CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2014 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT BENCHMARKS
I. Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………… 2.
II. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.
III. Student Engagement Summary……………………………………………………………… 4.
A.
Engagement………………………………………………………………………………...
4.
B.
Academic Challenge………………………………………………………………………. 5.
C.
How Students Assess Their Experience………………………………………….. 6.
D.
CWU Strengths and Weaknesses Relative to Far West Peers…………. 6.
IV. Engagement Indicators…………………………………………………………………………… 7.
A.
Engagement Overview…………………………………………………………………… 7.
B.
Engagement Details………………………………………………………………………. 9.
V. High Impact Practices……………………………………………………………………………… 11.
Tom Henderson, Director of Institutional Assessment
Acknowledgement to David Braskamp of Organization Effectiveness for generating data files
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Central Washington University (CWU) administered the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) during
the spring 2014 quarter to CWU first year and senior students.
CWU’s NSSE results were very similar to peer institutions. In general, CWU first-year students were a bit lower
than peers. Most of the differences are what NSSE categorizes as “trivial.” CWU seniors were a bit higher
than peers, but again most of the differences were very small.
ENGAGEMENT



CWU first year student engagement averages were generally lower (worse) than peers but by trivial
amounts
CWU senior engagement averages were mostly better than peers but by small amounts
CWU seniors were moderately lower than peers in “supportive environment” including:
o Institution emphasis on providing support to help students succeed academically (SE)
o Institution emphasis on helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (SE)
o Institution emphasis on attending events that address important social/econ./polit. issues (SE)
HIGH IMPACT PRACTICES
The number of first year and senior students participating in Service Learning was moderately lower than Far
West and Carnegie peers.
CWU seniors were more experienced than peers in:



Research with Faculty
Internships or Field Experience
Culminating senior experience
See Table 16 on page 11.
II. METHODOLOGY
The NSSE survey was emailed to all CWU first-year (1,513) and senior (2,244) students during the spring 2014
quarter. An invitation email was sent on April 9, 2014. Four reminder emails were sent on 4/15, 4/17, 4/23,
and 4/29/14. All respondents received a 10% coupon from the Wildcat Shop (either in person or online). In
addition, thirty respondents were randomly selected for early fall 2014 registration.
CWU customized the “Far West Public” comparison group. Instead of including all institutions at all levels
CWU selected 14 institutions:






California State Polytechnic University-Pomona (Pomona, CA)
California State University San Marcos (San Marcos, CA)
California State University-Channel Islands (Camarillo, CA)
California State University-Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA)
California State University, Monterey Bay (Seaside, CA)
Eastern Oregon University (La Grande, OR)*
9/16/14
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 2 of 11








Eastern Washington University (Cheney, WA)
Humboldt State University (Arcata, CA)*
San Jose State University (San Jose, CA)
Sonoma State University (Rohnert Park, CA)
Southern Oregon University (Ashland, OR)
The Evergreen State College (Olympia, WA)
Western Oregon University (Monmouth, OR)
Western Washington University (Bellingham, WA)
Two other comparison groups remained the same, Carnegie Class, and all institutions participating in the NSSE
during 2013 and 2014.
The response rate to the survey was 17.6%. 1,513 first year students were invited, 315 gave full or partial
responses. 2,244 seniors were invited, there were 348 responses. In all 663 students responded out of 3,757
invited for a response rate of 17.6%. 184 of the seniors were enrolled in online degree programs, 35 of them
responded for a response rate of 19%.
Table 1 – 2014 NSSE Response Rates
Response Rate
Sampling Error
First year Students
Seniors
CWU
Far West CWU
Far West
21%
18%
16%
22%
± 4,9% ± 1.3% ± 4,8% ± 0.9%
All responses
CWU
Far West
18%
21%
As usual, a large percentage of survey respondents were female. See Table 2.
Table 2 – CWU NSSE Respondents
Female
Full-time
First year Students
Seniors
Response % Surveyed %Response %Surveyed %
71%
51%
66%
49%
100%
99%
84%
82%
NSSE reports “effect sizes” to estimate substantive differences in average responses. More details are at:
http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/effect_size_guide.pdf (viewed on 9/15/14).
This summary report uses the NSSE “cut points” for the effect sizes to estimate the substantive differences in
averages:




Trivial: less than .20
Small: .20 to .49
Moderate: .50 to .79
Large: .80 or greater
9/16/14
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 3 of 11
III. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
A. ENGAGEMENT
In general, CWU senior’s engagement compares well with the Far West Public peer group. CWU first year
student’s engagement is generally lower than that peer group but the substantive differences are all small.
Table 3 – CWU Student Engagement compared to Far West Public Peer Group Averages
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 compared with
Far West Public
Theme
Engagement Indicator
First-year
Senior
--
--
Higher-Order Learning
Academic
Challenge
▽
▽
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
▲
△
-▽
▼
No significant difference.
Your students’ average was
significantly lower (p < .05) with
an effect size less than .3 in
Your students’ average was
significantly lower (p < .05) with
an effect size at least .3 in
magnitude.
Learning
with Peers
Experiences
with Faculty
Campus
Environment
---
--
Quantitative Reasoning
Your students’ average was
significantly higher (p < .05) with
an effect size at least .3 in
Your students’ average was
significantly higher (p < .05) with
an effect size less than .3 in
--
▽
▽
△
▽
Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
---
△
---
--
Quality of Interactions
▽
▽
Supportive Environment
In general, CWU first-year students experience fewer “high impact practices” than Far West Peers while CWU
seniors experience more “high impact practices” that the Far West Peers.
Table 4 – CWU and Far West Peer “High Impact Practices”
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 HighImpact Practices report.
First-year
Learning Community, ServiceLearning, and Research w/Faculty
Senior
Learning Community, ServiceLearning, Research w/Faculty,
Internship, Study Abroad,
and Culminating Senior
Experience
CWU
12% 35%
Far West Public
12%
0%
48%
25%
50%
CWU
64%
25%
Far West Public
60%
26%
Participated in two or more HIPs
9/16/14
75%
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
100%
Participated in one HIP
page 4 of 11
B. ACADEMIC CHALLENGE
Again, CWU seniors compare very well to the Far West peer group while CWU first year students are slightly
lower in several metrics.
Table 5 – CWU and Far West Peer Academic Challenges
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 first-year and senior
students compared to
students in your comparison
group.
First-year
CWU
11.2
Far West Public
13.2
Senior
CWU
16.2
Far West Public
15.6
0
10
20
30
Average Hours per Week …
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
CWU
5.4
Far West Public
46.2
50.5
6.8
Senior
CWU
8.3
Far West Public
7.8
0
Note: The reading item is
l i mited to 2014 i nstitutions.
102.3
86.9
10
20
0
30
Average Hours per Week
on Course Reading
50
100
150
Average Pages of
Assigned Writing, Current Year
Challenging Students to Do Their Best Work
Academic Emphasis
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."
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
Senior
100%
First-year
CWU
75%
46%
50%
52%
59%
50%
75%
Far West Public
81%
Senior
CWU
25%
52%
48%
45%
39%
79%
Far West Public
83%
0%
0%
CWU
9/16/14
Far West
Public
CWU
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percentage Responding
"Very much" or "Quite a bit"
Far West
Public
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 5 of 11
C. HOW STUDENTS ASSESS THEIR EXPERIENCE
CWU students are very similar to the Far West peer group in how they assess their experience in college.
Table 6 – CWU and Far West Peer Perceived Gains
Perceived Gains Among Seniors
Satisfaction with CWU
Students reported how much their experience at your institution
contributed to their knowledge, skills, and personal development in
ten areas.
Students rated their overall experience at the
institution, and whether or not they would choose
it again.
Perceived Gains
( S orted h ig h est to lowest)
Percentage of Seniors Responding
"Very much" or "Quite a bit"
Thinking critically and analytically
80%
Writing clearly and effectively
73%
Acquiring job- or work-related knowledge
and skills
72%
Working effectively with others
71%
Speaking clearly and effectively
67%
Solving complex real-world problems
60%
Analyzing numerical and statistical information
59%
Being an informed and active citizen
56%
Understanding people of other backgrounds
(econ., racial/ethnic, polit., relig., nation., etc.)
55%
Developing or clarifying a personal code
of values and ethics
54%
Percentage Rating Their Overall Experience
as "Excellent" or "Good"
First-year
CWU
85%
Far West Public
84%
CWU
82%
Far West Public
84%
Senior
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percentage Who Would "Definitely" or
"Probably" Attend This Institution Again
First-year
CWU
85%
Far West Public
79%
CWU
79%
Far West Public
80%
Senior
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
D. CWU STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES RELATIVE TO THE FAR WEBT PEER GROUP
NSSE uses the following categories when summarizing the relative strengths and weaknesses of CWU students
compared to Far West peers:
HO = Higher-Order Learning
RI = Reflective & Integrative Learning
LS = Learning Strategies
QR = Quantitative Reasoning
CL = Collaborative Learning
9/16/14
DD = Discussions with Diverse Others
SF = Student Facul5ty Interaction
ET = Effective Teaching Practices
QI = Quality of Interaction
SE = Supportive Environment
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 6 of 11
CWU First-year Student Highest Performing Areas Relative to Far West Peers:





