Student-Faculty Interaction%

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member 36

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.) 21

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 24

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member 30


5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 81

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 80

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 77

5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress 58

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 56

NSSE 2016 Engagement IndicatorsExperiences with Faculty


Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…





+3 +0 -6

+3 +1 +1

+3 -0 -6

+5 +3 +3

+5 +3 +2

+1 +0 -1

+4 +4 +1





-.0636.8 .14 38.2 .03 39.3Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard


+3 +4 +4

+2 +2 +2

K-StateEffect

size

Effect

sizeMean

Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of

instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective

teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators

investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results

alongside those of your comparison groups.


Mean

Effect

size Mean Mean


21.9







K-State

20.5 20.2 .1120.0 .13.10

38.5

0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



Experiences with Faculty: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Student-Faculty Interaction *** *** ***

Effective Teaching Practices ***

Score Distributions


Student-Faculty Interaction%

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member 47

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.) 35

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 35

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member 33


5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 80

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 78

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 79

5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress 56

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 58






Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

-1 -2 -7

+1 +1

+4 +1 -5

+4 +5 +0

+8 +8

+2 +5 +2

-.13

24.0 .12 22.5 .21

38.8 -.03 40.2

Effect

sizeMean

Effect

size Mean

.15

Effect

size

Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of

instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective

teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators

investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results

alongside those of your comparison groups.


NSSE 2016 Engagement IndicatorsExperiences with Faculty


-1 -1

+0


Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices



+4 +8 +5

Mean

23.4

.03Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard


Mean

25.8

38.5

K-State

-1

38.1






K-State

+1 -0 -1

+5

0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



Campus Environment: First-year students

Mean Comparisons


Quality of Interactions *** *** ***

Supportive Environment ** *** ***

Score Distributions


Quality of Interactions%

13a. Students 67

13b. Academic advisors 58

13c. Faculty 54

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) 51

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) 51


14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically 81

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) 84

14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.) 57

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially 77

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) 77

14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 48

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) 80

14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues 54





Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…

+8 +9 +15

+1 +0 +3

-0 +3 +7

+5 +4 +4

-1 -4 -3

+0 +2 +5

+8 +13 +8

+3 +7 +7

+1 +3 +4


K-State



41.8 .23

38.3 .11 37.6 .15 36.7 .21

42.9 .15 41.4 .2744.6

Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and

staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three

views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.


NSSE 2016 Engagement IndicatorsCampus Environment


+5



+7 +10 +11

+3 +9 +8

+9 +7

Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…






39.6

K-State

+8 +9 +4

Effect

sizeMean

Effect

size Mean

Effect

size MeanMean



0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



Campus Environment: Seniors

Mean Comparisons


Quality of Interactions *** *** ***

Supportive Environment *** *** ***

Score Distributions


Quality of Interactions%

13a. Students 66

13b. Academic advisors 59

13c. Faculty 57

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) 50

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) 49


14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically 79

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) 75

14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.) 49

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially 73

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) 74

14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) 37

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) 71

14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues 47

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…

+4 +3 +3

+7 +5

+6 +8 +15

-3 -4

+6 +11 +8

+4

Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…

33.1

43.1 .14 41.1








42.6 .17

.20

NSSE 2016 Engagement IndicatorsCampus Environment


Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment

Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and

staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three

views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.



Mean

Effect

size

32.8 .21

.29

Mean

44.6

35.8 33.6 .17

Mean

Effect

size Mean

Effect

size



K-State

+4

+6 +10 +7

-2+2 +4

+6 +12 +7

+2 +6

+8 +13 +7

+5 +10 +7

+8

+4 +6 +8

+4 +9 +13





0

15

30

45

60


0

15

30

45

60



This page intentionally left blank.


