UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS OF THE PERMIAN BASIN
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
REPORT OF RESULTS
2014
Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Effectiveness
June 16, 2014
i
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)
2014
Executive Summary
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is a required assessment for the University of Texas System (UT
System) general academic institutions as a part of the UT System accountability system. It is a 37-item questionnaire
constructed and administered by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. The survey gathers
information on the nature and quality of educational experiences from a sample of freshman and senior students. UT
Permian Basin is compared to other UT System universities, a selected comparison group that is comprised of a subset of
baseline peers for UT Permian Basin, and participating UT Permian Basin aspirant peer institutions. UT Permian Basin
had an overall response rate of 21.2 percent; a 20 percent response rate for the freshman sample; and a 29 percent
response rate from members of the senior sample.
The NSSE was extensively updated in 2013. Changes ranged from minor revisions to completely new questions. The
items are grouped into ten engagement indicators within four broad categories. Academic Challenge has four indicators
(Higher-Order Learning; Reflective and Integrative Learning; Learning Strategies and Quantitative Reasoning); Learning
with Peers has two indicators (Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others); Experiences with Faculty
has two indicators (Student Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices) and Campus Environment also has two
indicators (Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment). There are also summaries on reading and writing and a
report on enriching activities (learning communities, service-learning, internships and field experiences, research with a
faculty member, study abroad, and culminating senior experiences) called High-Impact Practices.
Highlights for 2014 include:
Both freshmen and seniors at UTPB were significantly less likely to feel they had identified key information from
reading assignments than their counterparts in any of the three comparison groups.
Both UTPB freshmen and seniors reported spending significantly less time on assigned readings when preparing
for class than their peers at the other three comparison groups.
UTPB seniors wrote significantly fewer estimated pages in the current year than all three comparison groups.
UTPB seniors wrote an estimated 50.4 pages in the current year, while baseline peers wrote an estimated 74.1
pages, aspirant peers wrote an estimated 70.3 pages and other UT System seniors wrote an estimated 65.9
pages.
UTPB seniors were significantly less likely than any of the three comparison group seniors to have “tried to better
understand someone else’s views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective.”
Seniors at other UT System institutions spent significantly less time working for pay off campus and significantly
more time preparing for class than UTPB seniors.
UTPB seniors were significantly more likely than the other three comparison groups to indicate that their
instructors gave detailed feedback on drafts and works in progress.

Seniors at UTPB had better relationships with academic advisors, faculty, and other administrators than seniors
at other UT institutions.

From the perspective of UTPB seniors, UTPB places significantly more emphasis on helping them succeed
academically and on learning support services than other UT System institutions or the baseline peer institutions.
UTPB is also seen by its seniors as placing significantly more emphasis on helping them manage their nonacademic responsibilities.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
i

UTPB seniors also felt that the university places significantly more emphasis on attending both activities and
events (art openings, music events, etc.) and attending events addressing important social, economic, or political
issues when compared to the UT System and baseline peer comparison groups.

UTPB freshmen felt that they interacted with faculty significantly less than any of the other three comparison
groups as shown by the Student-Faculty Interaction Engagement Indicator.

UTPB seniors had significantly higher engagement scores when compared to seniors at other UT System
institutions on the Effective Teaching Practices Indicator, the Quality of Interactions Indicator, and the Supportive
Environment Indicator.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... i
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
Learning Strategies and Other Academic Experiences ........................................................ 2
Collaborative Learning and Reflective and Integrated Learning ........................................... 2
Higher Order Thinking ........................................................................................................... 5
Effective Teaching Practices, Student-Faculty Interactions and Writing .............................. 7
Enriching Experiences and Discussion with Diverse Others ................................................ 7
Quality of Interactions, Supportive Environment and Satisfaction ........................................ 7
Time Usage ........................................................................................................................... 12
Educational and Personal Growth ........................................................................................ 12
Engagement Indicators...........................................................................................................15
Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................31
Appendices
A. NSSE 2014 Survey Instrument .................................................................................... 32
B. Comparison Institutions .................................................................................................. 37
C. 2014 Snapshot ............................................................................................................... 39
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
iii
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
2014
Introduction
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is a questionnaire constructed and administered by the Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research. It gathers information on the nature and quality of the educational
experiences of a sample of freshman and senior students at participating institutions. Almost half a million students at
713 colleges and universities participated in the 2014 administration in both the United States and Canada. The general
academic institutions of The University of Texas System (UT System) participate in the NSSE as part of the student
outcome evaluations mandated by The University of Texas System Board of Regents.
The survey invites freshman and senior students to report on the frequency with which they participate in a variety of
behaviors associated with good educational practices. It also gathers student perceptions of elements of the collegiate
environment associated with achievement and student satisfaction. Demographic information such as age, gender, living
arrangements, major, race and ethnicity, and educational status are also included on the instrument.
The NSSE was extensively updated in 2013. Changes ranged from minor revisions to completely new questions. The
questionnaire items are grouped into ten engagement indicators within four broad categories. Academic Challenge has
four indicators (Higher-Order Learning; Reflective and Integrative Learning; Learning Strategies and Quantitative
Reasoning); Learning with Peers has two indicators (Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others);
Experiences with Faculty has two indicators (Student Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices) and Campus
Environment also has two indicators (Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment). There are also summaries on
reading and writing and a report on enriching activities (learning communities, service-learning, internships and field
experiences, research with a faculty member, study abroad, and culminating senior experiences) called High-Impact
Practices.
Extensive research on the instrument indicates that the self-report questionnaire yields consistent information across
different types of institutions and students. The value of self-report information has been studied repeatedly. Self-report
has been shown to yield valid results under five conditions, “(1) the information requested is known to the respondents;
(2) the questions are phrased clearly and unambiguously; (3) the questions refer to recent activities; (4) the respondents
think the questions merit a serious and thoughtful response; and (5) answering the questions does not threaten,
embarrass, or violate the privacy of respondents or encourage respondents to respond in socially desirable ways”
(McCormick, et al, 2009a:2). The NSSE has been constructed to satisfy these conditions. A copy of the complete 2014
questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.
UT Permian Basin Participation
The Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research communicates with freshmen and seniors from lists supplied
by the institution. UT Permian Basin personnel are prohibited from communicating with potential participants. All
communication with the members of the sample is conducted by the Center for Postsecondary Research. For UT
Permian Basin in 2014, 20 percent of freshmen (N=47) and 29 percent of seniors (N=130) participated in the survey. The
UTPB response rates for freshmen and seniors exceeded the response rates of the other participating UT System
institutions, the baseline peers that participated and the aspirant peer institutions that participated. Since however the
total number of participants at UT Permian Basin is relatively small, the sampling error is significantly higher. Participants
were disproportionately female (SR=68%) for the senior sample when compared to the population (SR=57%). In terms of
other attributes, the sample was very similar to the general population of freshmen and seniors. Eighteen (18) senior
respondents and five freshman respondents were taking all of their courses online. It is interesting to note that 43 senior
participants (39%) came from households in which the highest level of education attained by either parent was a high
school diploma or GED. While this percentage is comparable to seniors at other UT institutions (37%); it is a higher
percentage than either of UTPB’s baseline (34%) or aspirant peer groups (33%). UT Permian Basin’s comparison groups
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
1
are the other UT System general academic universities; participating baseline peers, and participating aspirant peer
institutions. Baseline and aspirant peer groups have been negotiated with UT System as standard comparison groups. A
complete listing of the comparison institutions is shown in Appendix B. In the following tables UTPB’s responses are
compared to UT System general academic institutions as a whole and participating baseline peers.
Results
The analysis conducted by the research staff at Indiana University includes frequencies and means for each question for
UT Permian Basin and three comparison groups (UTS, baseline peers, and aspirant peers) and comparisons of means
using a t-test to determine significance. Effect sizes are calculated to yield practical significance estimates. For the
NSSE an effect size of .1 is small, .3 is moderate and .5 and above is large. It also includes the engagement indicators
which assist institutions to understand results along specific data dimensions.
Learning Strategies and Other Academic Experiences
There are three questions in the Learning Strategies Indicator as shown in Table 1. In 2014, there was one significant
finding for UTPB seniors and freshmen. Both UTPB groups felt that they were significantly less likely to have “identified
key information from reading assignments” when compared to all of the comparison groups. UTPB seniors and freshmen
had comparable responses on the other two questions.
In the other academic experiences, seniors and freshmen at UTPB were not significantly different from seniors or
freshmen in the comparison groups on any of the questions.
Collaborative Learning and Reflective and Integrative Learning
The Collaborative Learning Indicator and Reflective and Integrative Learning Indicator questions and responses are
shown in Table 2. UTPB seniors were not significantly different from any of the comparison group seniors on any of the
items in the Collaborative Learning Indicator.
Like last year, in the Reflective and Integrative Learning Indicator questions, UTPB seniors were significantly less likely
than the baseline peers to have “included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments”. UTPB
seniors were are also significantly less likely than either UT System seniors or baseline peer seniors to have “tried to
understand another’s views by imagining the issue from his perspective.”