Quality of interactions with academic advisors (QI)
Talked about career plans with a faculty member (SF)
Participated in a learning community or some other formal program where (HIP)
Quality of interactions with faculty (QI)
Institution emphasis on providing support for your overall well-being...c (SE)
CWU First-year Student Lowest Performing Areas Relative to Far West Peers:





Spent more than 15 hours per week preparing for class
Included diverse perspectives (…) in course discussions or assignments (RI)
Institution emphasis on encouraging contact among students from different backgrounds... (SE)
Discussions with… People of a race or ethnicity other than your own (DD)
About how many courses have included a community-based project (service-learning) (HIP)
CWU Senior Highest Performing Areas Relative to Far West Peers:





Participated in an internship, co-op, field exp., student teach., clinical placemt. (HIP)
Talked about career plans with a faculty memberb (SF)
Discussions with… People with political views other than your own (DD)
Completed a culminating senior experience (…) (HIP)
Assigned more than 50 pages of writing
CWU Senior Lowest Performing Areas Relative to Far West Peers:





Institution emphasis on providing support to help students succeed academically (SE)
Extent to which courses challenged you to do your best work
Institution emphasis on helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (SE)
Institution emphasis on attending events that address important social/econ./polit. issues (SE)
About how many courses have included a community-based project (service-learning) (HIP)
IV. ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
Again, CWU seniors tend to be slightly higher that peers on engagement indicators while CWU first year
students are slightly lower, but differences are all small.
A. ENGADGEMENT OVERVIEW
Table 7 uses these indicators:
▲
CWU average responses were significantly higher (p<.05) with an effect size of at least 0.3.
△
CWU average responses were significantly higher (p<.05) with an effect size smaller than 0.3.
-No significant difference
▽
CWU average responses were significantly lower (p<.05) with an effect size smaller than 0.3.
▼
CWU average responses were significantly lower (p<.05) with an effect size of at least 0.3.
9/16/14
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 7 of 11
Table 7 – Summary of CWU and Peer Engagement Indicators
First-Year Students
Theme
Engagement Indicator
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Collaborative Learning
Experiences
with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Campus
Environment
Quality of Interactions
Discussions with Diverse Others
Effective Teaching Practices
Supportive Environment
Seniors
Theme
Engagement Indicator
Higher-Order Learning
Academic
Challenge
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning with
Peers
Collaborative Learning
Experiences
with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Campus
Environment
Quality of Interactions
Discussions with Diverse Others
Effective Teaching Practices
Supportive Environment
Your first-year students
compared with
Far West Public
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
▽
▽
▽
---
▽
▽
--
--
▽
▽
--
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning with
Peers
Your first-year students
compared with
--
Higher-Order Learning
Academic
Challenge
Your first-year students
compared with
---
--
--
--
▽
▽
△
▽
▽
▽
--
--
--
▽
▽
▽
Your seniors
compared with
Your seniors
compared with
Your seniors
compared with
Far West Public
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
△
△
△
△
△
-------
△
---
▽
----
----
--
△
--
▽
▽
▽
---
▽
The Academic Challenge substantive differences between CWU students and NSSE peer groups are trivial. In
