Results from The College at
Brockport 2014 NSSE Survey
Presentation to President’s
Advisory Council– 3/4/15
Presentation Overview
1. NSSE and the Concept of Student Engagement
2. Selected NSSE Results for Brockport
3. Using Our NSSE Data
4. Questions & Discussion
What is Student Engagement?
What students do –
Time and energy devoted to studies and other
educationally purposeful activities
What institutions do –
Using resources and effective educational practices to
induce students to do the right things
Educationally effective institutions channel student
energy toward the right activities
NSSE Survey Content
Engagement in meaningful
academic experiences
Engagement in
High-Impact Practices
Student Learning
& Development
Student Reactions
to College
Student Background
Information
NSSE Engagement Indicators
Meaningful Academic Engagement Themes
Engagement Indicators
Academic Challenge
Learning with Peers
Experiences with Faculty
Campus Environment
Student – Faculty
Interaction
Survey Administration
 Census-administered to first-year
& seniors
 Spring administration
 Multiple follow-ups to increase
response rates
 Topical Modules provide
option to delve deeper into
the student experience
 Academic Advising
 Development of Transferable Skills
Brockport’s Response Rate compared
to NSSE 2014
Brockport’s response rate = 26%
All NSSE 2014 institutions = 32%
NSSE 2014
U.S. Average
Institutional
Response Rates
by Enrollment:
Undergraduate
Enrollment
Number of
Institutions
Avg. Institutional
Response Rate
2,500 or fewer
271
39%
2,501 to 4,999
136
30%
5,000 to 9,999
111
24%
10,000 or more
104
22%
All institutions
622
32%
NSSE 2014 Respondents Compared to
Population
Seniors
First-year
Students
Selected Sample Parameters
Resp %
Pop %
Resp %
Pop %
10
9
5
7
3
4
4
4
White
73
75
81
79
Female
64
57
68
56
African American/Black
Hispanic
Selected NSSE Results for
The College at Brockport
9
Using NSSE Data
 General Barometer – How are we doing?
 Monitoring strategic plan progress
 Survey results as conversation starters
 More in-depth planning aids
Key to next 2 slides
Engagement Indicators: Brockport
and Comparison Groups-FY Students
Engagement Indicators: Brockport
and Comparison Groups-SR Students
Highest and lowest performing items among FY
students compared to SUNY Comprehensives
.
Highest and lowest performing items among SR
students compared to SUNY Comprehensives
Monitoring Strategic Plan Progress
Using NSSE Data (all items are mean scores)
Progress with HIPs
Progress with HIPs, cont.
Data Exercise with NSSE: More HIPs
•“Actual Participation”=% of students saying “done” or “in progress” by the time they graduate
•“Faculty value”=% of faculty who taught an upper-division course in spring ‘14 saying that they think it is
“important” or “very important” that students work with a faculty member on a research project
•Subpopulations (Gender—M, F; Race/ethnicity—white, nonwhite as “Maj” and “Min”)
Respondent
Group
High
Impact
Practice
Seniors
Research
w/faculty
Participation
Prediction
Participation
Preference
Actual
Participation
25%
Looking
w/in
[subpop]
M
F
27% 25%
Min Maj
37% 25%
Faculty
Value
62%
Do HIPs Matter? – Yes!
 Not a cure-all but our HIPs index has small to moderate
stat. sig. associations with a variety of other measures of
student achievement, development, and satisfaction (all
students).
Outcomes
Correlation
Self-reported grades
.22
“Global” satisfaction measures
.12 & .17
Institution’s contribution to
students’ knowledge, skills,
and personal development in
variety of areas
Corr coefficients ranging from
.11 to .26 depending on
specific item
Quality of Interactions
w/Faculty
.26
Pay-off for minority students: HIPs correlation with self-reported
institutional contributions to personal development in the following
areas:
Item
White
Nonwhite
Comparison
Writing
.25
.35
↑
Speaking
.22
.30
↑
Critical
thinking
.24
.30
↑
Job-related
.23
.26
↑
Working
w/others
.22
.32
↑
Personal code
.23
.28
↑
Informed
citizen
.15
.23
↑
Questions & Discussion
22