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
2
Table 1: Learning Strategies and Other Academic Challenge
Mean Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior
Responses 2010
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior Responses
2011
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior Responses
2012
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior Responses
2013
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2014
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Learning Strategies Indicator
Question: During the current school year, about how often have you done the following? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often
Identified key information from
reading assignments
Reviewed your notes after class
Summarized what you learned in
class or from course materials
Other Academic Experiences
3.2
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.3*
3.0
3.4**
3.1
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
Question: During the current school year, about how often have you done the following? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often
Asked questions in class or
contributed to class discussions
Gave a class presentation
Came to class without completing
readings or assignments
(Reverse Coded)
3.09
3.08
2.91
2.70***
3.18
2.91
2.95
2.83
2.95
2.74
3.05
2.78
3.02
2.61
2.95
2.70
3.20
2.66
3.1
2.6
3.0
2.6
3.2
2.6
3.1
2.6
3.0
2.6
3.2
2.6
2.00
2.17
1.99
1.93
2.06
2.05
2.15
2.00
1.95*
3.0
3.0
3.1*
3.1
3.0
3.2
2.74
2.55
2.66
2.44
2.65
2.56
2.41
2.64*
2.60
2.6
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.7*
1.60
1.99*** 1.98**
1.70
1.95*
1.89
1.61
1.89**
1.93**
1.8
1.8
During the current school year, to what extent have your courses challenged you to do your best work? 1= Not at all, 7= Very much
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
Academic challenge of courses
5.8
5.9
5.8
5.9
Prepared two or more drafts of a
paper or assignment
Attended art exhibit, play, dance,
music, theatre or other arts
performance
5.7
5.8
* significant p<0.05
** significant p<0.01
*** significant <p,001 (2-tailed)
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Note:
In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
3
Table 2: Collaborative Learning and Reflective and Integrative Learning Mean
Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior
Responses 2010
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior Responses
2010
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2011
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior Responses
2012
UTPB
UTS
Mean Senior Responses
2013
Peers
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Collaborative Learning Indicator
Question: During the current year, about how often have you done the following? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often
Asked another student to help you
understand course material
Explained material to 1 or more students
2.5
2.8
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.8
2.4
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.3
2.7
Prepared for exams by discussing
material with other students
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.3
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.7***
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.0
Worked with other students on course
projects or assignments
Reflective and Integrative Learning Indicator
Combined ideas from different courses
or assignments
Connected learning to societal
problems or issues
Included diverse perspectives in class
discussions or writing assignments
Examined strengths and weaknesses of
your view on a topic or issue
Tried to understand another's views by
imagining issue from his perspective
Learned something that changed how
you understand an issue/ concept
Connected ideas from courses to your
experiences and knowledge
*significant p<0.05 (2-tailed)
** significant p<0.01 (2-tailed)
*** significant p<0.001 (2-tailed)
2.66
2.76
2.86
2.86
2.75
2.99
2.84
2.77
2.89
2.5
2.5
2.7*
2.5
2.5
2.7* *
2.62
2.63
2.68
2.72
2.61
2.70
2.46
2.66
2.75**
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.80
2.83
2.74
2.81
2.87
2.63
2.84*
2.88*
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.9**
3.0***
2.89
2.90
2.83
2.86
2.89
2.78
2.91
2.90
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.3
2.88
2.94
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014
Note: In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
4
Higher Order Thinking
Higher order thinking is roughly equivalent to UTPB’s definition of critical thinking in the Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP). As defined for the QEP, critical thinking is, “thinking that attempts to arrive at a
decision or judgment through honestly evaluating a position and its alternatives with respect to available
evidence and arguments” (Hatcher and Spencer, 2000). The definition clearly identifies the concepts of
synthesizing and integrating data and ideas, making judgments about the quality or value of information
gathered, and applying the information or concepts as part of critical thinking. Table 3 shows response
information on the questions included in the Higher Order Thinking Indicator. The Quantitative Reasoning
Indicator shows information on the use of numerical skills to make decisions about issues.
In 2014 as in 2013, none of the questions in either of the indicators in Table 3 show significant differences
between UTPB seniors and the seniors at other UT System institutions or baseline peer institutions.
Freshmen at UTPB showed one significant difference with other comparison freshmen on the Higher
Order Thinking questions. They felt they were less likely than baseline peers to have evaluated “a point
of view, decision, or information source. UTPB freshmen were significantly less likely to believe that they
had memorized course material than freshmen in all of the other comparison groups.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
5
Table 3: Higher Order Thinking and Quantitative Reasoning Mean
Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior
Responses 2010
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2011
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2012
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2013
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2014
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Higher Order Thinking Indicator
Question: During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following? 1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
Applying facts, theories, or methods
to practical problems or new
situations
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.2
Analyzing idea, experience, or
reasoning in depth by examining its
parts
Evaluating a point of view, decision,
or information source
Forming a new idea or understanding
from various pieces of information
Other
Memorizing course material
Quantitative Reasoning Indicator
2.90
2.80
2.78
2.78
2.82
2.82
2.80
2.88
2.83
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.1**
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
Question: During the current school year, about how often have you done the following? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often
Reached conclusions based on your
analysis of numerical information
2.6
2.7
2.6
Used numerical information to
examine real problem or issue
2.4
2.4
2.4
Evaluated others conclusions from
numerical information
2.5
2.4
2.4
*significant p<0.05 (2-tailed)
** significant p<0.01 (2-tailed)
*** significant p<0.001 (2-tailed)
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014
Note: In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
6
Effective Teaching Practices, Student-Faculty Interactions and Writing
Shown in Table 4, UTPB seniors indicated two significant differences between UTPB instructors’
practices and those at the comparison institutions. UTPB instructors were viewed by seniors as
significantly more likely to provide “feedback on drafts or works in progress” than instructors at other UT
System institutions or baseline peers. Instructors at UTPB were also seen by seniors as significantly
more likely than instructors at other UT System institutions to provide “prompt and detailed feedback on
tests or assignments.” UTPB freshmen were similar in their responses on effective teaching practices to
the three comparison groups.
UTPB seniors were slightly more likely to have discussed career plans with a faculty member than seniors
at other UT System institutions, but indicated no other significant differences on the Student-Faculty
Interaction Indicator questions. Interestingly, UTPB freshmen were significantly less likely than other UT
System freshmen, baseline peer freshmen and aspirant peer freshmen to have “talked about career plans
with a faculty member,” or “discussed [their] academic performance with a faculty member.”
Writing showed significant differences for UTPB seniors when compared to the comparison groups.
Seniors at UTPB wrote significantly fewer papers of 5 or fewer pages than either the baseline or aspirant
peer seniors. UTPB seniors wrote significantly fewer papers of between 6 and 10 pages and 11 pages or
more than seniors at all of the comparison groups. UTPB seniors also wrote significantly fewer estimated
number of pages than among all other comparison groups.
Enriching Experiences and Discussion with Diverse Others
Enriching Experiences questions in Table 5 indicates only one significant differences for UTPB seniors,
and one for UTPB freshmen. UTPB seniors have had significantly fewer courses with a service learning
component than either the baseline or aspirant peer seniors. UTPB seniors are significantly more likely to
have had a culminating senior experience than seniors in any other comparison group.
Freshmen showed only one unsurprising significant difference from their baseline peers. They were less
likely to have or plan to participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups
of students take two or more classes together.
Quality of Interactions, Supportive Environment, and Satisfaction
Table 6 shows that UTPB seniors have significantly higher quality interactions with academic advisors,
faculty, and administrative staff and offices than seniors at other UT institutions. UTPB freshmen indicate
significantly lower quality relationships with academic advisors than do freshmen at any of the other
comparison group institutions. They also indicate significantly lower quality relationships with faculty than
freshmen at either baseline or aspirant peer institutions.
The Supportive Environment Indicator questions indicate that UTPB’s claims in the mission statement are
borne out in practice. Like last year, UTPB seniors were significantly more likely than other UT System
seniors and this year baseline seniors, to indicate that the institution emphasizes using learning support
services. UTPB seniors are also slightly more likely than either of the comparison groups to indicate that
the university emphasizes providing support to help them be academically successful. Both the other UT
System seniors and the baseline seniors are significantly less likely than UTPB seniors to indicate that
their university emphasizes helping them with non-academic responsibilities, UTPB seniors are more
likely to indicate that their university emphasizes encouraging contact among students with different
backgrounds than are other UT System institutions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
7
UTPB seniors are also significantly more likely than the baseline peer seniors to indicate that the
institution emphasizes providing opportunities to be socially involved. Like last year, UTPB seniors were
also significantly more likely than either comparison group to indicate that the university emphasized
attending campus events and activities and attending events that address important social, economic or
political issues.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
8
Table 4: Effective Teaching Practices, Student-Faculty Interaction, and Writing
Mean Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior
Responses 2010
Mean Senior
Responses 2011
Mean Senior
Responses 2012
Mean Senior
Responses 2013
Mean Senior Responses
2014
UTPB
UTS
Peers UTPB
UTS
Peers UTPB
UTS
Peers UTPB
UTS
Peers UTPB UTS
Effective Teaching Practices Indicator
Question: During the current school year, to what extent have your instructors done the following? 1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
Clearly explained course goals and
requirements
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
Taught class in an organized way
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.1
Peers
3.2
3.2
Used examples or illustrations to
explain difficult points
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.2
Provided feedback on a draft or
work in progress
2.9
2.8
2.8
3.1
2.8 ***
2.9**
Provided prompt & detailed
feedback on tests or assignments
3.0
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.9 **
3.0
Student-Faculty Interaction Indicator
Question: During the current school year, about how often have you done the following? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often
Talked about career plans with
faculty member/advisor
2.63
2.32** 2.33*
2.38
2.32
2.37
2.60
2.32*
2.39
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.3*
2.3
Worked with faculty on activities
other than coursework (committees,
1.73
student groups, etc.)
1.92
1.71
1.75
1.75
1.73
1.70
1.89
1.82
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
Discussed topics, ideas or concepts
with faculty outside class
2.22
2.03
2.06
2.17
2.06
2.05
1.99
2.04
2.11
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
Discussed academic performance
with a faculty member
2.3
2.1*
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
Writing
Question: During the current school year, about how many papers, reports, or other writing tasks of the following length have you been assigned (Include those
not yet completed) 0=None, 1.5=1-2, 4=3-5, 8=6-10, 13=11-15, 18=16-20, 23=More than 20
5 pages or fewer pages
2.88
2.76
2.90
2.74
2.67
2.90
2.71
2.66
2.74
6.0
5.9
7.0*
5.3
6.0
6.6*
Between 6 and 10 pages
2.8
3.0
3.2
2.1
3.0***
3.4***
11 pages or more
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.9*
2.1***
Estimated pages of assigned writing
59
66
71
50.4
65.9**
74.1***
*significant p<0.05 (2-tailed)
** significant p<0.01 (2-tailed)
*** significant p<0.001 (2-tailed)
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, UT Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Note: In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new
questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
9
Table 5: Enriching Experiences and Discussions with Diverse Others
Mean Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior Responses
2010
Mean Senior Responses
2011
Mean Senior Responses
2012
UTPB
UTPB
UTPB
UTS
Peers
UTS
Peers
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior Responses
2013
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior Responses
2014
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Enriching Experiences
Question: Which of following have you done or do you plan to do before you graduate? (Recoded: 0=Have not decided, Do not plan to do, Plan to do; Done or in
progress, Means are the percentage who responded “Done or in progress)
Internship, field experience,
co-op, student teaching or
clinical placement
30%
38%
42%**
39%
39%
43%**
Hold a formal leadership role
in stu organization or group
21%
24%
28%
24%
26%
26%
Participate in learning
community or other program
where students take two or
more classes together
13%
20%
24%**
19%
20%
21%**
Work on a research project
with a faculty member
Study abroad
Culminating senior experience
About how many of your courses at this institution have included a community-based project (service learning)?