general, CWU seniors are slightly more challenged than peers while CWU first-year students are slightly less
challenged academically.
Tables 8 through 15 summarize Engagement Indicators for CWU compared to Far West Peers, all NSSE
Institutions in CWU’s Carnegie class, and responses from all students from all institutions. Again, CWU first
year students tend to be slightly lower than peers, seniors slightly higher. All effect sizes are less than 0.2 or
“trivial” meaning very little substantive difference in averages (except for senior “supportive environment”
where CWU is moderately lower than Carnegie Class and NSSE 2013/2014).
Tables 8 through 15 provide detailed engagement means and effect sizes.
9/16/14
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 8 of 11
B. ENGAGEMENT DETAILS
Table 8 – Academic Challenge First Year Students (all differences are “trivial”)
Mean Comparisons
Your first-year students compared with
CWU
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Far West Public
Effect
Mean
size
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Higher-Order Learning
37.7
39.2
-.11
38.6
-.06
39.0
-.09
Reflective & Integrative Learning
34.0
36.3 **
-.18
35.4
-.11
35.6 *
-.13
Learning Strategies
37.0
38.7 *
-.12
39.7 *** -.19
39.5 **
-.18
Quantitative Reasoning
27.4
27.6
-.01
26.4
27.4
.06
.00
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
Table 9 – Academic Challenge Senior Students (all differences are “trivial”)
Mean Comparisons
Your seniors compared with
CWU
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Far West Public
Effect
Mean
size
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Higher-Order Learning
41.6
41.4
.02
41.7
-.01
41.2
.02
Reflective & Integrative Learning
40.3
39.3
.08
39.3
.08
38.9
.11
Learning Strategies
41.2
40.2
.07
41.0
.02
40.3
.06
Quantitative Reasoning
32.9
31.1
.10
29.6 ***
.19
29.9 **
.17
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
Table 10 – Learning with Peers First Year Students (add differences are “trivial”)
Mean Comparisons
Your first-year students compared with
CWU
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Far West Public
Effect
Mean
size
Collaborative Learning
30.3
32.8 *** -.18
31.2
-.06
32.1 *
-.12
Discussions with Diverse Others
38.3
40.8 *
40.0
-.11
40.9 **
-.17
-.16
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
Table 11 - Learning with Peers Senior Students (add differences are “trivial”)
Mean Comparisons
Your seniors compared with
CWU
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Far West Public
Effect
Mean
size
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Collaborative Learning
34.6
35.2
-.04
32.0 **
.18
32.4 **
.15
Discussions with Diverse Others
43.5
42.4
.07
40.8 **
.17
41.8
.10
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
9/16/14
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 9 of 11
Table 12 – First Year Student Experiences with Faculty (all differences are “trivial”)
Mean Comparisons
Your first-year students compared with
CWU
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Far West Public
Effect
Mean
size
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Student-Faculty Interaction
21.3
18.9 **
.16
20.7
.04
20.3
Effective Teaching Practices
37.9
40.2 **
-.17
40.4 **
-.19
40.2 **
.07
-.17
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
Table 13 - Seniors Experiences with Faculty (all differences are “trivial”)
Mean Comparisons
Your seniors compared with
CWU
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Far West Public
Effect
Mean
size
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Student-Faculty Interaction
25.4
22.9 **
.16
24.9
.03
23.7 *
Effective Teaching Practices
39.9
40.2
-.02
41.7 *
-.13
40.9
.10
-.07
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
Table 14 – First year Student Campus Environment (all differences are trivial)
Mean Comparisons
