NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
About This Report
About Your Engagement Indicators Report
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.
Theme
Engagement Indicator
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning with Peers
Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
Campus Environment
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
Report sections
Overview (p. 3)
Displays how average EI scores for your first-year and senior students compare with those of students at
your comparison group institutions.
Theme Reports (pp. 4-13)
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:
Mean Comparisons
Straightforward comparisons of average scores between your students and those at comparison group
institutions, with tests of significance and effect sizes (see below).
Score Distributions
Box-and-whisker charts show the variation in scores within your institution and comparison groups.
Summary of Indicator Items
Responses to each item in a given EI are displayed for your institution and comparison groups.
Comparisons with HighPerforming 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 2013 and 2014 participating institutions.
Detailed Statistics (pp. 16-19)
Detailed information about EI score means, distributions, and tests of statistical significance.
Interpreting comparisons
Mean comparisons report both statistical significance and effect size. Effect size indicates the practical importance of an observed
difference. An effect size of .2 is generally considered small, .5 medium, and .8 large. 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.
How Engagement Indicators are computed
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 Web site: nsse.iub.edu
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Overview
Hope College
Engagement Indicators: Overview
Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on sets of NSSE questions examining key dimensions of student engagement.
The ten indicators are organized within four 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:
▲ 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
Higher-Order Learning
Academic
Challenge
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning with
Peers
Collaborative Learning
Experiences
with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Campus
Environment
Quality of Interactions
Discussions with Diverse Others
Effective Teaching Practices
Supportive Environment
Seniors
Theme
Engagement Indicator
Higher-Order Learning
Academic
Challenge
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning with
Peers
Collaborative Learning
Experiences
with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Campus
Environment
Quality of Interactions
Discussions with Diverse Others
Effective Teaching Practices
Supportive Environment
Your first-year students
compared with
Your first-year students
compared with
Your first-year students
compared with
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
▽
▽
NSSE 2013 & 2014
▲
▼
△
▼
---
--
▲
▼
△
--
▲
△
-----
▲
△
---
▽
△
-----
--
Your seniors
compared with
Your seniors
compared with
Your seniors
compared with
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
---
▽
--
△
▼
▲
--
△
△
▽
-▽
▽
--
▼
---
△
--
--
△
▽
▽
△
▼
▲
△
△
△
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
Hope College
Academic Challenge: First-year students
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.
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
Higher-Order Learning
39.5
40.3
-.06
41.2 *
-.13
39.0
.03
Reflective & Integrative Learning
35.9
36.7
-.07
37.8 **
-.16
35.6
.02
Learning Strategies
40.0
40.1
-.01
40.4
-.02
39.5
.04
Quantitative Reasoning
28.0
27.0
.07
28.0
.00
27.4
.04
Hope
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
Higher-Order Learning
Reflective & Integrative Learning
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
Hope
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Hope
Learning Strategies
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Quantitative Reasoning
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.
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
Hope College
Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)
Summary of Indicator Items
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
%
%
%
%
4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations
81
75
77
73
4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts
78
76
78
72
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source
66
73
76
70
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information
66
73
74
69
2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments
52
57
59
56
2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues
56
56
60
53
2c. Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course
discussions or assignments
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue
58
55
59
50
60
65
68
63
2e. Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from
his or her perspective
2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept
65
68
70
66
70
67
71
65
2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge
85
80
82
77
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments
83
83
87
80
9b. Reviewed your notes after class
65
65
64
65
9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials
64
64
64
63
52
50
52
52
40
37
39
38
36
36
40
37
Higher-Order Learning
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…
Hope
NSSE 2013 &
2014
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
Learning Strategies
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
Quantitative Reasoning
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
6a. Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers,
graphs, statistics, etc.)
6b. Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment,
climate change, public health, etc.)
6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information
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
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
Hope College
Academic Challenge: Seniors
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.
Mean Comparisons
Hope
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Great Lakes Private
Effect
Mean
size
Higher-Order Learning
40.6
42.2
-.12
Reflective & Integrative Learning
40.9
40.2
.06
Learning Strategies
36.6
40.0 ***
Quantitative Reasoning
27.6
29.6
Your seniors compared with
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
43.0 **
-.18
41.2
-.04
41.4
-.04
38.9 **
.15
-.23
39.8 ***
-.22
40.3 ***
-.25
-.12
30.7 **
-.18
29.9 *
-.14
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
Higher-Order Learning
Reflective & Integrative Learning
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
Hope
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Hope
Learning Strategies
Great Lakes Private
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Quantitative Reasoning
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.
