AAUDE – NSSE caretaker update October 2013
1
10/29/13 Caretaker update
NSSE
Lou McClelland, Colorado
Reflects reviews by Wisconsin, Maryland, Illinois, and Ohio State. Kansas, Michigan
State and Stony Brook invited to review, did not comment.
Posted from http://www.colorado.edu/pba/surveys/nsse-aaude/index.htm
PBA ref: L:\IR\survey\NSSE\AAUDE\NSSECaretakerUpdate201310.docx






Spring 2013 was the first administration of NSSE 2.0. 9 AAUDE’s participated, 8
using the AAUDE questions (revised-for-2.0) and sharing data (Colorado, Iowa St,
Kansas, Michigan St, Nebraska, Ohio St, Washington, Tulane), one school
administering but doing neither (Carnegie Mellon). NSSE will send the responselevel aggregate data file in November. Colorado will make available (to those
sharing data 2010-14)

The v2.0 response-level data – probably without some AAUDE value-added
variables like CIP codes at the outset, because NSSE will create the maps but
hasn’t yet.

V1.0 response-level data, all years 2000-2012 but only items comparable to v2.0,
in format comparable to 2.0 (same varnames and response values). Initial
release with variables for questions; probably later release with converted
variables for majors, race/ethnic, other tricky conversions.

We have posted the plan for these datasets/conversions, and the caretaker
report, from http://www.colorado.edu/pba/surveys/nsse-aaude/index.htm
Spring 2014 registration has closed. Illinois, Maryland, Stony Brook, Wisconsin, and
Boston U are using AAUDE questions and sharing data. Georgia Tech and McGill
are sharing data but cannot use AAUDE questions because they’re in required
state/country consortia. Toronto sought approval for sharing data but VP’s there
denied the request. Buffalo is sharing data but not using AAUDE questions – I have
asked them to reconsider, citing the value of the comparative data and Colorado’s
approach 2013 of asking NSSE to sample and contact half of the eligible population,
with the other half “saved” for other surveys. Looks doubtful.
If Buffalo does not use AAUDE questions, 2014 will be the first time we’ll have fewer
than the 6 schools required by NSSE for a “consortium” = set of schools using their
own common questions. However, NSSE has said our having only five is OK at
least for this time.
AAUDE questions 2014 will be same as 2013.
Several schools that once used NSSE have explicitly or apparently stopped doing so
– all UC, FL, IA, MI, MN, NC, PennSt, Pitt, Purdue, TX, TXA&M, VA, Case, Emory,
and Rice. Many of these are doing SERU instead.
Schools typically do NSSE on 3 or 4 year cycles. The schools still in the game, and
sharing, total 22, all of which are publics except BU, Tulane, and Syracuse. A few of
these are doing both NSSE and SERU (In my records, Indiana, Oregon, and Rutgers
CU-Boulder PBA – LMcC Lou McClelland– Document1 – 2/10/2016 - Page 1
AAUDE – NSSE caretaker update October 2013




2
all said, once upon a time, that they’d do NSSE in 2015 but are also involved with
SERU.). A few cannot or do not use AAUDE questions (GA Tech, McGill, Indiana).
That leaves 18-19 real players, plenty enough to justify an item but perhaps not
enough to satisfy NSSE every year.

The low number per year heightens the value of the AAUDE comparative data,
which span years in a fashion NSSE itself does not do.
The AAU Survey on Undergraduate Student Objectives and Assessment (sent by
Josh Trapani 10/18/13) cited heavy use of national surveys including NSSE, SERU,
and COFHE. Basically there’s a 3-circle Venn of NSSE, SERU, and COFHE, with
little overlap except of purpose, and sharing within each circle (I presume) but not
across, and an AAUDE caretaker for one circle but not three!
NSSE has been a considerably less expensive option than SERU, with no
requirement to administer annually. SERU may or may not make comparative
response-level data available. Some NSSE schools have expressed surprise at the
number migrating to SERU, and at CIC interest in SERU.

Report from a CIC school: “Just talked to my Vice Provost for undergrad studies.
Administration of SERU has moved to Minnesota, although UCLA still has a role,
not sure what that is. The UG group discussed SERU as more appropriate for
CIC type schools, and not sure who said it, but it was said by someone that lots
of NSSE was irrelevant for our kinds of institutions. The Minnesota undergrad ed
person was going to see if they could work out special pricing for SERU for the
CIC schools. Apparently Indiana is now doing both and said that they were only
continuing with NSSE because it was located there.”
NSSE has changed considerably in the last few years, with

Routine sampling of the entire eligible population for no additional cost, if the
school so wishes. This generates enough respondents to characterize all but the
smallest majors, increasing value for school/college and department use. NSSE
does continue to define only seniors and new freshmen as the eligible
population.

In 2013, Colorado elected to sample half its eligible population, holding the
other half for other surveys. This may reduce concerns about over-surveying.

V2.0 questionnaire revision, first used in 2013, aimed at more utility for academic
planning and decisions

Vastly improved reporting and customized reporting, including comparative
reports for individual majors or groups of majors to simulate schools and
colleges. In Colorado we have broken long practice and posted many NSSEcreated reports (for 2013) straight out of the box. See
http://www.colorado.edu/pba/surveys/NSSE/13/. [The major field reports are not
yet posted.]
The AAUDE response-level comparative data make NSSE even more valuable.
AAUDE adds

Custom questions suited to big research universities; e.g., on class size
CU-Boulder PBA – LMcC Lou McClelland– Document1 – 2/10/2016 - Page 2
AAUDE – NSSE caretaker update October 2013


3
Availability of comparative response-level data identified by institution

Longitudinal data – NSSE does no reporting on change over time by institution

A collegial user group
Caretaker activity

I discussed transfer with GA Tech. That got delayed, then waylaid when we
learned that GA Tech hadn’t participated in 2013, couldn’t ever use AAUDE
questions, and was focused only on the datasets.

Most of the work is housekeeping – who’s participating, data sharing
agreements, working with the NSSE people on consortium and v1-v2, keeping up
email list, website, keeping everybody informed, question revisions, how to put
old and new data together. There’s been a lot of housekeeping lately. I also
reviewed all NSSE reporting formats and sent comments/suggestions to NSSE.

Things that should be done but haven’t: Revise user guide for v2.0 and new file
formats; update the website at Colorado and the exchange item page; develop
AAUDE reports, especially reports using more than one year of data.
CU-Boulder PBA – LMcC Lou McClelland– Document1 – 2/10/2016 - Page 3