Selected Results of NSSE 2003:
University of Kentucky
December 3, 2003
Presentation Overview

Why is student engagement important?

The National Survey of Student Engagement
(NSSE)

What do we know about the engagement of UK
students?

The five benchmarks of good practice

Other important findings

Ways to enhance student engagement
What Really Matters in College:
Student Engagement
The research is unequivocal:
students who are actively
involved in both academic
and out-of-class activities
gain more from the college
experience than those who
are not so involved
Pascarella & Terenzini. (1991). How college affects students
Good Educational Practices







Student-faculty contact
Active learning
Prompt feedback
Time on task
High expectations
Cooperation among
students
Respect for diverse talents
and ways of learning
“Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education”
(Chickering and Gamson, 1987)
What is Student Engagement?

Represents two important aspects of collegiate
quality:
– The amount of time and effort students put into their
studies and other meaningful academic activities
– How the institution deploys resources and organizes its
curriculum and other learning opportunities

Correlates with student learning and retention
What is the NSSE?
(pronounced “nessie”)

Refocuses conversations about quality in
undergraduate education

Assesses students’ engagement in educational
practices associated with high levels of
learning and personal development

Provide systematic national data on “good
educational practices”

Enhances institutional improvement efforts
What is Covered in
The College Student Report?
Student Behaviors
in College
Institutional Actions
& Requirements
Student Reactions
to College
Student Background
Information
Student
Learning &
Development
NSSE 2003 Respondent Characteristics
Response rate
UK
NSSE 2003
34%
43%
F 56%; S 79%
F 44%; S 21%
626
F 42%; S 55%
F 58%; S 45%
93,393
+/- 5.4%
+/- 5.3%
+/- 0.4%
+/- 0.4%
Mode
Paper
Web
No. of Students
Sampling Error
Freshmen
Seniors
What Do We Know About
College Student Engagement?
What percent of UK students
participate in community
service or volunteer work on
a weekly basis?
First-Year
30%
Seniors
39%
What Do We Know About
College Student Engagement?
What percent of UK students
spent more than 20 hours per
week preparing for class?
First-Year
19%
Seniors
20%
What Do We Know About
College Student Engagement?
What percent of UK students
spent more than 5 hours per
week participating in cocurricular activities?
First-Year
24%
Seniors
21%
Five Benchmarks of Effective
Educational Practice

Clusters of related activities, institutional actions,
attitudes, and perceptions
– Level of academic challenge
– Active and collaborative learning
– Student-faculty interaction
– Enriching educational experiences
– Supportive campus environment

The results for 2001 and 2003 compare UK firstyear students and seniors with peers at other
doctoral research extensive institutions
– ‘Absolute’ level of engagement (raw benchmark scores)
– ‘Predicted’ level of engagement (statistically controlling
for institutional and student characteristics)
I. Level of Academic Challenge
Items on this benchmark include:
 Level of preparation for class
 Number of assigned books
 Number of written papers of varying length
 Types of cognitive demands emphasized by
coursework
Level of Academic Challenge
70
60
51.6 51.4
53.1 54.6
52.2 52.3
55.0 55.2
Senior
First-Year
Senior
50
40
30
20
10
0
First-Year
2001
2003
UK
Doc.-Ext
Observations about the
Academic Challenge Benchmark

UK first-year students and seniors scored near the
50th percentile on this benchmark

Relative to their peers, UK freshmen:
– Report spending more time preparing two or more
drafts of an assignment
– write significantly more short and mid-length papers
than their KY peers

Relative to their peers, UK seniors reported fewer
numbers of assigned textbooks, books, or booklength packs of course readings
Actual vs. Predicted Scores:
Level of Academic Challenge
Students’
Class
FirstYear
Senior
Actual
Score
Predicted
Score
Residual
Standardized
Residual
52.2*
50.5
1.7
0.6
54.4*
52.9
1.5
0.5
*Note: The ‘actual’ benchmark scores in the above chart may differ slightly those reported in the NSSE
Benchmark Report and the accompanying graph. The Benchmark Report scores are adjusted according to
students’ enrollment status. This adjustment is not reflected in the actual scores in the chart because it was
included in the regression model used to generate the predicted scores.
II. Active and
Collaborative Learning
Items on this benchmark include:
 Contributions to class discussions
 Class presentations
 Work with other students on projects
 Frequency of discussions about readings
outside of class
Active and Collaborative Learning
70
60
44.8 45.8
50
40
35.6 37.5
46.2 46.2
35.1
38.1
30
20
10
0
First-Year
Senior
First-Year
2001
2003
UK
Doc.-Ext
Senior
Observations about
Active and Collaborative Learning



Between 2001 and 2003, the gap between UK
freshmen and their peers widened slightly
Freshmen scored between the 10th and 20th percentiles
and seniors scores at the 50th percentile
Relative to their peers, UK freshmen:
– Collaborated less with their classmates outside of class
– Participated less in community-based projects as part of
a regular course


Both UK freshmen and seniors were less likely than
their peers to discuss ideas from readings outside of
class
UK seniors reported more in-class collaboration on
projects
Actual vs. Predicted Scores:
Active and Collaborative Learning
Students’
Class
FirstYear
Senior
Actual
Score
Predicted
Score
Residual
Standardized
Residual
35.1
37.0
-1.8
-0.5
46.2
45.8
0.4
0.1
III. Student Interaction with
Faculty Members
Items on this benchmark include:
 Frequency of discussions with faculty on:
– grades
– assignments
– career plans
– readings