NSSE 2014 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 3
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
Hope College
Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued)
Summary of Indicator Items
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
%
%
%
%
4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations
83
81
81
80
4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts
78
80
82
78
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source
71
76
78
72
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information
71
76
78
72
2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments
78
73
76
72
2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues
73
68
71
64
2c. Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course
discussions or assignments
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue
63
62
64
55
72
71
72
66
2e. Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from
his or her perspective
2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept
71
73
75
70
75
72
76
70
2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge
91
86
88
84
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments
87
84
88
83
9b. Reviewed your notes after class
48
61
56
63
9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials
58
65
63
66
49
53
54
55
39
44
45
45
43
44
49
44
Higher-Order Learning
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…
Hope
NSSE 2013 &
2014
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
Learning Strategies
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
Quantitative Reasoning
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
6a. Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers,
graphs, statistics, etc.)
6b. Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment,
climate change, public health, etc.)
6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information
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.
4 • NSSE 2014 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Higher-Order Learning
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
1.2%
40%
20%
0%
Higher-Order Learning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
12.5
13.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.56
60%
Mean
39.5
39.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
71.2%
20%
0%
SD
12.5
13.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-1.38
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
8.3%
0%
Higher-Order Learning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
12.5
13.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-4.05
60%
Mean
39.5
42.7
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
12.6
14.1
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.66
60%
Mean
40.6
41.2
25.4%
80% 74.6%
40%
20%
0%
Higher-Order Learning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
12.6
13.7
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-3.00
60%
Hope
Group
40%
0.2%
80% 99.8%
Higher-Order Learning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
8
3
8.3%
80% 91.7%
20%
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
40.6
43.3
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.1%
8.3%
Mean
39.5
40.6
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.88
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
25.4%
Higher-Order Learning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
8
2
71.2%
80% 28.8%
40%
Mean
40.6
43.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.2%
71.2%
Hope
Group
SD
12.6
12.9
Hope
Group
0.2%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.25
1.2%
80% 98.8%
25.4%
100%
1.2%
Mean
39.5
41.2
Higher-Order Learning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
8
4
0.1%
80% 99.9%
40%
20%
0%
0.1%
SD
12.5
13.0
Hope
Group
SNSUM
8
1
Higher-Order Learning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
12.6
13.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-5.32
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
40.6
45.3
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
0.0%
Higher-Order Learning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Reflective & Integrative Learning
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.3%
40%
20%
0%
Reflective & Integrative Learning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
11.9
12.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.38
60%
Mean
35.9
35.6
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
64.7%
20%
0%
SD
11.9
12.5
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.01
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
2.2%
20%
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
11.9
12.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-4.70
60%
Mean
35.9
39.3
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
11.8
13.0
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
2.39
60%
Mean
40.9
38.9
80%
99.2%
0.8%
40%
20%
0%
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
11.8
12.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.22
60%
Hope
Group
40%
25.8%
80% 74.2%
Reflective & Integrative Learning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
2.2%
80% 97.8%
0%
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
40.9
41.1
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
41.3%
2.2%
Mean
35.9
37.3
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.65
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
99.2%
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
64.7%
80% 35.3%
40%
Mean
40.9
41.4
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
25.8%
64.7%
Hope
Group
SD
11.8
12.4
Hope
Group
25.8%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.77
0.3%
80% 99.7%
99.2%
100%
0.3%
Mean
35.9
37.8
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
41.3%
80% 58.7%
40%
20%
41.3%
SD
11.9
12.1
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
0%
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
11.8
12.5
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.76
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
40.9