Service learning in courses
15%
19%
19%
15%
0%
5%**
6%**
3%
42%
29%***
42%
51%
1=none, 2=some, 3=most, 4=all
1.7
1.7
1.9**
1.6
19%
6%
30%***
20%
7%
37%
1.7
1.8**
Discussions with Diverse Others Indicator
During the current school year, about how often have you had discussions with people from the following groups? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often
People of a race or ethnicity
other than your own
2.81
2.72
2.76
2.77
2.60
2.69
2.75
People from an economic
background other than yours
People with religious beliefs
other than your own
People with political views
other than your own
*significant p<0.05 (2-tailed), ** significant p<0.01 (2-tailed), *** significant p<0.001 (2-tailed)
2.65
2.75
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.1*
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014
Note: In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
10
Table 6: Quality of Interactions, Supportive Environment, and Satisfaction
Mean Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior
Responses 2010
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2011
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2012
UTPB
UTS
Peers
Mean Senior
Responses 2013
Mean Senior
Responses 2014
UTPB
UTS
Peers
UTPB
UTS
Peers
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.5
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.7
5.7
5.4*
5.7
5.5
5.4
4.8
5.2
5.0**
4.7
4.8*
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.5
4.9
5.3
5.1**
4.8
4.9*
5.3
4.8
5.0
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.2**
3.2***
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.1
Quality of Interactions Indicator
Question: Indicate the quality of your interactions with the following people at your institution. 1=Poor, 7=Excellent
Students
Faculty
Academic Advisors
Student Services Staff
Other administrative staff and offices
Satisfaction
5.73
5.47
5.61
5.33
5.59
5.51
5.80
5.48
5.61
5.37
5.57
5.50
5.81
5.55
5.67
5.44
5.58
5.61
Evaluate your entire educational experience at
this institution? 1=poor to 4=excellent
3.31
3.21
3.21
3.24
3.23
3.20
3.24
3.16
3.09
3.3
If you could start over again, would you go to the
same institution you are now attending?
1=definitely no to 4=definitely yes
3.31
3.20
3.20
3.27
3.25
3.16
3.21
3.13
3.06
3.2
Question: To what extent does your institution emphasize the following? 1=very little, 2=some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
Spending significant time studying or on
academic work
2.87
3.18**
3.15*
3.06
3.17
3.20
3.09
3.19
3.13
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.90
2.92
2.97
2.89
2.94
2.99
3.06
2.93
2.89
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0*
2.9*
3.0
2.8*
2.9
3.1
2.9*
2.9*
Supportive Environment Indicator
Providing support to help you succeed
academically
Using learning support services (tutoring, writing
center, etc)
Helping you with non-academic responsibilities
Encouraging contact among students from
different backgrounds
Providing opportunities to be involved socially
Attending campus events and activities
Providing support for your overall well-being
Attending events that address important social,
economic or political issues
*significant p<0.05 (2-tailed)
** significant p<0.01 (2-tailed)
*** significant p<0.001 (2-tailed)
2.15
2.01
1.97
2.03
2.04
2.00
2.01
2.02
1.94
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.1***
2.1**
2.54
2.57
2.53
2.49
2.56
2.67
2.57
2.55
2.52
2.6
3.1
2.6
2.8***
2.6
2.8***
2.8
2.9
2.6*
2.8
2.7
2.7*
2.38
2.62
2.48
2.61
2.65
2.53
2.71
2.53
2.36**
2.9
2.6
2.6***
2.7
2.5***
2.8*
2.8
2.9
2.6**
2.7
2.5***
2.7
2.8
2.4***
2.4***
2.7
2.4**
2.4**
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014
Note: In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
11
Time Usage
Table 7 looks at the way seniors spend their time. UT Permian Basin seniors on average indicate that they spend
significantly less time preparing for class than other UT System seniors. Of the average 11-15 hours per week that they
spend preparing for class, significantly less of the time than other UT System seniors is spent on assigned reading.
UTPB seniors spend significantly less time than other UT System seniors commuting to class. It is interesting to note that
UTPB seniors work significantly more hours for pay than other UT Systems seniors, but about the same amount of time
as baseline peer seniors.
UTPB freshmen spend about the same amount of time preparing for class as the other comparison groups, but the
estimated number of hours spent on assigned reading is significantly lower than all three of the comparison groups.
Educational and Personal Growth
Table 8 shows the seniors’ perception of the extent to which their institution contributed to their knowledge, skills, and
personal development in a variety of areas. Overall, seniors at UT Permian Basin perceive that they gain about the same
degree of knowledge, skill, and personal development as seniors at the comparison group institutions. In 2014 as in
2013, there were no significant differences. UTPB freshmen were significantly less likely than baseline peer freshmen to
indicate that their experiences at UTPB contributed to their being able to write clearly and effectively.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
12
Table 7: Time Usage
Mean Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior
Responses 2010
Mean Senior
Responses 2011
Mean Senior
Responses 2012
Mean Senior
Responses 2013
Mean Senior
Responses 2014
Peer
UTPB
UTS Peers UTPB UTS Peers UTPB UTS s
UTPB UTS
Peers UTPB
UTS
Peers
Question: About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week doing the following? 1=0 hrs/wk, 3=1-5 hrs/wk, 8=6-10 hrs/wk, 13=11-15 hrs/wk, 18=16-20
hrs/wk, 23=21-25 hrs/wk, 28=26-30hrs/wk, 33=more than 30 hrs/wk
Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing,
doing homework or lab work, analyzing data,
rehearsing, and other academic activities)
Working for pay on campus
13.5
3.5
14.2
3.0
15.0
2.9
12.2
2.5
14.4**
2.9
13.6
3.5
Working for pay off campus
17.5
13.7**
16.4
14.9
13.9
14.7
Participating in co-curricular activities
(organizations, campus publications, student
government, fraternity or sorority,
intercollegiate or intramural sports, etc.)
Relaxing and socializing (watching TV,
partying, etc.)
Doing community service or volunteer work
3.3
3.1
3.2
2.4
3.3
3.2
9.6
2.3
9.0
3.1
9.2
3.4**
8.4
2.5
9.1
3.2
9.0
3.2
Commuting to class (driving, walking, etc.)
10.1
4.3
9.4
5.8***
9.4
4.9
11.4
4.5
9.5
5.9**
10.8
5.1
Estimated number of hours working for pay
17.5
16.7
17.5
19.9
16.5**
19.8
Providing care for dependents living with you
(parents, children, spouse, etc.)
Of the time you spend preparing for class in a typical 7-day week, about how many hours are on assigned reading? 1=0 hrs/wk, 3=1-5 hrs/wk, 8=6-10 hrs/wk, 13=11-15
hrs/wk, 18=16-20 hrs/wk, 23=21-25 hrs/wk, 28=26-30hrs/wk, 33=more than 30 hrs/wk
Assigned reading
6.2
7.4*
7.2
5.0
7.6***
7.4***
*significant p<0.05 (2-tailed)
** significant p<0.01 (2-tailed)
*** significant p<0.001 (2-tailed)
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014
Note: In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
13
Table 8: Educational and Personal Growth
Mean Senior Response Comparisons 2010-2014
Mean Senior
Responses 2010
Mean Senior
Responses 2011
Mean Senior
Responses 2012
Mean Senior
Responses 2013
Mean Senior
Responses 2014
UTPB
UTS
Peers
UTPB
UTS
Peers UTPB UTS Peers UTPB
UTS
Peers UTPB UTS Peers
Question: How much has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas? 1=very little,
2= some, 3=quite a bit, 4=very much
Acquiring job or work-related knowledge
& skills
3.24
3.06
3.05
3.07
3.04
2.93
3.26
3.09
3.12
2.9
2.9
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.0
Writing clearly & effectively
3.19
3.07
3.22
3.18
3.04
3.12
3.08
3.09
3.19
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.1
Speaking clearly and effectively
3.17
2.97
3.06
3.05
2.99
2.98
3.04
2.98
3.06
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.0
Thinking critically and analytically
3.46
3.37*
3.41*
3.34
3.34
3.33
3.34
3.37
3.39
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
Analyzing numerical and statistical
information
Working effectively with others
3.29
3.16
3.25
3.15
3.14
3.08
3.35
3.16
3.14
2.8
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.2
2.9
3.0*
2.9
3.0*
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.8
Being an informed and active citizen
Understanding people of other
backgrounds (economic, racial/ethnic,
religious, nationality, etc)
Solving complex real-world problems
Developing a personal code of values
and ethics
*significant p<0.05 (2-tailed)
** significant p<0.01 (2-tailed)
*** significant p<0.001 (2-tailed)
2.95
2.87
2.82
3.00
2.84
2.70**
2.85
2.86
2.78
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
2.9
2.8*
2.9
2.8
2.86
2.78
2.73
2.80
2.76
2.61
2.70
2.75
2.75
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.9
Source: National Survey of Student Engagement, The University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Mean Comparisons, August 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014
Note: In 2013, NSSE was revised with retained, changed and new questions.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
14
Engagement Indicators
Engagement Indicators are organized by NSSE into four broad categories: academic challenge, learning with peers,
experiences with faculty, and campus environment. The engagement indicators are compared to all three comparison
groups for freshmen and seniors separately in the pages that follow. Each of the broad categories contains a list of its
associated engagement indicators and the questions that make up those indicators. There is also a comparison of
UTPB scores to the top 10% and top 50% of institutions who participate in the NSSE survey.
Academic Challenge
Academic Challenge is made up of four engagement indicators: Higher Order Thinking, Reflective and Integrative
Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning. The engagement indicators for higher order thinking,
reflective and integrative learning and learning strategies are all significantly lower for UTPB seniors when compared to
our baseline peers. The effect sizes are small, however. Practically speaking, the UTPB seniors who responded to the
survey were less likely to have participated in the activities and opportunities that make up the indicators than were the
baseline peer group seniors.