Comparisons with Top 50% and Top 10% Institutions

First-Year Students

✓ ✓

Higher-Order Learning *** ***

Reflective and Integrative Learning *** ***


Quantitative Reasoning ✓ ***

Collaborative Learning * ✓ **


Student-Faculty Interaction *** ***

Effective Teaching Practices *** ***

Quality of Interactions ✓ ***

Supportive Environment ✓ **

Seniors

✓ ✓

Higher-Order Learning *** ***

Reflective and Integrative Learning *** ***


Quantitative Reasoning ✓ ***

Collaborative Learning * ***


Student-Faculty Interaction *** ***

Effective Teaching Practices *** ***

Quality of Interactions * ***

Supportive Environment ✓ ***

Comparisons with High-Performing Institutions

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by the pooled standard

deviation; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

a. Precision-weighted means (produced by Hierarchical Linear Modeling) were used to determine the top 50% and top 10% institutions for each Engagement Indicator from all NSSE 2015

and 2016 institutions, separately for first-year and senior students. Using this method, Engagement Indicator scores of institutions with relatively large standard errors were adjusted

toward the mean of all students, while those with smaller standard errors received smaller corrections. As a result, schools with less stable data—even those with high average

scores—may not be among the top scorers. NSSE does not publish the names of the top 50% and top 10% institutions because of our commitment not to release institutional results

and our policy against ranking institutions.

b. Check marks are assigned to comparisons that are either significant and positive, or non-significant with an effect size > -.10.

NSSE Top 50% NSSE Top 10%

NSSE Top 50% NSSE Top 10%



K-State

K-State

Mean

38.034.937.228.9

44.635.8

35.931.4

35.039.4

44.7 -.4642.9 -.47

Mean

43.3

29.642.7

42.2

43.141.0

44.5 -.6033.2 -.11

37.9 -.21

Mean Effect size

46.9 -.2038.1 -.16

45.1 -.36

33.0 -.4544.5 -.45

43.8 -.39

45.9 -.1140.9 -.09

-.15

37.3 -.0944.3 -.29

26.9 -.32

-.07.01

-.02

-.06-.24

-.23-.31

Mean Effect size

42.7 -.3439.5 -.3643.7 -.46

-.44

-.13-.22

.04

.04

-.34-.32

-.18-.20

40.036.1

-.28-.04

.07-.18

Mean Effect size

42.735.2

29.4

39.6

Campus

Environment

Learning

with Peers

Experiences

with Faculty

25.8

Academic

Challenge

38.437.0

45.335.7

31.8

35.8

38.5

While NSSE’s policy is not to rank institutions (see nsse.indiana.edu/html/position_policies.cfm), the results below are designed to compare

the engagement of your students with those attending two groups of institutions identified by NSSEa for their high average levels of student

engagement:

(a) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 50% of all 2015 and 2016 NSSE institutions, and

(b) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 10% of all 2015 and 2016 NSSE institutions.

While the average scores for most institutions are below the mean for the top 50% or top 10%, your institution may show areas of distinction

where your average student was as engaged as (or even more engaged than) the typical student at high-performing institutions. A check mark

(✓) signifies those comparisons where your average score was at least comparableb to that of the high-performing group. However, the presence

of a check mark does not necessarily mean that your institution was a member of that group.

It should be noted that most of the variability in student engagement is within, not between, institutions. Even "high-performing" institutions

have students with engagement levels below the average for all institutions.



Academic

Challenge

Learning

with Peers



40.537.441.2

Effect size

31.3

23.8

Mean

41.6

44.139.2

Experiences

with Faculty

Campus

Environment

21.938.5

44.6


Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students

Mean SD b SEM c5th 25th 50th 75th 95th

Deg. of

freedom e

Mean

diff. Sig. f

Effect

size g

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order LearningK-State (N = 964) 38.0 12.7 .41 20 30 40 45 60