43.1
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.3%
0.3%
80% 99.7%
40%
20%
0%
0.3%
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Learning Strategies
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
34.4%
40%
20%
0%
Learning Strategies
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
13.6
14.2
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.69
60%
Mean
40.0
39.5
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
75.6%
20%
0%
SD
13.6
14.0
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-1.41
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
8.0%
20%
Learning Strategies
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
13.6
14.0
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-4.04
60%
Mean
40.0
43.4
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
13.3
14.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-3.85
60%
Mean
36.6
40.3
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
Learning Strategies
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
13.3
14.5
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-6.19
60%
Hope
Group
40%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
Learning Strategies
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
8.0%
80% 92.0%
0%
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
36.6
42.5
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
8.0%
Mean
40.0
41.2
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-3.42
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
Learning Strategies
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
75.6%
80% 24.4%
40%
Mean
36.6
39.8
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
75.6%
Hope
Group
SD
13.3
14.1
Hope
Group
0.0%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.40
34.4%
80% 65.6%
0.0%
100%
34.4%
Mean
40.0
40.4
Learning Strategies
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
0.0%
SD
13.6
13.6
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
Learning Strategies
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
13.3
14.1
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-8.96
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
36.6
44.9
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
0.0%
Learning Strategies
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Quantitative Reasoning
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
49.2%
40%
20%
SD
15.0
16.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.71
60%
Mean
28.0
27.4
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
76.1%
76.1%
80% 23.9%
40%
20%
0%
SD
15.0
16.3
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.80
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
21.1%
0%
Quantitative Reasoning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
15.0
16.2
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.77
60%
Mean
28.0
30.6
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.3%
0.3%
80% 99.7%
40%
20%
0%
Prepared by Hope College Office of Institutional Research
2/24/2015
0.3%
Hope
Group
40%
20%
0%
SD
16.8
17.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.13
60%
Mean
27.6
29.9
1.7%
80% 98.3%
40%
20%
0%
Quantitative Reasoning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
16.8
17.2
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-3.43
60%
Hope
Group
40%
0.2%
80% 99.8%
Quantitative Reasoning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
21.1%
80% 78.9%
20%
60%
Hope
Group
21.1%
Mean
28.0
28.8
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.82
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
1.7%
Quantitative Reasoning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
76.1%
Hope
Group
Mean
27.6
30.7
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.2%
0%
Quantitative Reasoning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
16.8
17.8
Hope
Group
0.2%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.02
49.2%
80% 50.8%
1.7%
100%
49.2%
Mean
28.0
28.0
Quantitative Reasoning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
Mean
27.6
31.3
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
SNSUM
#
4
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
0.0%
SD
15.0
16.2
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
Quantitative Reasoning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
16.8
16.9
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-5.07
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
27.6
33.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
0.0%
Quantitative Reasoning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Learning with Peers
Hope College
Learning with Peers: First-year students
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.
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
Collaborative Learning
36.6
32.2 ***
.31
34.5 **
.15
32.1 ***
.32
Discussions with Diverse Others
35.6
41.3 ***
-.37
43.1 ***
-.53
40.9 ***
-.33
Hope
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
Collaborative Learning
60
Discussions with Diverse Others
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
Collaborative Learning
Hope
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
NSSE 2013 &
2014
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
%
%
%
%
1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material
63
49
56
49
1f. Explained course material to one or more students
62
57
62
57
1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students
59
48
56
49
1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments
67
55
57
52
8a. People from a race or ethnicity other than your own
55
72
75
72
8b. People from an economic background other than your own
69
75
79
73
8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own
49
69
74
69
8d. People with political views other than your own
54
69
71
69
Discussions with Diverse Others
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…
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
Learning with Peers
Hope College
Learning with Peers: Seniors
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.