UTPB freshman mean scores were significantly different from the baseline peer group freshmen on reflective and
integrative learning and significantly different from both the baseline and aspirant peers on learning strategies. The
effect sizes are moderate, but the means especially for learning strategies are different enough that they are
discernable as real differences.
Learning with Peers and Experience with Faculty
Learning with Peers shows only one significant difference with the baseline peers and the effect size is small.
Experience with Faculty for UTPB freshmen is significantly lower than either the baseline or aspirant peer group
freshmen indicating that freshman have less interaction with faculty. The effect sizes are large enough that the
differences are probably real. Seniors showed only one significant difference with the UT System seniors on
instructional practices and the effect size was small so the practical significance is probably low.
Campus Environment
Campus Environment is made up of the engagement indicators for quality of interactions and supportive environment.
Means for UTPB freshmen showed no significant differences on either of the Campus Environment indicators. In
contrast, UTPB senior means were significantly higher than other seniors at UT System institutions on the Quality of
Interactions indicator and higher than any of the three comparison groups on the Supportive Environment indicators.
The effect size for the Quality of Interaction significant different is in the small to moderate range so the differences may
be discernible, but the effect sizes for the Supportive Environment differences are moderate in size so that the
differences probably have some practical significance.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
15
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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
Your first-year students compared with
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Effect
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
size
Mean
size
UTPB
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Higher-Order Learning
35.8
39.1
-.23
38.4
-.17
38.5
-.19
Reflective & Integrative Learning
31.5
35.0
-.28
35.1 *
-.26
34.4
-.23
Learning Strategies
34.9
38.9
-.28
40.3 *
-.37
40.0 *
-.36
Quantitative Reasoning
25.9
28.4
-.15
26.6
-.04
27.2
-.08
No tes: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed);
Effect size: M ean difference divided by po o led standard deviatio n; Symbo ls o n the Overview page are based o n effect size and p befo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Higher-Order Learning
Reflective & Integrative Learning
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
Learning Strategies
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
Quantitative Reasoning
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No tes: Each bo x-and-whiskers chart plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo wer bar), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (middle line), 75th (to p o f bo x), and 95th (to p o f upper bar)
percentile sco res. The do t represents the mean sco re. Refer to Detailed Statistics fo r yo ur institutio n’ s sample sizes.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
16
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)
Summary of Indicator Items
Higher-Order Learning
UTPB
P e rc e ntage re s po nding "Ve ry m uc h" o r "Quite a bit" abo ut ho w m uc h c o urs e wo rk e m phas ize d…
UT System
Baseline
Peers
Aspirant
Peers
%
%
%
%
4b. Applying fac ts, theories, or methods to prac tic al problems or new situations
69
72
68
72
4c . Analyzing an idea, experienc e, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts
68
72
69
71
4d. Evaluating a point of view, dec ision, or information sourc e
56
69
70
68
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various piec es of information
52
69
65
68
2a. Combined ideas from different c ourses when c ompleting assignments
50
55
53
53
2b. Connec ted your learning to soc ietal problems or issues
41
50
50
50
2c . Inc luded diverse perspec tives (politic al, religious, rac ial/ethnic , gender, etc .) in
c ourse
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue
36
46
47
47
64
62
63
60
2e. Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks
from
2f. Learned something that c hanged the way you understand an issue or c onc ept
62
68
64
63
56
65
65
62
2g. Connec ted ideas from your c ourses to your prior experienc es and knowledge
65
76
74
74
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments
64
79
81
80
9b. Reviewed your notes after c lass
62
66
68
69
9c . Summarized what you learned in c lass or from c ourse materials
55
60
66
63
53
55
49
51
35
40
37
38
29
39
35
35
Reflective & Integrative Learning
P e rc e ntage o f s tude nts who re s po nde d that the y "Ve ry o fte n" o r "Ofte n"…
Learning Strategies
P e rc e ntage o f s tude nts who re s po nde d that the y "Ve ry o fte n" o r "Ofte n"…
Quantitative Reasoning
P e rc e ntage o f s tude nts who re s po nde d that the y "Ve ry o fte n" o r "Ofte n"…
6a. Reac hed c onc lusions based on your own analysis of numeric al information
(numbers,
statistic
etc .)
6b. graphs,
Used numeric
al s,
information
to examine a real- world problem or issue
(unemployment,
limate c hange,
publichave
health,
etcluded
.)
6c . c
Evaluated
what others
c onc
from numeric al information
No te s : R e fe r to yo ur Fre que nc ie s and S tatis tic al C o m paris o ns re po rt fo r full dis tributio ns a nd s ignific a nc e te s ts . Ite m num be ring c o rre s po nds to the
s urve y fa c s im ile inc lude d in yo ur Ins titutio nal R e po rt a nd a va ila ble o n the NS S E We b s ite .
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
17
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Your seniors compared with
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Effect
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
size
Mean
size
Higher-Order Learning
39.9
41.1
-.08
42.7 *
-.20
41.3
-.10
Reflective & Integrative Learning
36.2
37.6
-.11
39.3 *
-.23
38.5
-.17
Learning Strategies
40.6
41.5
-.06
43.7 *
-.21
41.9
-.09
Quantitative Reasoning
31.4
30.3
.06
.11
30.0
.08
UTPB
29.4
No tes: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed);
Effect size: M ean difference divided by po o led standard deviatio n; Symbo ls o n the Overview page are based o n effect size and p befo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Higher-Order Learning
Reflective & Integrative Learning
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
Learning Strategies
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
Quantitative Reasoning
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No tes: Each bo x-and-whiskers chart plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo wer bar), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (middle line), 75th (to p o f bo x), and 95th (to p o f upper bar)
percentile sco res.
The do t represents the mean sco re. Refer to Detailed Statistics fo r yo ur institutio n’ s sample sizes.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
18
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued)
Summary of Indicator Items
Higher-Order Learning
UTPB
P ercentage respo nding "Very much" o r "Quite a bit" abo ut ho w much co ursewo rk emphasized…
UT System
Baseline
Peers
Aspirant
Peers
%
%
%
%
75
78
82
80
4c . Analyzing an idea, experienc e, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts 78
76
81
76
4d. Evaluating a point of view, dec ision, or information sourc e
67
70
78
71
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various piec es of information
70
71
77
73
2a. Combined ideas from different c ourses when c ompleting assignments
64
70
69
71
2b. Connec ted your learning to soc ietal problems or issues
57
61
64
64
2c . Inc luded diverse perspec tives (politic al, religious, rac ial/ethnic , gender, etc .)
in c ourse
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue
43
49
58
52
61
63
68
66
2e. Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue
looks from
2f. Learned something that c hanged the way you understand an issue or c onc ept
58
68
73
68
70
69
71
68
2g. Connec ted ideas from your c ourses to your prior experienc es and knowledge
79
81
85
84
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments
78
83
87
85
9b. Reviewed your notes after c lass
68
69
74
69
9c . Summarized what you learned in c lass or from c ourse materials
73
68
73
69
57
57
54
56
45
45
44
45
42
44
42
44
4b. Applying fac ts, theories, or methods to prac tic al problems or new situations
Reflective & Integrative Learning
P ercentage o f students who respo nded that they "Very o ften" o r "Often"…
Learning Strategies
P ercentage o f students who respo nded that they "Very o ften" o r "Often"…
Quantitative Reasoning
P ercentage o f students who respo nded that they "Very o ften" o r "Often"…
6a. Reac hed c onc lusions based on your own analysis of numeric al information
(numbers,
statistic
etc .)
6b. graphs,
Used numeric
al s,
information
to examine a real- world problem or issue
(unemployment,
limate c hange,
publichave
health,
etcluded
.)
6c . c
Evaluated
what others
c onc
from numeric al information
No tes: Refer to yo ur Frequencies and Statistical Co mpariso ns repo rt fo r full distributio ns and significance tests. Item numbering co rrespo nds to the survey
facsimile included in yo ur Institutio nal Repo rt and available o n the NSSE Web site.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
19
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Learning with Peers
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Effect
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
size
Mean
size
Collaborative Learning
29.0
32.8
-.27
30.4
-.10
32.1
-.23
Discussions with Diverse Others
36.6
38.0
-.08
41.1
-.27
40.0
-.20
UTPB
No tes: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed);
Effect size: M ean difference divided by po o led standard deviatio n; Symbo ls o n the Overview page are based o n effect size and p befo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No tes: Each bo x-and-whiskers chart plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo wer bar), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (middle line), 75th (to p o f bo x), and 95th (to p o f upper
bar) percentile sco res. The do t represents the mean sco re. Refer to Detailed Statistics fo r yo ur institutio n’ s sample sizes.
Summary of Indicator Items
Collaborative Learning
UTPB
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
%
1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material
46
Baseline Aspirant
UT System
Peers
Peers
%
%
%
51
41
#
1f. Explained course material to one or more students
57
55
#
1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or w orking through course material w ith other
42 students 50
42
43
#
1h. Worked w ith other students on course projects or assignments
48
#
Discussions with Diverse Others
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…
8a. People from a race or ethnicity other than your ow n
56
66
78
#
8b. People from an economic background other than your ow n
53
66
72
#
8c. People w ith religious beliefs other than your ow n
61
63
67
#
8d. People w ith political view s other than your ow n
58
62
67
#
56
54
No tes: Refer to yo ur Frequencies and Statistical Co mpariso ns repo rt fo r full distributio ns and significance tests. Item numbering co rrespo nds to the survey
facsimile included in yo ur Institutio nal Repo rt and available o n the NSSE Web site.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
20
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Learning with Peers
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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
UTPB
Engagement Indicator
Mean
UT System
Effect
Mean
size
Collaborative Learning
32.3
32.7
-.03
Discussions with Diverse Others
42.1
40.8
.07
Your seniors compared with
Baseline Peers
Effect
Mean
size
29.6 *
43.4
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Mean
size
.18
32.6
-.02
-.08
42.7
-.03
No te s : R e s ults we ighte d by ins titutio n-re po rte d s e x a nd e nro llm e nt s ta tus (a nd ins titutio n s ize fo r c o m pa ris o n gro ups ); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-ta ile d);
Effe c t s ize : M e a n diffe re nc e divide d by po o le d s ta nda rd de via tio n; S ym bo ls o n the Ove rvie w pa ge a re ba s e d o n e ffe c t s ize a nd p be fo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No te s : Ea c h bo x-a nd-whis ke rs c ha rt plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo we r ba r), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (m iddle line ), 75th (to p o f bo x), a nd 95th (to p o f uppe r
ba r) pe rc e ntile s c o re s . The do t re pre s e nts the m e a n s c o re . R e fe r to De ta ile d S ta tis tic s fo r yo ur ins titutio n’s s a m ple s ize s .
