NSSE and the First-Year
Experience at CSU, Chico
Dennis Rothermel
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
and Dean of Undergraduate
Education
Our Vision
California State University, Chico sees its
unique residential situation as an
opportunity to create an intensive, high
quality learning environment. We are able
to create a vital and collaborative
community of active and involved
students.
Our Mission
Our first priority is the education of our
students by creating and maintaining
selected quality undergraduate and graduate
programs. We will be known for the
purposeful integration of liberal and
applied learning that provides our students
with the knowledge, skills, and moral and
intellectual virtues that form the basis for
life-long learning and contribution.
Strategic Plan for the Future, Item #1
• Believing in the primacy of student learning, we will continue to
develop high quality learning environments both in and outside of
the classroom. With one of the highest graduation rates in the CSU
system, our residential campus has, for many years, attracted and
retained students who report high levels of satisfaction with the
quality of life they can create while they are students. Opportunities
for intellectual, social, emotional, spiritual, and physical growth
abound, not only for students, but also for faculty, staff, and the
community. Our commitment to education as a way of life, both in
and outside of the classroom, and our commitment to developing
“systems of learning assessment that enable students to demonstrate
learning in both courses and programs” (The Cornerstones Report,
Principle 1b, page 6) remains our highest priorities.
What Really Matters in College:
Engagement
The research is unequivocal: students who are
actively involved in both academic and out-ofclass activities gain more from the college
experience than those who are not so involved
Pascarella & Terenzini, How College Affects Students
Another word: Involvement…
Learning, academic performance, and
retention are positively associated with
academic involvement, involvement with
faculty, and involvement with student peer
groups.
Astin, What Matters in College
What is NSSE?
(pronounced “nessie”)
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Survey of Student Engagement
Annual survey that assesses how well first-year and senior students engage in
educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development
81 different items on the survey, each of which represents a body of research
on engagement and learning outcomes
206,844 first-year and senior students surveyed nationwide, spring 2002
NSSE 2002 was first time CSU, Chico participated
•
•
500 first-year students
800 seniors
Repeat participation in spring 2004, and also the faculty version of the survey
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)
NSSE Demographic Data
• Questions about age, sex, ethnicity, whether
parents are college graduates, etc.
• On some demographic measures the Chico
student body is significantly different from
the CSU as a whole, and especially in
regard to the first-year class.
Age
First-year students – 19
years old or younger
• Chico:
98.6%
• CSU:
88.3%
• Master’s: 85.1%
• National: 89.8%
Seniors – 23 years old or
younger
• Chico: 45.7%
• CSU:
37.9%
• Master’s: 57.7%
• National: 67.1%
Enrolled full-time
First-year
Seniors
Chico
96.5%
84.5%
CSU
94.0%
79.2%
Master’s
91.7%
77.9%
National
94.6%
82.4%
Began college at this institution
First-year
Seniors
Chico
98.1%
29.9%
CSU
93.9%
25.1%
Master’s
90.0%
51.1%
National
92.7%
60.5%
Residence
On-campus
Walking distance
Driving distance
Fraternity or Sorority
First-year
Seniors
Chico CSU
Chico CSU
67.7% 21.1%
13.3% 9.3%
19.0% 69.1%
0.0% 0.4%
0.7%
53.9%
44.9%
0.5%
2.1%
10.4%
87.2%
0.3%
Members of fraternity or sorority
First-year
Seniors
Chico
7.7%
9.5%
CSU
6.3%
6.8%
Master’s
7.4%
10.5%
National
10.5%
13.4%
Either or both parents college graduates
Chico
First-year
55.1%
Seniors
42.4%
CSU
42.7%
40.6%
Master’s
52.7%
48.7%
National
59.7%
55.3%
Reported ethnic status as white
First-year
Seniors
Chico
75.4%
83.2%
CSU
37.2%
48.6%
Master’s
71.8%
75.0%
National
76.6%
78.4%
International students
First-year
Seniors
Chico
3.5%
3.9%
CSU
6.5%
8.4%
Master’s
4.9%
5.1%
National
5.0%
4.9%
Most grades have been A, A-, B+
First-year
Seniors
Chico
35.9%
48.3%
CSU
41.0%
50.9%
Master’s
51.9%
52.9%
National
53.5%
52.4%
Conclusions from this data
• The first-year class at CSU, Chico is uniformly homogenous, and
significantly different from CSU and national norms in this regard:
our first-year students come to college directly out of high school, and
enroll full-time.