Promptness of feedback
 Participation in research projects
Student-Faculty Interaction
70
60
50
40
39.1 38.4
33.6 31.6
34.4 34.0
41.5 39.9
30
20
10
0
First-Year
Senior
First-Year
2001
2003
UK
Doc.-Ext
Senior
Observations about
Student-Faculty Interaction

UK freshmen and seniors scored well above
students from other doctoral/research ext.
institutions—between the 60th and 70th
percentiles—in 2001 and 2003
 UK freshmen reported fewer experiences working
with faculty on research outside of class
requirements
 UK freshmen and seniors reported more frequent
discussions of career plans with a faculty member
of advisor
Actual vs. Predicted Scores:
Student-Faculty Interaction
Students’
Class
FirstYear
Senior
Actual
Score
Predicted
Score
Residual
Standardized
Residual
34.4
33.1
1.3
0.3
41.5
39.1
2.4
0.6
IV. Enriching Educational
Experiences
Items on this benchmark include:
 Participation in co-curricular activities
 Involvement in community service
 Participation in internships and co-ops
 Enrollment in capstone courses
 Study abroad
Enriching Educational
Experiences
70
60
57.6
55.3
51.4
50.4
50
42.5
46.7 47.6
45.9
40
30
20
10
0
First-Year
Senior
First-Year
2001
2003
UK
Doc.-Ext
Senior
Observations about the Enriching
Educational Experiences Benchmark




In 2001 and 2003, UK students scored well below their
peers from the KY consortium and research universities
Freshmen scored below the 10th percentile and seniors
scored just below the 50th percentile
The poor performance of UK freshmen can be traced to
several questions about diversity
UK first-year students reported:
– their school placed less emphasis on contact among students from
different backgrounds than other research universities
– less frequent conversations with students of different religious
beliefs, political opinions, or personal values

Both UK freshmen and seniors reported fewer serious
conversations with students of different races and
ethnicities
Actual vs. Predicted Scores:
Enriching Educational Experiences
Students’
Class
FirstYear
Senior
Actual
Score
Predicted
Score
Residual
Standardized
Residual
51.4
53.7
-2.3
-0.6
46.7
45.9
0.8
0.2
V. Supportive Campus
Environment
Items on this benchmark include:
 Perceived support to succeed academically
 Perceived support to thrive socially
 Perceived quality of relationships with:
– Other students
– Faculty
– Administrators
Supportive Campus Environment
70
60
53.3
56.1
50
59.0 58.0
53.7 53.4
48.3 51.2
40
30
20
10
0
First-Year
Senior
First-Year
2001
2003
UK
Doc.-Ext
Senior
2001 Observations about the Supportive
Campus Environment Benchmark
Two years ago, UK students’ evaluations were
well below their counterparts
 In 2003, freshmen scored above the 60th percentile
and senior scored above the 50th percentile
 On most benchmark items, UK students’ ratings
did not differ significantly from their peers
 Both freshmen and seniors assigned higher ratings
to the quality of their relationships with
administrative personnel and offices.

Actual vs. Predicted Scores:
Supportive Campus Environment
Students’
Class
FirstYear
Senior
Actual
Score
Predicted
Score
Residual
Standardized
Residual
59.0
57.6
1.4
0.4
53.7
52.7
1.0
0.2
Number of NSSE Benchmarks on Which
UK Students Exceeded the Predicted Score
2001 and 2003
Students’
Class
2001
2003
Exceeded/Total Exceeded/Total
First-Year
2/5
3/5
Seniors
1/5
5/5
Quality of Academic Advising
4
3.5
3
3.05
2.99
2.77
2.69
2.91
2.71 2.71
2.60
2.5
2
1.5
1
First-Year
Senior
First-Year
2001
2003
UK
Doc.-Ext
Senior
Satisfaction with Entire
Educational Experience
4
3.5
3.06
3.16
2.97
3.15
3.13 3.21
3.05
3.18
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
First-Year
Senior
First-Year
2001
2003
UK
Doc.-Ext
Senior
Perceived Institutional Contributions to Personal Development
Means Scores of UK and Doctoral Research-Ext. Freshmen
2.72
2.58
Understanding yourself
Understanding people of other
racial/ethnic backgrounds
2.56
2.37
Developing a personal code of values
and ethics
2.56
2.42
Contributing to the welfare of your
community
2.28
2.03
0
0.5
1
UK Freshmen
1.5
2
2.5
Doc.-Ext Freshmen
3
Where do we go from here . . .?
Areas of Focus

Increase the level of active and collaborative
learning on campus
– Develop more community-based projects as part of
regular courses
– Have students work together on projects outside of class

Focus on enriching educational experiences
– Admit more diverse students
– Encourage interaction among diverse student groups
– Promote study abroad programs, living learning
communities, and undergraduate research outside of class
or program requirements

Enhance the overall academic climate on campus by
creating higher expectations for student
performance
Enrollment
Managemt
General
Assessment
Institutional
Research
Learning
Communities
1st Year
& Senior
Experience
Institutional
Improvement
Student
Affairs
Peer
Comparison
Academic
Affairs
Faculty
Developmt
Academic
Advising
Recommendations
Colleges should ‘drill down’ into the NSSE
data to evaluate their students’ levels of
engagement
 Appoint an institution-wide NSSE taskforce
charged with:

– Learning how other institutions have used
NSSE results for improvement
– Developing university-wide initiatives to
address our own shortcomings
Questions and Comments?
Office of Institutional Research
For more information on NSSE:
Roger Sugarman, Ph.D.
rpsuga0@email.uky.edu
Phone: 257-7989
www.uky.edu/IR/