Summary of Indicator Items
Collaborative Learning
UTPB
UT System
Baseline
Peers
Aspirant
Peers
P e rc e ntage o f s tude nts who re s po nde d that the y "Ve ry o fte n" o r "Ofte n"…
%
%
%
%
1e. Asked another student to help you understand c ourse material
38
41
33
39
52
58
55
59
1g. Prepared for exams by disc ussing or working through c ourse material with other students
41
47
40
45
1h. Worked with other students on c ourse projec ts or assignments
66
64
55
64
8a. People from a rac e or ethnic ity other than your own
79
72
80
76
8b. People from an ec onomic bac kground other than your own
74
72
78
77
8c . People with religious beliefs other than your own
67
68
73
72
8d. People with politic al views other than your own
67
66
74
74
1f. Explained c ourse material to one or more students
Discussions with Diverse Others
P e rc e ntage o f s tude nts who re s po nde d that the y "Ve ry o fte n" o r "Ofte n" had dis c us s io ns with…
No te s : R e fe r to yo ur Fre que nc ie s and S tatis tic al C o m paris o ns re po rt fo r full dis tributio ns a nd s ignific a nc e te s ts . Ite m num be ring c o rre s po nds to the s urve y
fa c s im ile inc lude d in yo ur Ins titutio nal R e po rt a nd a va ila ble o n the NS S E We b s ite .
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
21
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Experiences with Faculty
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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 studentcentered 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
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Effect
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
size
Mean
size
Student-Faculty Interaction
13.4
18.3 *
Effective Teaching Practices
41.6
39.5
UTPB
-.33
19.5 **
.16
39.7
-.41
19.4 **
.13
40.7
-.41
.07
No tes: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed);
Effect size: M ean difference divided by po o led standard deviatio n; Symbo ls o n the Overview page are based o n effect size and p befo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No tes: Each bo x-and-whiskers chart plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo wer bar), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (middle line), 75th (to p o f bo x), and 95th (to p o f upper
bar) percentile sco res. The do t represents the mean sco re. Refer to Detailed Statistics fo r yo ur institutio n’ s sample sizes.
Summary of Indicator Items
Student-Faculty Interaction
UTPB
P ercentage o f students who respo nded that they "Very o ften" o r "Often"…
3a. Talked about c areer plans with a fac ulty member
UT System
Baseline
Peers
Aspirant
Peers
%
%
%
%
19
30
34
32
3b. Worked w/fac ulty on ac tivities other than c oursework (c ommittees, student groups, etc
5 .)
17
18
17
3c . Disc ussed c ourse topic s, ideas, or c onc epts with a fac ulty member outside of c lass15
22
24
22
3d. Disc ussed your ac ademic performanc e with a fac ulty member
12
25
27
27
5a. Clearly explained c ourse goals and requirements
91
80
79
82
5b. Taught c ourse sessions in an organized way
91
77
73
80
5c . Used examples or illustrations to explain diffic ult points
80
77
73
79
5d. Provided feedbac k on a draft or work in progress
60
61
64
66
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedbac k on tests or c ompleted assignments
68
57
63
63
Effective Teaching Practices
P ercentage respo nding "Very much" o r "Quite a bit" abo ut ho w much instructo rs have…
No tes: Refer to yo ur Frequencies and Statistical Co mpariso ns repo rt fo r full distributio ns and significance tests. Item numbering co rrespo nds to the survey
facsimile included in yo ur Institutio nal Repo rt and available o n the NSSE Web site.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
22
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Experiences with Faculty
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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
UTPB
Engagement Indicator
Mean
UT System
Effect
Mean
size
Your seniors compared with
Baseline Peers
Effect
Mean
size
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Mean
size
Student-Faculty Interaction
23.8
21.4
.14
22.3
.09
23.3
.03
Effective Teaching Practices
43.6
40.6 *
.20
41.6
.13
41.5
.15
No tes: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed);
Effect size: M ean difference divided by po o led standard deviatio n; Symbo ls o n the Overview page are based o n effect size and p befo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No tes: Each bo x-and-whiskers chart plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo wer bar), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (middle line), 75th (to p o f bo x), and 95th (to p o f upper
bar) percentile sco res. The do t represents the mean sco re. Refer to Detailed Statistics fo r yo ur institutio n’ s sample sizes.
Summary of Indicator Items
Student-Faculty Interaction
UTPB
P ercentage o f students who respo nded that they "Very o ften" o r "Often"…
UT System
Baseline
Peers
Aspirant
Peers
%
%
%
%
44
36
40
41
3b. Worked w/fac ulty on ac tivities other than c oursework (c ommittees, student groups,22
etc .)
23
23
25
3c . Disc ussed c ourse topic s, ideas, or c onc epts with a fac ulty member outside of c lass36
30
30
32
3d. Disc ussed your ac ademic performanc e with a fac ulty member
30
36
32
3a. Talked about c areer plans with a fac ulty member
32
Effective Teaching Practices
P ercentage respo nding "Very much" o r "Quite a bit" abo ut ho w much instructo rs have…
5a. Clearly explained c ourse goals and requirements
84
81
82
84
5b. Taught c ourse sessions in an organized way
84
79
79
82
5c . Used examples or illustrations to explain diffic ult points
86
78
79
81
5d. Provided feedbac k on a draft or work in progress
77
60
63
62
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedbac k on tests or c ompleted assignments
79
65
69
67
No tes: Refer to yo ur Frequencies and Statistical Co mpariso ns repo rt fo r full distributio ns and significance tests. Item numbering co rrespo nds to the survey
facsimile included in yo ur Institutio nal Repo rt and available o n the NSSE Web site.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
23
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Campus Environment
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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
Your first-year students compared with
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Effect
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
size
Mean
size
UTPB
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Quality of Interactions
37.3
39.4
-.15
40.6
-.25
41.0
-.27
Supportive Environment
38.9
36.7
.15
36.5
.17
37.5
.10
No tes: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed);
Effect size: M ean difference divided by po o led standard deviatio n; Symbo ls o n the Overview page are based o n effect size and p befo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No tes: Each bo x-and-whiskers chart plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo wer bar), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (middle line), 75th (to p o f bo x), and 95th (to p o f upper
bar) percentile sco res. The do t represents the mean sco re. Refer to Detailed Statistics fo r yo ur institutio n’ s sample sizes.
Summary of Indicator Items
UT System
Baseline
Peers
Aspirant
Peers
%
%
%
%
13a. Students
55
54
57
56
13b. Ac ademic advisors
33
44
48
47
13c . Fac ulty
39
44
51
49
13d. Student servic es staff (c areer servic es, student ac tivities, housing, etc .)
42
41
42
46
13e. Other administrative staff and offic es (registrar, financ ial aid, etc .)
41
39
41
42
Quality of Interactions
UTPB
P ercentage rating a 6 o r 7 o n a scale fro m 1="P o o r" to 7="Excellent" their interactio ns
with…
Supportive Environment
P ercentage respo nding "Very much" o r "Quite a bit" abo ut ho w much the institutio n emphasized…
14b. Providing support to help students suc c eed ac ademic ally
75
79
78
80
14c . Using learning support servic es (tutoring servic es, writing c enter, etc .)
81
80
78
84
14d. Enc ouraging c ontac t among students from diff. bac kgrounds (soc .,
rac ial/eth., relig., etc .)
14e. Providing opportunities to be involved soc ially
53
58
58
59
75
68
68
73
68
71
72
14f. Providing support for your overall well- being (rec reation, health c are, c ounseling, etc
77 .)
14g. Helping you manage your non- ac ademic responsibilities (work, family, etc .)
47
44
43
44
14h. Attending c ampus ac tivities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc .)
71
61
64
65
14i. Attending events that address important soc ial, ec onomic , or politic al issues
70
50
51
51
No tes: Refer to yo ur Frequencies and Statistical Co mpariso ns repo rt fo r full distributio ns and significance tests. Item numbering co rrespo nds to the survey
facsimile included in yo ur Institutio nal Repo rt and available o n the NSSE Web site.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
24
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Campus Environment
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
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
UTPB
Engagement Indicator
Your seniors compared with
Baseline Peers
Effect
Mean
size
UT System
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
Aspirant Peers
Effect
Mean
size
Quality of Interactions
44.7
42.0 *
.21
42.7
.15
43.3
.12
Supportive Environment
36.9
32.5 **
.28
32.3 **
.28
32.5 **
.30
No tes: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed);
Effect size: M ean difference divided by po o led standard deviatio n; Symbo ls o n the Overview page are based o n effect size and p befo re ro unding.
Score Distributions
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
UTPB
UT System
Baseline Peers
Aspirant Peers
No tes: Each bo x-and-whiskers chart plo ts the 5th (bo tto m o f lo wer bar), 25th (bo tto m o f bo x), 50th (middle line), 75th (to p o f bo x), and 95th (to p o f upper
bar) percentile sco res. The do t represents the mean sco re. Refer to Detailed Statistics fo r yo ur institutio n’ s sample sizes.
Summary of Indicator Items
Quality of Interactions
UTPB
P ercentage rating a 6 o r 7 o n a scale fro m 1="P o o r" to 7="Excellent" their interactio ns
with…
UT System
Baseline
Peers
Aspirant
Peers
%
%
%
%
13a. Students
65
63
63
65
13b. Ac ademic advisors
63
50
54
54
13c . Fac ulty
66
57
58
65
13d. Student servic es staff (c areer servic es, student ac tivities, housing, etc .)
45
43
44
45
13e. Other administrative staff and offic es (registrar, financ ial aid, etc .)
61
46
47
45
Supportive Environment
P ercentage respo nding "Very much" o r "Quite a bit" abo ut ho w much the institutio n emphasized…
14b. Providing support to help students suc c eed ac ademic ally
83
70
70
73
14c . Using learning support servic es (tutoring servic es, writing c enter, etc .)