• Dramatically different from the CSU norm, our first-year students are
predominantly white, and live on or very near campus.
• More so than the CSU norm, and more so than CSU, Chico seniors, the
parents of our first-year students are college graduates.
• There are a few more CSU, Chico first-year students in fraternities and
sororities than the CSU norm, and there are slightly fewer international
students.
• Although CSU, Chico persistence and graduation rates have been
perennially among the highest in the CSU system, significantly fewer
of our first-year students report doing well or very well in their course
work than is the norm for the CSU as a whole or for CSU, Chico
seniors.
NSSE Means Summary Report
• “In the Means Summary Report an asterisk (*)
marks those items where you students’ responses
differ at a statistically significant level from
students at schools in your respective comparison
group(s)….”
• “The more asterisks reported for a particular item
indicate a smaller probability that the difference
noted is due to chance….”
– NSSE 2002 Overview, p. 13
NSSE Means Summary Report
• “The effect size represents the magnitude of the discrepancy in the
student or institutional behavior represented by the item.”
• “When the effect size is large, or a pattern of moderate effect sizes
exists, it’s likely that the quality of the student experience is
appreciably different….”
• “Here are some general guidelines for determining the relative
importance of a Cohen’s d effect size:
.20 is a small effect
.50 is a medium effect
.80 is a large effect”
– NSSE 2002 Overview, p. 13
NSSE Mean Comparisons
Important questions to ask about any of the 81 items
in the Means Comparisons report:
– How do responses to this question provide an indicator
of engagement?
• Can one intuitively retrace the research underlying this
question?
– Putting this item information into context, can we
readily explain Chico students’ responses in terms of a
residential campus, etc.?
– What likely explanatory hypotheses come to mind?
• How to test those hypotheses?
First-year Experience
• Using the CSU comparison, there are 35
different items for which
– there is positive significant difference for Chico
seniors but negative or no significant difference
for Chico first-year students,
– or no significant difference for Chico seniors
but negative significant difference for Chico
first-year students.
• 3 items where the reverse is true.
First-Year Experience
• Items for which Chico senior responses were significantly
higher than first-year students, using the CSU consortium
responses as a frame of reference:
– Voting, community service, supportive institutional environment, working
with others, relationships with students, relationships with faculty,
acquiring work skills, asking questions in class, making a class
presentation, writing skills, speaking skills, quantitative analysis,
computer skills, learning community experiences, preparedness for class,
synthesizing ideas, discussed grades with an instructor, talked career plans
with faculty or advisor, prompt feedback, discussed readings with faculty
outside of class, number of books read, internships, working for pay on
campus, co-curricular participation, received academic advising, hours
spent in the library, hours using a computer for class assignments
Time Usage
Item 7.a:
Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing,
rehearsing, and other activities related to your
academic program)
(1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25
hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 8=more than 30 hrs/wk)
First-year:
Senior-year:
CSU, Chico
Mean
3.71
4.18
CSU
Mean Sig
3.63
4.08
Effect Size
** p<.01
Sig: “* p<.05
***p<.001 (2-tailed).”
“Effectsize=mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.”
Time Usage
Item 7.b:
Working for pay on campus
(1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25
hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 8=more than 30 hrs/wk)
First-year:
Senior-year:
CSU, Chico
Mean
1.32
1.87
CSU
Mean Sig
1.44 *
1.57 ***
Effect Size
-.10
.21
** p<.01
Sig: “* p<.05
***p<.001 (2-tailed).”
“Effectsize=mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.”
Time Usage
Item 7.c:
Working for pay off campus
(1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25
hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 8=more than 30 hrs/wk))
First-year:
Senior-year:
CSU, Chico
Mean
1.96
3.55
CSU
Mean Sig
3.29 ***
4.42 ***
Effect Size
-.53
-.32
** p<.01
Sig: “* p<.05
***p<.001 (2-tailed).”
“Effectsize=mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.”
Time Usage
Item 7.d:
Participating in co-curricular activities
(organizations, campus publications, student
government, etc.)
(1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25
hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 8=more than 30 hrs/wk)
First-year:
Senior-year:
CSU, Chico
Mean
1.83
2.00
CSU
Mean Sig
1.68 *
1.57 ***
Effect Size
.12
.39
** p<.01
Sig: “* p<.05
***p<.001 (2-tailed).”
“Effectsize=mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.”
Time Usage
Item 7.e:
Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying,
exercising, etc.)