2025 Peers 37.0 13.2 .14 15 30 40 45 60 9,511 1.0 .023 .077

Carnegie Class 38.5 13.4 .06 20 30 40 50 60 53,428 -.5 .225 -.039

All NSSE 38.7 13.7 .03 20 30 40 50 60 970 -.7 .095 -.050

Top 50% 40.5 13.6 .04 20 30 40 50 60 128,729 -2.5 .000 -.185

Top 10% 42.7 13.7 .08 20 35 40 55 60 1,043 -4.7 .000 -.342

Reflective & Integrative LearningK-State (N = 991) 34.9 12.2 .39 17 26 34 43 57

2025 Peers 33.9 11.9 .13 17 26 34 40 57 9,976 1.0 .010 .086

Carnegie Class 35.1 12.3 .05 17 26 34 43 60 55,747 -.2 .631 -.015

All NSSE 35.6 12.5 .02 17 26 34 43 60 295,892 -.6 .107 -.051

Top 50% 37.4 12.5 .03 17 29 37 46 60 135,307 -2.4 .000 -.196

Top 10% 39.5 12.8 .08 20 31 40 49 60 1,075 -4.6 .000 -.359

Learning StrategiesK-State (N = 888) 37.2 13.5 .45 13 27 40 47 60

2025 Peers 36.3 13.8 .16 13 27 33 47 60 8,750 .9 .067 .065

Carnegie Class 38.2 14.1 .06 13 27 40 47 60 49,067 -1.1 .021 -.078

All NSSE 39.1 14.2 .03 20 27 40 53 60 259,212 -1.9 .000 -.135

Top 50% 41.2 14.1 .04 20 33 40 53 60 113,034 -4.0 .000 -.284

Top 10% 43.7 14.3 .08 20 33 47 60 60 949 -6.6 .000 -.463

Quantitative ReasoningK-State (N = 977) 28.9 16.2 .52 0 20 27 40 60

2025 Peers 29.0 15.2 .16 7 20 27 40 60 1,177 -.2 .782 -.010

Carnegie Class 29.0 15.7 .07 0 20 27 40 60 54,096 -.1 .842 -.006

All NSSE 27.8 16.2 .03 0 20 27 40 60 286,346 1.0 .048 .063

Top 50% 29.4 16.1 .04 0 20 27 40 60 158,946 -.6 .269 -.035

Top 10% 31.3 16.2 .08 0 20 33 40 60 38,704 -2.4 .000 -.148

Learning with Peers

Collaborative LearningK-State (N = 1018) 36.1 13.5 .42 15 25 35 45 60

2025 Peers 35.2 13.8 .14 15 25 35 45 60 10,398 .9 .038 .068

Carnegie Class 34.3 14.0 .06 15 25 35 45 60 57,687 1.8 .000 .132

All NSSE 32.3 14.5 .03 10 20 30 40 60 1,024 3.8 .000 .262

Top 50% 35.2 13.8 .04 15 25 35 45 60 146,977 .9 .038 .065

Top 10% 37.3 13.6 .08 15 25 40 45 60 31,980 -1.2 .006 -.088

Discussions with Diverse OthersK-State (N = 896) 40.0 14.7 .49 15 30 40 50 60

2025 Peers 40.5 14.8 .17 20 30 40 55 60 8,849 -.5 .322 -.035

Carnegie Class 42.2 15.2 .07 20 30 40 60 60 931 -2.2 .000 -.143

All NSSE 40.3 16.0 .03 15 30 40 55 60 903 -.3 .511 -.020

Top 50% 42.7 15.2 .04 20 35 40 60 60 909 -2.7 .000 -.176

Top 10% 44.3 15.1 .08 20 35 45 60 60 938 -4.3 .000 -.287



Mean statistics Percentiled scores Comparison results

Detailed Statisticsa


Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students


