Interim President’s Comments  Budget Update FY12  Proposed Budgets (Governor/House/Senate)  FY12 Budget – Preliminary Analysis Vice Presidents’ and Provost Office Updates Na8onal Survey of Student Engagement Results Budget Update FY11 Budget Update FY11 General Fund State AppropriaAons FY09 (July 1, 2008) = $98 M FY10 (July 1, 2009) = $83 M FY11 (July 1, 2010) = $79 M Total Loss = $19 M •  However, since July 1, 2008, total state appropriaAons have been reduced by $23 M (which includes general fund and all special line-­‐item appropriaAons) Status of FY 2012 General Fund State Appropria8ons as of March 9, 2011 FY 11 State Appropria8ons (Excludes Line-­‐Items)
Governor’s Proposed FY 2012 Budget: • Loss of 1-­‐Ame appropriaAons in FY 2011
• 6.0% Reversion Subtotal – A]er Governor’s Budget Proposal
• AddiAonal Reversion – House Target Total – As of House Target on 3/9/11 Percentage Reduced From FY 11 Total $ 79.0 M $ 1.5 M $ 4.6 M $ 72.9 M $ 1.1 M $ 71.8 M (9.1 %) FY 11 Line-­‐Item Appropria8ons* • 6.0% Reversion • House Target-­‐ Economic Development Total – As of House Target on 3/9/11 Percentage Reduced From FY 11 Total $ 2.7 M $ 0.2 M $ 0.3 M $ 2.2 M (18.5 %) Footnote: * Line-­‐Items include InsAtute for Decision Making, RRTTC, Metal CasAng Center, Real Estate EducaAon, MyEntre.net, and Iowa MathemaAcs and Science EducaAon Partnership (IMSEP) FY12 Budget Variables   Salary & Fringe Benefits: To be determined by Arbitrator by March 15   FY12 TuiAon: To be determined by Board of Regents on March 23   State AppropriaAons: To be determined in April/May/ or ?   Current status: Governor: -­‐6% House: -­‐9.1% Senate: Unknown Conference Commigee: Unknown   Enrollment: Summer and Fall 2011   Unavoidable Cost Increases NSSE: Overview, Data Highlights and Uses at UNI Donna Vinton Jon Buse April Chatham-­‐Carpenter Overview:
NSSE Basics and
NSSE at UNI
What is Student Engagement? •  What students do -­‐-­‐ Ame and energy devoted to studies and other educaAonally purposeful acAviAes •  What ins*tu*ons do -­‐-­‐ using resources and effecAve educaAonal pracAces to induce students to do the right things •  Research background includes –  Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles of good pracAce in undergraduate educaAon (1987) –  Pascarella and Terenzini’s review of over 5000 studies on how college affects students (2005), and –  Kuh and colleague’s study of insAtuAonal policies, programs, and pracAces that promote student success (2005) NSSE Background •  Launched with grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts in 1999, supported by insAtuAonal parAcipaAon fees since 2002. •  More than 2,395,000 students from over 1,400 colleges and universiAes have parAcipated to date. •  InsAtuAon types, sizes, and locaAons represented in NSSE are largely representaAve of U.S. baccalaureate insAtuAons. Year
Institutions
2001
321
2002
367
2003
437
2004
473
2005
529
2006
557
2007
610
2008
769
2009
640
2010
595
UNI Response Rates for NSSE Year Response Rate Number of Responses 2006 35% 504 2007 33% 969 2008 38% 1086 2009 25% 929 2010 31% 1182 • Random samples of the FY and senior populaAons were used from 2006-­‐2009 • The enAre populaAon of first-­‐year and senior students fimng NSSE definiAons for these categories was included beginning in 2010. NSSE Data Include: •  First-­‐year & senior responses to individual quesAons •  Mean scores for benchmark areas •  AddiAonal data from ConsorAum parAcipaAon—American Democracy Project (2006-­‐2008) and the ConsorAum for the Study of WriAng in College (2009, 2010) •  Comparisons of data for UNI with selected comparison groups, both for individual quesAons and for benchmark scores Comparison Groups •  A group must include a minimum of six ins8tu8ons. •  Comparison groups vary from year to year depending upon which insAtuAons are administering NSSE in a given year. •  If Consor8um quesAons are included with the survey, one of the comparison groups will consist of insAtuAons that have joined the cohort. •  Op8ons we have used to create comparison groups: •  UNI peer insAtuAons (2007, 2008, 2010) •  Selected Carnegie peers (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) •  FoE insAtuAons similar to UNI (2009) Uses of NSSE Data at UNI •  PreparaAon of the HLC reaccreditaAon self-­‐study •  Assessment of learning in the Liberal Arts Core •  Key performance indicators for the Student Affairs Division •  Academic Advising assessment plan •  Voluntary System of Accountability College Portrait •  Strategic Plan Ins8tu8onal Indicator (level of academic challenge) •  Performance indicators for the Diversity Council •  Founda8ons of Excellence (study of the first-­‐year at UNI) •  First-­‐year learning outcomes assessment plan (in process) NSSE 2010: Selected UNI Results
Benchmarks: NSSE Indicators of EffecAve EducaAonal PracAce Active &
Collaborative
Learning
Level of Academic
Challenge
Enriching
Educational
Experiences
Student – Faculty
Interaction
Supportive Campus
Environment
CalculaAng Benchmark Scores •  Create comparable response sets •  Weight for gender and enrollment status by class •  Adjust for part-­‐Ame student respondents •  Aggregate benchmarks at the insAtuAonal level Effect Size Effect size indicates the practical significance of the mean
difference.