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Your first-year students compared with
Far West Public
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Effect
Effect
Mean
size
Mean
size
Mean
size
Quality of Interactions
40.9
40.0
.07
42.0
-.09
41.5
-.05
Supportive Environment
34.8
36.8 *
-.14
36.9 *
-.15
37.3 **
-.18
CWU
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
Table 15 – Seniors Campus Environment (highlighted differences are moderately different)
Mean Comparisons
CWU
Your seniors compared with
Carnegie Class
Effect
Mean
size
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Far West Public
Effect
Mean
size
NSSE 2013 & 2014
Effect
Mean
size
Quality of Interactions
41.5
41.8
-.02
43.7 *** -.19
42.5
Supportive Environment
29.6
31.8 **
-.16
33.1 *** -.24
33.3 *** -.26
-.09
Notes : Res u lts we ig h ted b y in s titu tion -rep orted s ex an d en rollm en t s tatu s (an d in s titu tion s ize for com p aris on g rou p s ); *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed ); E ffect s ize: Mean d ifferen ce d ivid ed b y
p ooled s tan d ard d eviation ; S ym b ols on th e Overview p ag e are b as ed on effect s ize an d p b efore rou n d in g .
In summary, CWU compares well with peers in engagement. Slight improvements in first year student
engagement are needed to meet peer levels. The one area where CWU seniors need to improve is
“supportive environment.”
9/16/14
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
page 10 of 11
V. HIGH IMPACT PRACTICES
The number of CWU first year students who participate in at least one high impact practice is lower than peers
while the number of first year students that participate in two or more is about the same as peers. CWU is
moderately lower than Far West and Carnegie peers in service learning for first year students.
CWU seniors are slightly higher in most HIP except for service learning where CWU seniors are moderately
lower than Far West and Carnegie peers.
Table 16 – Statistical Comparisons of High Impact Practices (moderate differences are in gray)
Statistical Comparisons
The table below compares the percentage of your students who participated in a High-Impact Practice, including the percentage who
participated overall (at least one, two or more), with those at institutions in your comparison groups.
CWU
First-year
11c. Learning Community
12. Service-Learning
%
Far West Public
%
19
14
*
***
40
55
11e. Research with Faculty
2
4
Participated in at least one
47
59
Participated in two or more
12
12
24
23
55
66
11e. Research with Faculty
25
23
11a. Internship or Field Exp.
54
44
7
8
54
47
Participated in at least one
89
Participated in two or more
64
Carnegie Class
E ffect
s iz e a
***
NSSE 2013 & 2014
E ffect
s iz e a
%
E ffect
s iz e a
%
.12
13
**
.16
15
-.30
55
***
-.31
51
-.09
5
*
-.14
5
-.25
60
***
-.25
58
.01
11
.01
12
-.02
24
-.22
61
.10
***
-.23
*
-.16
***
-.21
-.01
Senior
11c. Learning Community
12. Service-Learning
11d. Study Abroad
11f. Culminating Senior Exp.
.03
25
-.22
66
.05
24
.00
24
.19
49
.10
50
-.01
13
**
-.19
14
***
-.22
.14
48
*
.12
46
**
.16
86
.07
86
.08
85
.10
60
.08
63
.01
62
.05
***
**
*
***
-.01
*
.01
.08
Note. Percentage of students who responded "Done or in progress" except for service-learning which is the percentage who responded that at least "Some"
courses included a community-based project.
a. Cohen's h: The standardized difference between two proportions. Effect size indicates the practical importance of an observed difference. An effect size
of .2 is generally considered small, .5 medium, and .8 large.
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (z-test comparing participation rates).
Note. All results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and by institution size for comparison groups).
9/16/14
CWU 2014 NSSE Benchmarks
-.11
page 11 of 11