Deg. of

freedom e

Mean

diff. Sig. f

Effect

size g






Student-Faculty InteractionK-State (N = 973) 21.9 13.9 .45 0 10 20 30 50

2025 Peers 20.5 13.9 .15 0 10 20 30 50 9,728 1.4 .003 .099

Carnegie Class 20.0 14.3 .06 0 10 20 30 50 54,509 1.9 .000 .130

All NSSE 20.2 14.7 .03 0 10 20 30 50 288,939 1.6 .001 .109

Top 50% 23.8 15.0 .05 0 15 20 35 55 997 -2.0 .000 -.132

Top 10% 26.9 16.0 .13 5 15 25 40 60 1,144 -5.1 .000 -.318

Effective Teaching PracticesK-State (N = 983) 38.5 12.2 .39 20 32 40 48 60

2025 Peers 36.8 12.5 .13 16 28 36 44 60 9,733 1.7 .000 .139

Carnegie Class 38.2 12.7 .05 20 28 40 48 60 54,656 .4 .363 .029

All NSSE 39.3 13.3 .02 16 32 40 48 60 990 -.8 .043 -.059

Top 50% 41.6 13.4 .04 20 32 40 52 60 1,002 -3.0 .000 -.224

Top 10% 43.8 13.5 .09 20 36 44 56 60 1,084 -5.2 .000 -.390

Campus Environment

Quality of InteractionsK-State (N = 866) 44.6 10.9 .37 24 38 46 52 60

2025 Peers 42.9 11.1 .13 22 36 44 50 60 8,398 1.7 .000 .151

Carnegie Class 41.4 11.7 .05 20 34 42 50 60 903 3.2 .000 .273

All NSSE 41.8 12.5 .03 18 34 44 50 60 873 2.8 .000 .225

Top 50% 44.1 11.8 .04 22 38 46 52 60 884 .5 .182 .042

Top 10% 45.9 12.1 .09 22 40 48 56 60 960 -1.3 .001 -.108

Supportive EnvironmentK-State (N = 832) 39.6 12.8 .45 20 30 40 50 60

2025 Peers 38.3 13.0 .15 18 30 40 48 60 8,191 1.4 .003 .107

Carnegie Class 37.6 13.2 .06 15 28 38 48 60 46,035 2.0 .000 .153

All NSSE 36.7 13.9 .03 13 28 38 48 60 838 3.0 .000 .214

Top 50% 39.2 13.4 .04 18 30 40 50 60 108,771 .5 .303 .036

Top 10% 40.9 13.3 .08 20 33 40 53 60 27,921 -1.2 .010 -.091

IPEDS: 155399

a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).

b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.

c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI (equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 x SEM)

is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean.

d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall.

e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t -tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.

f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.

g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.


Detailed Statistics: Seniors


Deg. of

freedom e

Mean

diff. Sig. f

Effect

size g

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order LearningK-State (N = 1289) 38.4 13.3 .37 15 30 40 45 60

