NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Experiences with Faculty
Hope College
Experiences with Faculty: First-year students
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 Comparisons
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Your first-year students compared with
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Effect
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
size
Mean
size
Student-Faculty Interaction
22.2
21.2
.07
Effective Teaching Practices
40.8
41.7
-.07
Hope
23.5
-.09
20.3 **
.13
42.4 *
-.13
40.2
.05
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean
difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding.
Score Distributions
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
Hope
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Hope
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
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.
Summary of Indicator Items
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
%
%
%
%
Student-Faculty Interaction
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
Hope
NSSE 2013 &
2014
3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member
35
33
36
32
3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)
17
19
22
19
3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class
24
27
33
25
3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member
32
30
36
29
5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements
86
83
85
81
5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way
82
82
84
79
5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points
83
80
82
77
5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress
62
71
72
65
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments
68
69
71
63
Effective Teaching Practices
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…
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 Web site.
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Experiences with Faculty
Hope College
Experiences with Faculty: Seniors
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 Comparisons
Hope
Your seniors compared with
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Great Lakes Private
Effect
Mean
size
Student-Faculty Interaction
31.6
25.9 ***
.35
30.6
.07
Effective Teaching Practices
42.6
42.0
.04
43.4
-.06
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
23.7 ***
.48
40.9 *
.12
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean
difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding.
Score Distributions
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
Hope
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Hope
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
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.
Summary of Indicator Items
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
%
%
%
%
Student-Faculty Interaction
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
Hope
NSSE 2013 &
2014
3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member
67
49
58
42
3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)
43
30
39
26
3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class
51
38
51
33
3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member
38
36
42
33
5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements
87
84
87
83
5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way
88
83
86
81
5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points
85
81
85
79
5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress
74
67
70
62
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments
76
72
76
67
Effective Teaching Practices
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…
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 Web site.
2 • NSSE 2014 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Student-Faculty Interaction
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
5.8%
40%
20%
0%
Student-Faculty Interaction
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
12.5
14.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
2.25
60%
Mean
22.2
20.3
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
98.8%
0%
SD
12.5
15.0
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-1.33
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
9.1%
0%
Student-Faculty Interaction
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
12.5
16.2
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-5.08
60%
Mean
22.2
26.9
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
Prepared by Hope College Office of Institutional Research
2/24/2015
0.0%
Hope
Group
40%
20%
0%
SD
14.5
16.3
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
7.59
60%
Mean
31.6
23.7
80%
40%
100.0%
0.0%
20%
0%
Student-Faculty Interaction
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
14.5
16.1
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
2.04
60%
Hope
Group
40%
85.9%
80% 14.1%
Student-Faculty Interaction
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
9.1%
80% 90.9%
20%
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
Mean
31.6
29.5
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
97.9%
9.1%
Mean
22.2
23.3
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
1.07
Hope
Group
20%
Student-Faculty Interaction
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
98.8%
80%
1.2%
40%
Mean
31.6
30.6
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
85.9%
98.8%
Hope
Group
SD
14.5
15.5
Hope
Group
85.9%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-1.57
5.8%
80% 94.2%
100.0%
100%
5.8%
Mean
22.2
23.5
Student-Faculty Interaction
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
80%
40%
97.9%
2.1%
97.9%
SD
12.5
14.2
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
20%
0%
Student-Faculty Interaction
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
14.5
16.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.64
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
31.6
34.4
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.4%
0.4%
80% 99.6%
40%
20%
0%
0.4%
Student-Faculty Interaction
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Effective Teaching Practices
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
1.0%
40%
20%
0%
Effective Teaching Practices
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
12.0
13.3
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.84
60%
Mean
40.8
40.2
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
80.0%
0%
SD
12.0
13.2
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.06
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
2.0%
20%
Effective Teaching Practices
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
12.0
13.3
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-5.00
60%
Mean
40.8
44.6
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
Prepared by Hope College Office of Institutional Research
2/24/2015
0.0%
Hope
Group
40%
20%
0%
SD
11.3
13.7
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
1.96
60%
Mean
42.6
40.9
80%
40%
97.5%
2.5%
20%
0%
Effective Teaching Practices
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
11.3
13.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.48
60%
Hope
Group
40%
15.9%
80% 84.1%
Effective Teaching Practices
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
2.0%
80% 98.0%
0%
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
97.5%
Mean
42.6
43.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
31.4%
2.0%
Mean
40.8
42.4
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-1.00
Hope
Group
20%
Effective Teaching Practices
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
80.0%
80% 20.0%
40%
Mean
42.6
43.4
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
15.9%
80.0%
Hope
Group
SD
11.3
12.5
Hope
Group
15.9%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.32
1.0%
80% 99.0%
97.5%
100%
1.0%
Mean
40.8
42.4
Effective Teaching Practices
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
31.4%
80% 68.6%
40%
20%
0%
31.4%
SD
12.0
12.3
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
Effective Teaching Practices
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
11.3
13.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.93
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
42.6
45.1
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.2%
0.2%
80% 99.8%
40%
20%
0%
0.2%
Effective Teaching Practices
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students