74
65
66
68
14d. Enc ouraging c ontac t among students from diff. bac kgrounds (soc .,
rac ial/eth., relig., etc .)
14e. Providing opportunities to be involved soc ially
60
53
57
51
65
62
60
64
60
58
61
35
28
14f. Providing support for your overall well- being (rec reation, health c are, c ounseling, etc
63 .)
14g. Helping you manage your non- ac ademic responsibilities (work, family, etc .)
45
33
14h. Attending c ampus ac tivities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc .)
65
53
51
52
14i. Attending events that address important soc ial, ec onomic , or politic al issues
58
44
44
43
No tes: Refer to yo ur Frequencies and Statistical Co mpariso ns repo rt fo r full distributio ns and significance tests. Item numbering co rrespo nds to the survey
facsimile included in yo ur Institutio nal Repo rt and available o n the NSSE Web site.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
25
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Comparisons with High-Performing Institutions
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Comparisons with Top 50% and Top 10% Institutions
The results below compare the engagement of your first-year and senior students with those attending two groups
of institutions identified by NSSE a for their high average levels of student engagement:
(a) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 50% of all 2013 and 2014 NSSE institutions, and
(b) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 10% of all 2013 and 2014 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 absence of a significant
difference between your score and that of the high-performing group does not 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.
First-Year Students
Theme
Engagement Indicator
Higher-Order Learning
Your first-year students compared w ith
UTPB
Mean
NSSE Top 50%
Mean
Effect size ✓
40.6 *
-.35
NSSE Top 10%
Mean
Effect size ✓
42.7 **
-.51
37.3 **
41.2 **
28.8
-.46
-.45
-.18
39.3 ***
43.4 ***
30.6
-.62
-.61
-.29
Quantitative Reasoning
35.8
31.5
34.9
25.9
Learning Collaborative Learning
with Peers Discussions with Diverse Others
29.0
36.6
34.7 **
43.2 *
-.41
-.43
37.0 ***
45.6 **
-.59
-.61
Experienc Student-Faculty Interaction
es with
Effective Teaching Practices
Faculty
13.4
23.3 ***
-.66
26.9 ***
-.84
41.6
42.4
-.05
44.6
-.22
Campus
Environm
ent
37.3
44.0 *
-.58
46.0 **
-.75
38.9
39.4
-.04
41.4
-.19
Academic Reflective and Integrative Learning
Challenge Learning Strategies
Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
Seniors
Theme
✓
✓
Your seniors compared w ith
Engagement Indicator
Higher-Order Learning
UTPB
Mean
NSSE Top 50%
Mean
Effect size ✓
43.3 **
-.25
NSSE Top 10%
Mean
Effect size ✓
45.3 ***
-.40
41.1 ***
42.5
31.3
-.38
-.13
.01
43.1 ***
44.9 **
33.0
-.55
-.30
-.09
Quantitative Reasoning
39.9
36.2
40.6
31.4
Learning Collaborative Learning
with Peers Discussions with Diverse Others
32.3
42.1
35.4 *
43.9
-.22
-.12
37.7 ***
45.8 **
-.40
-.24
Experienc Student-Faculty Interaction
es with
Effective Teaching Practices
Faculty
23.8
29.5 ***
-.36
34.4 ***
-.65
43.6
43.0
.04
✓
45.1
-.12
Campus
Environm
ent
Quality of Interactions
44.7
45.3
-.05
✓
47.4 *
-.23
Supportive Environment
36.9
36.1
.06
✓
39.0
-.16
Academic Reflective and Integrative Learning
Challenge Learning Strategies
✓
✓
No te: Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio n size fo r co mpariso n gro ups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001(2-tailed); Effect
size: M ean difference divided by the po o led standard deviatio n.
a. P recisio n-weighted means (pro duced by Hierarchical Linear M o deling) were used to determine the to p 50% and to p 10% institutio ns fo r each Engagement
Indicato r fro m all NSSE 2013
and 2014 institutio ns, separately fo r first-year and senio r students. Using this metho d, Engagement Indicato r sco res o f institutio ns with relatively large standard
erro rs were adjusted
to ward the mean o f all students, while tho se with smaller standard erro rs received smaller co rrectio ns. A s a result, scho o ls with less stable data—even tho se
with high average
sco res—may no t be amo ng the to p sco rers. NSSE do es no t publish the names o f the to p 50% and to p 10% institutio ns because o f o ur co mmitment no t to
release institutio nal results
and o ur po licy against ranking institutio ns.
b. Check marks are assigned to co mpariso ns that are either significant and po sitive, o r no n-significant with an effect size > -.10.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
26
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Detailed Statisticsa
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
Percentiled scores
Mean statistics
M ean
SD
b
SEM
c
5th
25th
50th
75th
Comparison results
Deg. o f
freedo m
95th
e
M ean
diff.
Sig.
f
Effect
size g
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning
35.8
13.1
2.02
20
25
35
45
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 42)
39.1
14.7
.27
15
30
40
50
60
2,957
-3.3
.142
-.228
Baseline Peers
38.4
15.1
.40
15
25
40
50
60
1,435
-2.6
.277
-.170
Aspirant Peers
38.5
14.2
.30
15
30
40
50
60
2,351
-2.7
.225
-.189
Top 50%
Top 10%
40.6
42.7
13.6
13.6
.04
.10
20
20
30
35
40
40
50
55
60
60
93,953
17,408
-4.8
-6.9
.023
.001
-.350
-.506
Reflective & Integrative Learning
31.5
10.7
1.67
20
23
29
40
54
UT System
UTPB (N = 41)
35.0
12.7
.23
14
26
34
43
60
3,104
-3.5
.080
-.275
Baseline Peers
35.1
13.7
.36
14
26
34
46
60
44
-3.5
.044
-.260
Aspirant Peers
34.4
12.7
.26
14
26
34
43
57
2,457
-2.9
.148
-.228
Top 50%
37.3
12.5
.04
17
29
37
46
60
94,614
-5.8
.003
-.460
Top 10%
39.3
12.6
.09
20
31
40
49
60
20,285
-7.7
.000
-.615
Learning Strategies
34.9
14.6
2.32
7
27
33
40
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 40)
38.9
14.2
.28
13
27
40
53
60
2,677
-4.0
.079
-.281
Baseline Peers
40.3
14.7
.40
13
27
40
53
60
1,353
-5.4
.022
-.370
Aspirant Peers
40.0
14.1
.31
20
27
40
53
60
2,112
-5.1
.025
-.359
Top 50%
Top 10%
41.2
43.4
14.0
14.0
.05
.11
20
20
33
33
40
40
53
60
60
60
83,015
17,615
-6.3
-8.5
.005
.000
-.450
-.606
Quantitative Reasoning
25.9
16.5
2.55
0
13
27
40
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 42)
28.4
16.7
.31
0
20
27
40
60
3,025
-2.5
.328
-.152
Baseline Peers
26.6
17.8
.47
0
13
27
40
60
1,467
-.8
.782
-.043
Aspirant Peers
27.2
16.2
.33
0
20
27
40
60
2,397
-1.3
.598
-.082
Top 50%
Top 10%
28.8
30.6
16.3
16.2
.05
.10
0
0
20
20
27
27
40
40
60
60
120,974
27,614
-2.9
-4.8
.248
.058
-.179
-.293
Learning with Peers
Collaborative Learning
29.0
14.0
2.10
5
20
30
40
55
UT System
UTPB (N = 45)
32.8
14.1
.25
10
20
30
40
60
3,196
-3.8
.073
-.269
Baseline Peers
30.4
14.0
.36
10
20
30
40
60
1,546
-1.3
.529
-.095
Aspirant Peers
32.1
13.7
.27
10
20
30
40
60
2,515
-3.1
.135
-.225
Top 50%
34.7
13.7
.04
15
25
35
45
60
114,365
-5.7
.006
-.414
Top 10%
37.0
13.6
.08
15
25
35
45
60
26,094
-8.0
.000
-.587
Discussions with Diverse Others
36.6
19.2
2.96
0
20
40
55
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 42)
38.0
17.8
.34
5
25
40
55
60
2,730
-1.4
.613
-.079
Baseline Peers
41.1
17.2
.47
10
30
40
60
60
1,375
-4.6
.091
-.266
Aspirant Peers
40.0
17.2
.37
10
25
40
60
60
2,151
-3.4
.203
-.199
Top 50%
43.2
15.4
.05
20
35
45
60
60
41
-6.7
.030
-.433
Top 10%
45.6
14.8
.10
20
40
50
60
60
41
-9.0
.004
-.610
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
27
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
13.4
12.4
1.90
0
5
10
20
35
UT System
UTPB (N = 43)
18.3
14.9
.27
0
5
15
25
50
3,020
-4.9
.033
-.328
Baseline Peers
19.5
15.2
.40
0
10
15
25
50
1,470
-6.1
.009
-.406
Aspirant Peers
19.4
14.7
.30
0
10
15
25
50
2,416
-6.0
.008
-.408
Top 50%
23.3
15.0
.06
0
10
20
30
55
68,584
-9.9
.000
-.663
Top 10%
26.9
16.2
.15
5
15
25
40
60
42
-13.5
.000
-.836
Effective Teaching Practices
41.6
12.1
1.86
24
35
40
52
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 42)
39.5
13.9
.25
16
28
40
52
60
3,057
2.2
.310
.158
Baseline Peers
39.7
14.9
.39
16
28
40
52
60
1,488
2.0
.400
.132
Aspirant Peers
40.7
13.4
.27
20
32
40
52
60
2,429
1.0
.645
.072
Top 50%
42.4
13.2
.05
20
32
44
52
60
76,042
-.7
.729
-.054
Top 10%
44.6
13.3
.11
20
36
44
56
60
15,169
-3.0
.147
-.224
Campus Environment
Quality of Interactions
37.3
15.5
2.55
6
26
40
50
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 37)
39.4
13.9
.27
14
30
42
50
60
2,607
-2.1
.357
-.153
Baseline Peers
40.6
13.4
.37
16
32
42
50
60
1,326
-3.3
.142
-.246
Aspirant Peers
41.0
13.3
.30
16
32
42
50
60
2,050
-3.6
.102
-.273
Top 50%
44.0
11.4
.05
22
38
46
52
60
36
-6.7
.013
-.584
Top 10%
46.0
11.6
.10
24
40
48
55
60
36
-8.7
.002
-.749
Supportive Environment
38.9
15.2
2.57
10
28
38
50
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 35)
36.7
14.4
.29
13
25
38
48
60
2,431
2.2
.378
.150
Baseline Peers
36.5
14.3
.41
13
25
38
48
60
1,275
2.4
.336
.165
Aspirant Peers
37.5
13.7
.32
15
28
38
48
60
1,891
1.4
.557
.100
Top 50%
39.4
13.2
.05
18
30
40
50
60
84,117
-.5
.816
-.039
Top 10%
41.4
12.8
.09
20
33
40
53
60
18,394
-2.5
.254
-.193
a. Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio nal size fo r co mpariso n gro ups).