It is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the pooled
standard deviation.
In practice, an effect size of .2 is often considered small, .5
moderate, and .8 large.
A positive sign indicates that your institution’s mean was
greater, thus showing an affirmative result for the institution.
A negative sign indicates the institution lags behind the
comparison group, suggesting that the student behavior or
institutional practice represented by the item may warrant
attention.
Level of Academic Challenge •  Challenging intellectual and crea8ve work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. •  InsAtuAons promote high levels of achievement by semng high expecta8ons for student performance. •  11 items include:   Preparing for class   Reading and wriAng   Using higher-­‐order thinking skills   InsAtuAonal environment that emphasizes academic work Level of Academic Challenge First-Year
Senior
100
100
50.4
51.9 52.0
51.7 (-­‐.11) (-­‐.11) (-­‐.09) 56.4 56.2 55.9 55.9 (.01) (.04) (.04) 75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0
UNI
Writing Consortium
Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
UNI
Writing Consortium
Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
22 AcAve and CollaboraAve Learning •  Students learn more when they are more intensely involved in their educaAon. •  Collabora8ng with others prepares students to handle pracAcal, real-­‐world problems. •  7 items include:   Asking quesAons in class   Making presentaAons   Working with other students on projects   Discussing ideas from readings or classes with others AcAve and CollaboraAve Learning Senior
First-Year
100
100
39.2 41.2 40.1 41.6 (-­‐.13) (-­‐.06) (-­‐.15) 49.8
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0
UNI
Writing Consortium Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
UNI
51.2
(-.08)
51.5
(-.10)
Writing Consortium Carnegie Peers
49.8
( .00)
UNI Peers
24 Student InteracAons with Faculty •  Interac8ng with experts shows students first-­‐hand how to think about and solve prac8cal problems. •  Teachers become role models and mentors for learning. •  6 items include:   Discussing assignments with a professor   Talking about career plans with a faculty member or advisor   Gemng prompt feedback on academic performance   Working with a faculty member on a research project Student-­‐Faculty InteracAon First-Year
100
28.2
↓
34.1
(-.33)
Senior
100
34.6
(-.37)
40.3
32.3
(-.24)
41.9
(-.08)
42.7
(-.12)
39.8
(.02)
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0
UNI
UNI
Writing Consortium Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
Writing Consortium
Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
26 Enriching EducaAonal Experiences •  Learning opportuni8es that complement the goals of the academic program. •  Provide opportuniAes to integrate and apply knowledge. •  11 items include:   Experiencing diversity   Using technology   ParAcipaAng in internships   CulminaAng senior experience Enriching EducaAonal Experiences First-Year
Senior
100
100
21.8 25.9 25.2 27.2 ↓ (-­‐.33) (-­‐.26) (-­‐.44) 40.3
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0
UNI
Writing Consortium Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
UNI
38.5
(.11)
37.5
(.17)
Writing Consortium Carnegie Peers
37.9
(.14)
UNI Peers
28 SupporAve Campus Environment •  Students perform beger and are more saAsfied at colleges that are commi`ed to their success. •  Does the insAtuAon culAvate posi8ve working and social rela8onships among different groups on campus? •  6 items include:   Helping students achieve academically   Helping students cope with non-­‐academic responsibiliAes   PromoAng supporAve relaAonships between students and peers, faculty, and administraAve personnel SupporAve Campus Environment Senior
First-Year
100
100
75
75
50
50
25
25
61.1 62.5 60.6 60.3 (-­‐.08) (.02) (.04) 60.1
59.5
(.03)
57.6
(.13)
57.6
(.14)
0
0
UNI
Writing Consortium Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
UNI
Writing Consortium Carnegie Peers
UNI Peers