Mean Comparisons
Hope
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Great Lakes Private
Effect
Mean
size
Collaborative Learning
35.6
32.9 **
.20
Discussions with Diverse Others
35.5
41.8 ***
-.42
Your seniors compared with
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
35.0
42.2 ***
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
.05
32.4 ***
.22
-.46
41.8 ***
-.39
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
Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
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
Collaborative Learning
Hope
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
NSSE 2013 &
2014
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
%
%
%
%
1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material
54
41
47
40
1f. Explained course material to one or more students
67
60
66
58
1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students
56
46
54
46
1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments
68
66
66
64
8a. People from a race or ethnicity other than your own
51
72
71
73
8b. People from an economic background other than your own
62
75
77
75
8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own
51
69
72
70
8d. People with political views other than your own
67
72
69
71
Discussions with Diverse Others
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…
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
Collaborative Learning
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
99.6%
40%
20%
0%
SD
13.5
14.1
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
5.64
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
100.0%
80%
0.0%
40%
0%
SD
13.5
13.7
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
2.44
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
99.3%
Collaborative Learning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
13.5
13.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.56
60%
Mean
36.6
37.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
28.9%
28.9%
80% 71.1%
40%
20%
0%
Prepared by Hope College Office of Institutional Research
2/24/2015
28.9%
Hope
Group
Mean
35.6
32.4
20%
0%
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
3.56
60%
80%
40%
100.0%
0.0%
20%
0%
Collaborative Learning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
Mean
35.6
35.4
SD
13.4
13.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.30
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
61.9%
0%
40%
SD
13.4
14.6
Hope
Group
20%
77.0%
80% 23.0%
Collaborative Learning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
99.3%
80%
0.7%
40%
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
99.3%
Mean
36.6
34.7
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.74
Hope
Group
20%
Collaborative Learning
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
100.0%
Mean
36.6
32.1
Mean
35.6
35.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
77.0%
Collaborative Learning
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
SD
13.4
13.7
Hope
Group
77.0%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
2.67
99.6%
80%
0.4%
100.0%
100%
99.6%
Mean
36.6
34.5
Collaborative Learning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
61.9%
80% 38.1%
40%
20%
61.9%
SD
13.5
13.4
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
0%
Collaborative Learning
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
13.4
13.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.45
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
35.6
37.7
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.7%
0.7%
80% 99.3%
40%
20%
0%
0.7%
Collaborative Learning
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Discussions with Diverse Others
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
40%
20%
0%
Discussions with Diverse Others
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
14.0
16.0
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-5.63
60%
Mean
35.6
40.9
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
20%
SD
14.0
15.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-8.42
60%
Mean
35.6
43.2
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
20%
Discussions with Diverse Others
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
14.0
14.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-11.46
60%
Mean
35.6
45.6
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
12.6
16.1
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-6.11
60%
Mean
35.5
41.8
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
Discussions with Diverse Others
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
12.6
15.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-8.28
60%
Hope
Group
40%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
Discussions with Diverse Others
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
0.0%
80% 100.0%
0%
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
Mean
35.5
43.9
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
Hope
Group
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-7.05
Hope
Group
40%
Discussions with Diverse Others
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
100%
SNSUM
#
2
0.0%
80% 100.0%
0%
Mean
35.5
42.2
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
Hope
Group
SD
12.6
14.6
Hope
Group
0.0%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-8.92
0.0%
80% 100.0%
0.0%
100%
0.0%
Mean
35.6
43.1
Discussions with Diverse Others
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
0.0%
SD
14.0
14.3
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
Discussions with Diverse Others
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
12.6
15.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-10.41
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
35.5
45.8
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.0%
0.0%
80% 100.0%
40%
20%
0%
0.0%
Discussions with Diverse Others
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
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
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Campus Environment
Hope College
Campus Environment: First-year students
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 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
Quality of Interactions
47.2
43.2 ***
.35
43.9 ***
.30
41.5 ***
.46
Supportive Environment
40.7
37.7 ***
.21
39.8
.07
37.3 ***
.24
Hope
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
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
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
Quality of Interactions
Hope
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
NSSE 2013 &
2014
%
%
%
%
13a. Students
78
64
64
59
13b. Academic advisors
63
52
53
48
13c. Faculty
63
57
61
50
13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.)
62
46
49
43
13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.)
61
46
47
41
14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically
84
81
83
78
14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.)
87
80
82
78
14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)
61
63
62
59
14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially
85
74
77
73
Percentage rating a 6 or 7 on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent" their interactions with…
Supportive Environment
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…
14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)
84
71
77
72
14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)
50
44
46
44
14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.)
79
67
73
68
14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues
58
55
65
53
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
Campus Environment
Hope College
Campus Environment: Seniors
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 Comparisons
Hope
Your seniors compared with
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Great Lakes Private
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Quality of Interactions
45.9
43.9 ***
.18
44.3 **
.15
42.5 ***
.29
Supportive Environment
36.7
33.9 ***
.20
36.6
.01
33.3 ***
.24
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
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
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
Quality of Interactions
Hope
Great Lakes
Private
Carnegie
Class
NSSE 2013 &
2014
%
%
%
%
13a. Students
69
66
65
64
13b. Academic advisors
66
58
63
52
13c. Faculty
79
66
70
60
13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.)