(1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25
hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 8=more than 30 hrs/wk)
First-year:
Senior-year:
CSU, Chico
Mean
4.48
3.95
CSU
Mean Sig
3.91 ***
3.47 ***
Effect Size
.31
.30
** p<.01
Sig: “* p<.05
***p<.001 (2-tailed).”
“Effectsize=mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.”
Time Usage
Item 7.f:
Providing care for dependents living with you
(parents, children, spouse, etc.)
(1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25
hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 8=more than 30 hrs/wk)
First-year:
Senior-year:
CSU, Chico
Mean
1.44
2.11
CSU
Mean Sig
2.14 ***
2.87 ***
Effect Size
-.41
-.31
** p<.01
Sig: “* p<.05
***p<.001 (2-tailed).”
“Effectsize=mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.”
Time Usage
Item 7.g:
Commuting to class
(1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25
hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 8=more than 30 hrs/wk)
First-year:
Senior-year:
CSU, Chico
Mean
1.97
1.99
CSU
Mean Sig
2.32 ***
2.37 ***
Effect Size
-.31
-.40
** p<.01
Sig: “* p<.05
***p<.001 (2-tailed).”
“Effectsize=mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.”
Comparative Time Usage for Studying, Work,
Commuting, etc. for
the Average Chico vs. CSU First-Year students
Hours spent per week
Studying
Working on campus
Working off campus
Co-curricular
Providing care
Commuting
Total accounted for
Chico
8.8
1.0
3.0
2.5
1.3
2.9
19.5
CSU
8.5
1.3
7.2
2.0
3.3
3.6
25.9
Conclusions from this data
• Chico first-year students spend 8.2 hours a week working, caring for
dependents and commuting, compared to 15.4 for their CSU counterparts.
• Chico first-year students spend 12.9 hours relaxing, compared to 9.6 for
their CSU counterparts.
• Chico first-year students spend 2.5 hours in co-curricular activities,
compared to 2.0 for their CSU counterparts.
• Chico first-year students have more time on their hands than their CSU
counterparts, which does not increase the amount of time they spend
studying.
• An ominous combination: a pattern of lower levels of engagement for
Chico first-year students, combined with more unstructured time and more
time devoted to relaxing and partying.
• Add to this picture: Chico first-year students come to college directly out of
high school, they are uniformly young, they live on or near campus, they are
enrolled full time and not working off campus, they have significantly less
ethnic diversity as a group, and fewer of them have perceptions of high
levels of academic achievement in their first year.
First-Year Experience
• 29% of First-year students enrolled in CourseLink Fall 2003
• 52% of Chico First-year students reported participating in a learning
community in the spring 2002 NSSE responses
• Preliminary retention data study on first-year programs, 1999-2003:
– Percent non-continuing for:
• CourseLink
• UNIV 001C
• GST
• CourseLink & UNIV 001C
• All others
19.77%
18.97%
7.87%
8.91%
21.34%
• Similar data, 2000-2002, for the Honors program: 9% non-continuing.
Persistence rates
• Hard to say what persistence rates mean
– GST and Honors are programs with selective enrollment of students and
also for which students apply for inclusion
– CourseLink and UNIV 001C are also programs which students choose
explicitly.
– But these programs may also share structures that encourage higher levels
of engagement.
– At least we can see that it is possible to have an influence on persistence
rates.
– One can take persistence rates as symptomatic of engagement levels.
– That is, if the academic experience is successful, if there is good
intellectual engagement, this will likely help prevent or overcome those
aspects of the environment or experience that will work against a student
making good academic progress and continuing to the second year.
Foundations of Excellence in the
First College Year
“The Foundations of Excellence™ in the First College Year project was
launched on September 5, 2003 with funding from The Atlantic
Philanthropies and Lumina Foundation for Education.”
“Phase I (January, 2003 - August, 2003) of the project asked members of
the AASCU and CIC sectors to join in the preliminary work of
defining characteristics of excellence and delineating the ‘Sources and
Forms of Evidence’ that might be examined to validate those
characteristics.”
“We are now ready to enter Phase II, in which we will refine those
characteristics—or, more precisely, those Foundational Dimensions™
statements— and use them to lay the foundation for a grand design on
which the entire first year, and, by extension, the entire undergraduate
experience, will rest.”
CSU, Chico is participating as an affiliate institution in Phase II of The
Foundations of Excellence.
The positive NSSE results for CSU,
Chico
• Very strong responses on these items,
compared to CSU and nationally:
• How would you evaluate your entire educational
experience at this institution?
• If you could start over again, would you go to the
same institution you are now attending?
• I am pleased with my overall experience on this
campus.