30 Highest and Lowest Benchmark Items •  Five ques8ons on which first-­‐year and senior students scored the highest and the five quesAons on which they scored the lowest, relaAve to students at the comparison group insAtuAons •  Responses counted are those on the high end of scales, e.g.: –  CombinaAon of students responding “very o]en” and “o]en” –  RaAng of at least 5 on a 7-­‐point scale –  CombinaAon of students responding “very much” or “quite a bit” Highest Performing Benchmark Items: 1st Year 2010 Ques8on UNI/ Carnegie Peers/ UNI Peers Read more than 10 assigned books or book-­‐length packs of readings 42% 31% 32% Spent more than 10 hours/week preparing for class 65% 56% 61% Made a class presentaAon 38% 24% 30% Did a pracAcum, internship, field experience, or clinical assignment 10% 7% 7% PosiAvely rated their relaAonships with other students 86% 78% 77% Lowest Performing Benchmark Items: 1st Year 2010 Ques8on UNI/ Carnegie Peers/ UNI Peers Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor 39% 50% 48% Discussed ideas from classes with faculty outside of class 12% 19% 18% Used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment 45% 52% 56% Had serious conversaAons with students of another race or ethnicity 27% 47% 51% Had serious conversaAons with students of other religious or poliAcal values 38% 50% 56% Highest Performing Benchmark Items: Seniors 2010 Ques8on UNI/ Carnegie Peers/ UNI Peers Read more than 10 assigned books or book-­‐
length packs of readings 41% 30% 29% Wrote more than 10 papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages 44% 31% 34% Spent more than 10 hours/week preparing for class 66% 58% 60% Did a pracAcum, internship, field experience, or clinical assignment 57% 48% 44% Completed a culminaAng senior experience 66% 31% 29% Lowest Performing Benchmark Items: Seniors 2010 Ques8on UNI/ Carnegie Peers/ UNI Peers Worked harder than you expected to meet an instructor’s expectaAons 54% 64% 58% Did a community-­‐based project as part of a regular course 12% 20% 18% Had serious conversaAons with students of another race or ethnicity 37% 50% 53% Completed foreign language coursework 31% 32% 37% Said the insAtuAon substanAally encourages contacts among diverse peers 42% 46% 48% NSSE At UNI: Focus on the First Year FoundaAons of Excellence •  Guided, self-­‐study of first college year •  Review of nine dimensions •  NSSE among 200+ sources of data and used extensively in evaluaAng key performance indicators •  Informed development of acAon plan for improving student learning NSSE and FoE •  Lack evidence of systemaAc use of data •  More emphasis on wriAng •  Student-­‐Faculty InteracAon and Enriching EducaAonal Experiences below benchmarks NSSE and FoE, cont’d •  Student-­‐Faculty InteracAon –  Prompt feedback on academic performance –  InteracAon with faculty outside of class •  Enriching EducaAonal Experiences –  Serious conversaAons with students of different race or ethnicity –  Serious conversaAons with students of different religious beliefs, poliAcal opinions, or personal values –  ParAcipate in learning communiAes First-­‐Year Outcomes •  hgp://www.uni.edu/foe/first-­‐year-­‐learning-­‐goals •  How are we doing on these already with current programming & courses? •  NSSE items as one source of data –  Have FoE comparison group data in 2009 FY Outcomes: Example One “By the end of the first year, students will be able to arAculate and examine their personal values.” •  NSSE items: –  ParAcipated in acAviAes to enhance your spirituality –  Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue –  Tried to beger understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his/her perspecAve –  Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept FY Outcomes: Example Two “By the end of the first year, students will take responsibility for their own learning.” •  Example NSSE items: –  Spending significant amounts of Ame studying –  Used e-­‐mail to communicate with an instructor –  Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor –  Talked about career plans with faculty member or advisor –  Worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards Cornerstone • Two-­‐semester, 6-­‐credit course focused on dialogue and applicaAon of criAcal thinking skills • WriAng-­‐ and speaking-­‐intensive • Faculty, student affairs professionals, Academic Learning Center staff, library professionals, and peers • Emphasis on meaningful, frequent faculty-­‐student interacAon in an integrated learning environment FY Outcomes and Cornerstone •  NSSE will be one place we look for data to assess our outcomes. •  Embedded assessment ideas (sAll in progress) –  Rubrics for common assignments –  Student reflecAons on their own work –  Experiment with a student LAC e-­‐porxolio (i.e., ifolio) Questions & Discussion