49
44
43
42
13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.)
43
45
41
42
14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically
83
76
80
72
14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.)
79
70
74
67
14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)
43
56
54
53
14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially
79
67
73
66
Percentage rating a 6 or 7 on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent" their interactions with…
Supportive Environment
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…
14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)
77
61
70
63
14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)
30
33
34
32
14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.)
77
57
68
57
14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues
53
49
60
46
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
This page intentionally left blank.
NSSE 2014 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 3
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Quality of Interactions
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
40%
20%
0%
SD
9.5
12.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
7.64
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
100.0%
80%
0.0%
40%
0%
SD
9.5
11.4
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
4.73
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
Quality of Interactions
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
9.5
11.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
1.73
60%
Mean
47.2
46.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
95.8%
95.8%
80%
4.2%
40%
20%
0%
Prepared by Hope College Office of Institutional Research
2/24/2015
95.8%
Hope
Group
Mean
45.9
42.5
99.1%
0.9%
20%
0%
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
4.40
60%
80%
40%
100.0%
0.0%
20%
0%
Quality of Interactions
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
Mean
45.9
45.3
SD
9.0
11.3
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.87
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
80.8%
0%
40%
SD
9.0
11.9
Hope
Group
20%
80%
Quality of Interactions
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
100.0%
80%
0.0%
40%
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
100.0%
Mean
47.2
44.0
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
2.36
Hope
Group
20%
Quality of Interactions
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
100.0%
Mean
47.2
41.5
Mean
45.9
44.3
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
99.1%
Quality of Interactions
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
SD
9.0
10.4
Hope
Group
99.1%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
4.94
100.0%
80%
0.0%
100.0%
100%
100.0%
Mean
47.2
43.9
Quality of Interactions
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
80.8%
80% 19.2%
40%
80.8%
SD
9.5
11.1
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
20%
0%
Quality of Interactions
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
9.0
11.6
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-1.93
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
45.9
47.4
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
2.7%
2.7%
80% 97.3%
40%
20%
0%
2.7%
Quality of Interactions
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope College 2014 Engagement Indicators
Supportive Environment
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
86.9%
40%
20%
0%
SD
11.3
13.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
3.96
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
100.0%
80%
0.0%
40%
0%
SD
11.3
13.2
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
1.55
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
94.0%
Supportive Environment
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
SD
11.3
12.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-0.90
60%
Mean
40.7
41.4
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
18.5%
18.5%
80% 81.5%
40%
20%
0%
Prepared by Hope College Office of Institutional Research
2/24/2015
18.5%
Hope
Group
Mean
36.7
33.3
20%
0%
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
3.67
60%
80%
40%
100.0%
0.0%
20%
0%
Supportive Environment
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
Mean
36.7
36.1
SD
11.8
13.8
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.72
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
76.3%
0%
40%
SD
11.8
14.4
Hope
Group
20%
56.6%
80% 43.4%
Supportive Environment
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
3
94.0%
80%
6.0%
40%
60%
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
100.0%
94.0%
Mean
40.7
39.4
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
0.17
Hope
Group
20%
Supportive Environment
Top 50%
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
100%
SNSUM
#
2
100.0%
Mean
40.7
37.3
Mean
36.7
36.6
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
56.6%
Supportive Environment
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Hope
Group
SD
11.8
13.0
Hope
Group
56.6%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
1.12
86.9%
80% 13.1%
100.0%
100%
86.9%
Mean
40.7
39.8
Supportive Environment
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SNSUM
#
4
76.3%
80% 23.7%
40%
20%
76.3%
SD
11.3
12.9
Hope
Group
SNSUM
#
1
0%
Supportive Environment
Top 10%
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
SD
11.8
13.3
100%
Group Mean Standard Deviations
of Hope Mean from Group Mean
-2.55
60%
Hope
Group
Mean
36.7
39.0
Hope Mean Percentile
of Group Mean Distribution
0.5%
0.5%
80% 99.5%
40%
20%
0%
0.5%
Supportive Environment
Carnegie Class
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students