2025 Peers 38.7 13.5 .14 15 30 40 50 60 10,962 -.3 .442 -.023

Carnegie Class 39.4 14.1 .05 15 30 40 50 60 1,346 -1.0 .006 -.073

All NSSE 40.8 14.1 .03 20 30 40 55 60 1,301 -2.4 .000 -.172

Top 50% 43.1 13.8 .04 20 35 40 55 60 1,322 -4.7 .000 -.344

Top 10% 44.7 13.7 .07 20 40 45 60 60 1,395 -6.3 .000 -.459

Reflective & Integrative LearningK-State (N = 1336) 37.0 12.4 .34 17 29 37 46 60

2025 Peers 36.6 12.5 .12 17 29 37 46 60 11,417 .4 .274 .032

Carnegie Class 37.5 13.0 .05 17 29 37 46 60 1,393 -.5 .128 -.040

All NSSE 38.7 13.0 .02 17 29 40 49 60 1,347 -1.7 .000 -.131

Top 50% 41.0 12.7 .04 20 31 40 51 60 1,368 -4.0 .000 -.315

Top 10% 42.9 12.5 .07 20 34 43 54 60 1,466 -5.9 .000 -.471

Learning StrategiesK-State (N = 1197) 35.9 14.0 .41 13 27 33 47 60

2025 Peers 36.1 14.7 .16 13 27 33 47 60 1,568 -.2 .638 -.014

Carnegie Class 38.1 14.8 .06 13 27 40 47 60 1,249 -2.2 .000 -.151

All NSSE 39.8 14.8 .03 13 27 40 53 60 288,455 -3.9 .000 -.262

Top 50% 42.2 14.5 .04 20 33 40 60 60 1,220 -6.3 .000 -.437

Top 10% 44.5 14.2 .08 20 33 47 60 60 36,540 -8.6 .000 -.604

Quantitative ReasoningK-State (N = 1304) 31.4 15.6 .43 7 20 33 40 60

2025 Peers 32.1 16.0 .16 7 20 33 40 60 11,083 -.8 .101 -.048

Carnegie Class 31.0 16.9 .07 0 20 33 40 60 1,364 .4 .398 .022

All NSSE 30.3 17.0 .03 0 20 27 40 60 1,316 1.1 .012 .064

Top 50% 31.8 16.9 .04 0 20 33 40 60 1,327 -.4 .355 -.024

Top 10% 33.2 16.8 .08 0 20 33 47 60 1,388 -1.9 .000 -.111

Learning with Peers

Collaborative LearningK-State (N = 1363) 35.0 14.4 .39 10 25 35 45 60

2025 Peers 36.1 14.2 .14 15 25 35 45 60 11,780 -1.1 .006 -.079

Carnegie Class 33.5 14.7 .06 10 20 35 45 60 1,418 1.4 .000 .099

All NSSE 32.5 14.9 .03 10 20 30 40 60 1,375 2.5 .000 .168

Top 50% 35.8 13.9 .04 15 25 35 45 60 144,711 -.8 .025 -.061

Top 10% 37.9 13.7 .08 15 30 40 50 60 33,677 -2.9 .000 -.213

Discussions with Diverse OthersK-State (N = 1214) 39.4 15.4 .44 15 30 40 55 60

2025 Peers 40.2 15.0 .16 20 30 40 55 60 10,310 -.8 .085 -.053

Carnegie Class 42.5 15.6 .06 15 30 40 60 60 62,954 -3.1 .000 -.197

All NSSE 41.3 16.1 .03 15 30 40 60 60 1,224 -1.9 .000 -.115

Top 50% 43.3 15.9 .04 15 35 45 60 60 1,232 -3.9 .000 -.244

Top 10% 45.1 15.8 .07 20 35 50 60 60 1,281 -5.7 .000 -.357






Detailed Statistics: Seniors


Deg. of

freedom e

Mean

diff. Sig. f

Effect

size g






Student-Faculty InteractionK-State (N = 1312) 25.8 15.5 .43 5 15 25 35 55

2025 Peers 24.0 15.4 .16 0 10 20 35 55 11,158 1.8 .000 .116

Carnegie Class 22.5 15.7 .06 0 10 20 30 55 68,067 3.3 .000 .210

All NSSE 23.4 16.3 .03 0 10 20 35 55 1,324 2.4 .000 .147

Top 50% 29.6 16.1 .06 5 20 30 40 60 1,369 -3.8 .000 -.234

Top 10% 33.0 16.3 .16 5 20 30 45 60 1,685 -7.2 .000 -.446

Effective Teaching PracticesK-State (N = 1320) 38.5 13.0 .36 16 28 40 48 60

2025 Peers 38.1 12.9 .13 16 28 40 48 60 11,202 .4 .261 .033

Carnegie Class 38.8 13.4 .05 16 28 40 48 60 68,419 -.4 .338 -.027

All NSSE 40.2 13.9 .02 16 32 40 52 60 1,331 -1.7 .000 -.126

Top 50% 42.7 13.7 .04 20 32 44 56 60 1,358 -4.2 .000 -.309

Top 10% 44.5 13.4 .09 20 36 44 56 60 1,489 -6.0 .000 -.450

Campus Environment

Quality of InteractionsK-State (N = 1166) 44.6 11.0 .32 24 38 46 52 60

2025 Peers 43.1 10.7 .11 24 36 44 50 60 9,848 1.5 .000 .140

Carnegie Class 41.1 11.8 .05 20 34 42 50 60 1,219 3.4 .000 .290

All NSSE 42.6 12.0 .02 20 36 44 52 60 1,177 2.0 .000 .166

Top 50% 45.3 11.5 .04 24 40 48 54 60 1,198 -.8 .016 -.068

Top 10% 46.9 11.9 .07 24 40 50 56 60 1,276 -2.3 .000 -.197

Supportive EnvironmentK-State (N = 1134) 35.8 13.0 .39 15 28 38 45 58

2025 Peers 33.6 13.1 .14 13 25 34 43 58 9,760 2.2 .000 .171

Carnegie Class 33.1 13.9 .06 10 23 33 43 60 1,184 2.8 .000 .198

All NSSE 32.8 14.4 .03 10 23 33 43 60 1,145 3.0 .000 .209

Top 50% 35.7 13.9 .04 13 25 35 45 60 1,163 .1 .727 .010

Top 10% 38.1 13.9 .10 15 28 40 48 60 1,286 -2.2 .000 -.161

IPEDS: 155399

a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).

b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.

c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI (equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 x SEM)

is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean.

d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall.

e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t -tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.

f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.

g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.


nsse 2016 engagement indicators - kansas state university€¦ · 36.1 -.01 38.1 -.15 39.8 -.26...

Documents