b. Standard deviatio n is a measure o f the amo unt the individual sco res deviate fro m the mean o f all the sco res in the distributio n.
c. Standard erro r o f the mean, used to co mpute a co nfidence interval (CI) aro und the sample mean. Fo r example, the 95% CI is the range o f values that is 95% likely
to co ntain the
true po pulatio n mean, equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 * SEM .
d. A percentile is the po int in the distributio n o f student-level EI sco res at o r belo w which a given percentage o f EI sco res fall.
e. Degrees o f freedo m used to co mpute the t-tests. Values vary fro m the to tal Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.
f. Statistical significance represents the pro bability that the difference between the mean o f yo ur institutio n and that o f the co mpariso n gro up o ccurred by chance.
g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the po o led standard deviatio n.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
28
NSSE 2014 Engagement Indicators
Detailed Statisticsa
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
Percentiled scores
Mean statistics
Mean
SD b SEM c
5th
25th
50th
75th
95th
Comparison results
Deg. of Mean
Effect
freedom
diff.
Sig. f size g
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning
39.9
15.8
1.45
10
30
40
55
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 118)
41.1
15.0
.18
15
30
40
55
60
7,088
-1.3
.369
-.083
Baseline Peers
42.7
14.0
.28
20
35
40
55
60
2,676
-2.9
.032
-.203
Aspirant Peers
41.3
14.5
.22
15
30
40
55
60
4,357
-1.4
.309
-.095
Top 50%
43.3
13.7
.04
20
35
40
55
60
134,179
-3.4
.007
-.247
Top 10%
45.3
13.6
.07
20
40
45
60
60
33,070
-5.4
.000
-.396
Reflective & Integrative Learning
36.2
13.2
1.19
14
26
37
43
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 123)
37.6
13.5
.16
17
29
37
49
60
7,356
-1.4
.241
-.107
Baseline Peers
39.3
13.1
.26
17
31
40
49
60
2,759
-3.1
.012
-.233
Aspirant Peers
38.5
13.2
.20
17
29
40
49
60
4,557
-2.3
.058
-.173
Top 50%
Top 10%
Learning Strategies
41.1
43.1
12.6
12.5
.03
.07
20
20
31
34
40
43
51
54
60
60
131,440
28,913
-4.9
-6.9
.000
.000
-.385
-.548
40.6
14.7
1.37
13
33
40
53
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 115)
41.5
14.8
.18
20
33
40
53
60
6,581
-.9
.497
-.064
Baseline Peers
43.7
14.3
.29
20
33
47
60
60
2,519
-3.1
.024
-.215
Aspirant Peers
41.9
14.7
.23
20
33
40
53
60
4,114
-1.4
.329
-.092
Top 50%
Top 10%
Quantitative Reasoning
42.5
44.9
14.5
14.1
.04
.07
20
20
33
33
40
47
60
60
60
60
164,540
42,115
-1.9
-4.3
.164
.001
-.130
-.303
31.4
17.7
1.61
0
20
27
40
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 120)
30.3
17.8
.21
0
20
27
40
60
7,188
1.1
.498
.062
Baseline Peers
29.4
17.4
.34
0
20
27
40
60
2,709
2.0
.220
.114
Aspirant Peers
30.0
17.3
.26
0
20
27
40
60
4,459
1.4
.368
.083
Top 50%
31.3
17.2
.04
0
20
33
40
60
208,231
.1
.938
.007
Top 10%
33.0
16.9
.07
0
20
33
47
60
52,094
-1.6
.302
-.094
-.027
Learning w ith Peers
Collaborative Learning
32.3
15.0
1.36
10
20
30
40
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 121)
32.7
14.8
.17
10
20
30
45
60
7,437
-.4
.772
Baseline Peers
29.6
15.0
.29
5
20
30
40
60
2,773
2.7
.049
.183
Aspirant Peers
32.6
14.4
.21
10
20
30
40
60
4,631
-.3
.840
-.019
Top 50%
35.4
13.8
.03
15
25
35
45
60
175,634
-3.0
.015
-.221
37.7
13.6
.07
15
30
40
50
60
35,190
-5.4
.000
-.396
Top 10%
Discussions w ith Diverse Others
42.1
15.9
1.48
20
30
45
60
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 115)
40.8
17.9
.22
5
30
40
60
60
6,686
1.3
.433
.074
Baseline Peers
43.4
16.6
.34
15
35
45
60
60
2,517
-1.3
.420
-.077
Aspirant Peers
42.7
16.5
.26
15
35
40
60
60
4,136
-.6
.716
-.034
Top 50%
43.9
15.8
.04
20
35
45
60
60
202,305
-1.8
.214
-.116
Top 10%
45.8
15.4
.07
20
40
50
60
60
52,343
-3.7
.009
-.243
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
29
Experiences w ith Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
23.8
17.2
1.58
0
10
20
35
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 119)
21.4
16.5
.20
0
10
20
30
55
7,208
2.3
.129
.140
Baseline Peers
22.3
17.0
.33
0
10
20
35
55
2,709
1.4
.365
.085
Aspirant Peers
23.3
16.5
.25
0
10
20
35
60
4,471
.4
.787
.025
Top 50%
29.5
16.1
.06
5
20
30
40
60
83,125
-5.8
.000
-.359
Top 10%
34.4
16.4
.15
10
20
35
45
60
11,376
-10.6
.000
-.650
Effective Teaching Practices
43.6
12.9
1.18
20
36
44
56
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 120)
40.6
14.6
.17
16
32
40
52
60
125
2.9
.015
.201
Baseline Peers
41.6
14.7
.29
16
32
40
56
60
134
1.9
.111
.133
Aspirant Peers
41.5
14.1
.21
16
32
40
52
60
4,499
2.0
.115
.146
Top 50%
43.0
13.6
.04
20
36
44
56
60
124,367
.5
.674
.038
Top 10%
Campus Environment
45.1
13.4
.09
20
36
48
60
60
21,182
-1.6
.204
-.116
Quality of Interactions
44.7
11.8
1.11
24
38
46
53
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 113)
42.0
13.0
.16
18
34
44
52
60
117
2.7
.019
.206
Baseline Peers
42.7
13.1
.27
18
35
45
53
60
126
2.0
.086
.152
Aspirant Peers
43.3
11.8
.19
22
36
45
52
60
3,931
1.4
.203
.121
Top 50%
45.3
11.3
.03
24
38
48
54
60
107,889
-.6
.602
-.049
Top 10%
47.4
11.6
.07
24
40
50
58
60
28,960
-2.6
.016
-.228
Supportive Environment
36.9
15.8
1.49
10
25
38
53
60
UT System
UTPB (N = 113)
32.5
15.6
.20
8
20
33
43
60
6,234
4.3
.003
.279
Baseline Peers
32.3
16.1
.34
5
20
33
43
60
2,386
4.5
.003
.282
Aspirant Peers
32.5
14.5
.24
9
23
33
43
60
3,883
4.4
.002
.302
Top 50%
36.1
13.8
.04
13
28
38
45
60
112
.8
.598
.057
Top 10%
39.0
13.3
.09
17
30
40
50
60
113
-2.1
.161
-.157
a. Results weighted by institutio n-repo rted sex and enro llment status (and institutio nal size fo r co mpariso n gro ups).
b. Standard deviatio n is a measure o f the amo unt the individual sco res deviate fro m the mean o f all the sco res in the distributio n.
c. Standard erro r o f the mean, used to co mpute a co nfidence interval (CI) aro und the sample mean. Fo r example, the 95% CI is the range o f values that is 95% likely
to co ntain the
true po pulatio n mean, equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 * SEM .
d. A percentile is the po int in the distributio n o f student-level EI sco res at o r belo w which a given percentage o f EI sco res fall.
e. Degrees o f freedo m used to co mpute the t-tests. Values vary fro m the to tal Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.
f. Statistical significance represents the pro bability that the difference between the mean o f yo ur institutio n and that o f the co mpariso n gro up o ccurred by chance.
g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the po o led standard deviatio n.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
30
Bibliography
Hatcher, Donald and L. Anne Spencer (2000). Reasoning and Writing: From Critical Thinking to Composition.
Boston, MA: American Press.
McCormick, Alexander, Robert M. Gonyea, and Associates (2009). “NSSE 2009 Psychometric Properties” in
National Survey of Student Engagement Institutional Report 2009. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Center for Postsecondary Research.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
31
APPENDIX A
NSSE 2014 Survey
Instrument
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
32
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
33
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
34
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
35
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
36
Appendix B
Comparison Institutions
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
37
University of Texas System Institutions
The University of Texas at Arlington
The University of Texas at Brownsville
The University of Texas at Dallas
The University of Texas at El Paso
The University of Texas at San Antonio
The University of Texas at Tyler
The University of Texas at Pan American
University of Texas Selected Baseline Peers*
Adams State University (Alamosa, CO)
Auburn University at Montgomery (Montgomery, AL)
Columbus State University (Columbus, GA)
Midwestern State University (Wichita Falls, TX)
New Jersey City University (Jersey City, NJ)
Purdue University-Calumet Campus (Hammond, IN)
University of North Carolina at Pembroke (Pembroke, NC)
Aspirant Peers Institutions
California State University-Bakersfield (Bakersfield, CA)
California State University-Stanislaus (Turlock, CA)
Florida Gulf Coast University (Fort Myers, FL)
Tarleton State University (Stephenville, TX)
University of Tennessee Martin (Martin, TN)
University of Colorado Colorado Springs (Colorado Springs, CO)
University of Michigan – Dearborn (Dearborn, MI)
West Texas A&M University (Canyon, TX)
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
38
APPENDIX C
2014 Snapshot
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
39
NSSE 2014 Snapshot
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
A Summary of Student Engagement Results
Student engagement represents two critical features of collegiate quality. The first
is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other
educationally purposeful activities. The second is how institutional resources,
courses, and other learning opportunities facilitate student participation in
activities that matter to student learning. NSSE surveys first-year and senior
students to assess their levels of engagement and related information about their
experience at your institution.
Comparison Group
The comparison group
featured in this report is
UT System
See your Selected Comparison
Groups report for details.
This Snapshot is a concise collection of key findings from your institution’s NSSE 2014 administration. We hope
this information stimulates discussions about the undergraduate experience. Additional details about these and
other results appear in the reports referenced throughout.
Engagement Indicators
Sets of items are grouped
into ten Engagement
Indicators, organized under
four broad themes. At right
are summary results for your
institution. For details, see
your Engagement Indicators
report.
Your students’ average
▲ was significantly higher (p
< .05) with an effect size
Your students’ average
△ was significantly higher (p
< .05) with an effect size
-- No significant difference.
Your students’ average
▽ was significantly lower (p
< .05) with an effect size
Your students’ average
was significantly lower (p
▼
< .05) with an effect size
at least .3 in magnitude.
High-Impact Practices
Due to their positive
associations with student
learning and retention, special
undergraduate opportunities
are designated "high-impact."
For more details and
statistical comparisons, see
your High-Impact Practices
report.
Theme
Your students compared
with
UT System
First-year
Senior
Engagement Indicator
Higher-Order Learning
--
--
Reflective & Integrative Learning
--
--
Learning Strategies
--
--
Quantitative Reasoning
--
--
Collaborative Learning
--
--
Discussions with Diverse Others
--
--
Experience Student-Faculty Interaction
s
with Faculty Effective Teaching Practices
▼
--
--
△
Campus
Quality of Interactions
Environmen
Supportive Environment
t
--
△
--
△
Academic
Challenge
Learning
with Peers
First-year
Learning Community,
Service-Learning, and
Research w/Faculty
UTPB
5% 27%
UT System
12%
45%
P
Senior
Learning Community,
Service-Learning,
Research w/Faculty,
Internship, Study Abroad,
and Culminating Senior
0%
UTPB
UT System
25%
51%
48%
Participated in two or more HIPs
50%
75%
100%
35%
31%
Participated in one HIP
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
40
P
NSSE 2014 Snapshot
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Academic Challenge: Additional Results
The Academic Challenge theme contains four Engagement Indicators as well as several important individual items.
The results presented here provide an overview of these individual items. For more information about the Academic
Challenge theme, see your Engagement Indicators report. To further explore individual item results, see your
Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons, the Major Field Report, the Online Institutional Report, or the Report
Builder—Institution Version.
Time Spent Preparing for Class
This figure reports the
average weekly class
preparation time for your firstyear and senior students
compared to students in
your comparison group.
First-year
UTPB
12.3
UT System
13.4
Senior
UTPB
12.2
UT System
14.4
0
10
20
30
Average Hours per Week
Preparing for Class
Reading and Writing
These figures summarize the
number of hours your
students spent reading for
their courses and the
average number of pages of
assigned writing compared
to students in your
comparison group. Each is
an estimate calculated from
two or more separate survey
questions.
First-year
UTPB
4.9
UT System
Senior
UTPB
0
Senior
65.9
7.6
Note: The reading item is
limited to 2014 institutions.
First-year
50.4
5.0
UT System
100%
10
20
30
0
Average Hours per Week
on Course Reading
50
100
150
Average Pages of
Assigned Writing, Current Year
Academic Emphasis
How much did students say their institution
emphasizes spending significant time studying
and on academic work? Response options
included "Very much," "Quite a bit," "Some," and
"Very little."
First-year
55%
51%
64%
65%
50%
25%
37.7
6.4
Challenging Students to Do Their Best Work
To what extent did students' courses challenge them to
do their best work? Response options ranged from 1 =
"Not at all"
to 7 = "Very much."
75%
32.2
UTPB
83%
UT System
84%
UTPB
84%
UT System
83%
M o der
Senior
45%
47%
35%
33%
0%
0%
UTPB
UT System
UTPB
UT System
25%
50%
75%
Percentage Responding
"Very much" or "Quite a bit"
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
41
100%
NSSE 2014 Snapshot
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Item Comparisons
By examining individual NSSE questions, you can better understand what contributes to your institution's performance
Engagement Indicators and High-Impact Practices. This section displays the five questions a on which your firstyear and senior students scored the highest and the five questions on which they scored the lowest, relative to
students in your comparison group. Parenthetical notes indicate whether an item belongs to a specific
Engagement Indicator or is a High-Impact Practice. While these questions represent the largest differences (in
percentage points), they may not be the most important to your institutional mission or current program or policy
First-year
Highest Performing Relative to UT System
Item #
Institutio n emphasis o n attending events that address impo rtant so cial/eco n./po lit. issues c (SE)
14i.
+20
5b.
c
Instructo rs taught co urse sessio ns in an o rganized way (ET)
+14
5a.
c
Instructo rs clearly explained co urse go als and requirements (ET)
c
Instructo rs pro vided pro mpt and detailed feedback o n tests o r co mpleted assignments (ET)
+11
5e.
+11
14h.
Institutio n emphasis o n attending campus activities and events (…) (SE)
c
+10
-30
Lowest Performing Relative to UT System
-20
3d.
Discussed yo ur academic perfo rmance with a faculty member b (SF)
A bo ut ho w many co urses have included a co mmunity-based pro ject (service-learning)? e (HIP )
20
30
-15
4e.
Fo rming a new idea o r understanding fro m vario us pieces o f info rmatio n c (HO)
10
-15
1f.
Explained co urse material to o ne o r mo re students b (CL)
0
-13
9a.
Identified key info rmatio n fro m reading assignments b (LS)
-10
-17
12.
-22
Percentage Point Difference w ith UT System
Senior
Highest Performing Relative to UT System
Item #
11f.
Co mpleted a culminating senio r experience (…) (HIP )
Instructo rs pro vided feedback o n a draft o r wo rk in pro gress (ET)
Quality o f interactio ns with o ther administrative staff and o ffices (…) (QI)
c
Institutio n emphasis o n attending events that address impo rtant so cial/eco n./po lit. issues (SE)
c
Institutio n emphasis o n pro viding suppo rt to help students succeed academically (SE)
+15
14i.
+14
14b.
+13
-30
Lowest Performing Relative to UT System
Included diverse perspectives (…) in co urse discussio ns o r assignments b (RI)
2c.
A bo ut ho w many co urses have included a co mmunity-based pro ject (service-learning)? e (HIP )
12.
Tried to better understand so meo ne else's views by imagining…his o r her perspective b (RI)
2e.
Spent mo re than 10 ho urs per week o n assigned reading f
+17
13e.
d
Spent mo re than 15 ho urs per week preparing fo r class
+20
5d.
c
15a.
16.
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
-7
-7
-11
-14
-17
Percentage Point Difference w ith UT System
a. The displays o n this page draw fro m the items that make up the ten Engagement Indicato rs (EIs), six High-Impact P ractices (HIP s), and the additio nal academic
challenge items repo rted
o n page 2. Key to abbreviatio ns fo r EI items: HO = Higher-Order Learning, RI = Reflective & Integrative Learning, LS = Learning Strategies, QR = Quantitative
Reaso ning,
CL = Co llabo rative Learning, DD = Discussio ns with Diverse Others, SF = Student-Faculty Interactio n, ET = Effective Teaching P ractices, QI = Quality o f
Interactio ns, SE = Suppo rtive
Enviro nment. HIP items are also indicated. Item numbering co rrespo nds to the survey facsimile included in yo ur Institutio nal Repo rt and available o n the NSSE
Web site.
b. Co mbinatio n o f students respo nding "Very o ften" o r "Often."
c. Co mbinatio n o f students respo nding "Very much" o r "Quite a bit."
d. Rated at least 6 o n a 7-po int scale.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
42
NSSE 2014 Snapshot
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
How Students Assess Their Experience
Students' perceptions of their cognitive and affective development, as well as their overall satisfaction with the
institution, provide useful evidence of their educational experiences. For more details, refer to your Frequencies
and Statistical Comparisons report.
Perceived Gains Among Seniors
Students reported how much their experience at your
institution contributed to their knowledge, skills, and
personal development in ten areas.
Satisfaction with UTPB
Students rated their overall experience at the
institution, and whether or not they would
choose
Percentage of Seniors
Responding
"Very m uch" or "Quite a bit"
Perceived Gains
( S o rt e d highe s t t o lo we s t )
Thinking critically and analytically
83%
Working effectively w ith others
82%
Writing clearly and effectively
72%
Acquiring job- or w ork-related know ledge
and skills
72%
Speaking clearly and effectively
72%
Solving complex real-w orld problems
68%
Analyzing numerical and statistical
information
68%
Developing or clarifying a personal code
of values and ethics
68%
Understanding people of other
backgrounds
(econ.,
relig.,
nation.,
Being
an racial/ethnic,
informed andpolit.,
active
citizen
65%
Percentage Rating Their Overall
Experience as "Excellent" or
"Good"
First-year
UTPB
94%
UT System
Senior
83%
UTPB
90%
UT System
84%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percentage Who Would
"Definitely" or "Probably" Attend
This Institution Again
First-year
UTPB
89%
UT System
Senior
81%
UTPB
83%
UT System
60%
81%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Administration Details
Response Summary
Additional Questions
Count
Resp. rate
Female
Full-time
First-year
47
20%
53%
81%
Senior
130
29%
68%
73%
Refer to your Administration Summary and Respondent
Profile reports for more information.
Your institution did not choose to administer additional
questions. In future administrations, you may customize NSSE
by participating in a topical module or a consortium. See our
Web site for more information.
nsse.iub.edu
What is NSSE?
NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about student
participation in activities and programs that promote their learning and personal development. The results
provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending their college or
university. Institutions use their data to identify aspects of the undergraduate experience that can be improved
through changes in policy and practice.
UT Permian Basin
National Survey of Student Engagement 2014
43