2008 National Survey of Student Engagement

2008 National Survey of Student Engagement

Summary of Overall Results and Trends

Samples of first-year and senior Concordia University students participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) in spring 2008. Concordia students also participated in this survey in 2001, 2003, and 2006. This report contains comparisons with students at other institutions taking the 2008 NSSE and comparisons with Concordia students from past years on two items related to overall satisfaction with the institution and on five survey benchmarks (groupings of similar items).

Overall Satisfaction – National Comparisons

CSP first-year means are statistically significantly lower than means for all comparison groups on both items.

CSP senior means are statistically significantly higher than means for all comparison groups on both items. Senior comparisons may be somewhat problematic since a higher percentage of CSP respondents are adult learners than is the case nationally. More CSP senior subgroup details are provided below.

How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

(Mean results listed: 1=poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent)

If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?

(Mean results listed: 1 = definitely no, 2 = probably no, 3 = probably yes, 4 = definitely yes)

(Selected Peers = 2008 participants from other Minnesota and Concordia University System institutions; Carnegie Class = 2008 participants from other institutions in the same Concordia class as CSP (master’s, medium level); NSSE 2008 = all 2008 participants)

Overall Satisfaction – CSP Trends

Although 2008 CSP first-year means are lower than previous years, it should be noted that first to second year retention rates have not dropped appreciably. For example, the retention rate for fall 2005 freshmen (2006 NSSE participants) was 73%, and the rate for fall 2007 freshmen (2008 NSSE participants) was 72%.

CSP senior means are higher on both items than in previous years. Means for three senior subgroups were calculated locally for the 2006 and 2008 surveys only. Those subgroup means are listed in the third table below. Means of all senior subgroups are higher in 2008 than 2006. Consistently in both years, the online student means are highest followed by face-to-face cohort students and then traditional students. The generally high satisfaction of online cohort students coupled with the higher percentage of respondents in that category is likely a primary reason for the relatively large overall satisfaction increases from 2006 to 2008.

How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

(Mean results listed: 1=poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = excellent)

If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?

(Mean results listed: 1 = definitely no, 2 = probably no, 3 = probably yes, 4 = definitely yes)

Benchmark Results

Many of the NSSE items are grouped into five scales or benchmarks. The numbers in the tables below are the weighted arithmetic averages of student level benchmark scores (higher is better).The averages generally are trending upward for senior CSP respondents compared to previous years and are generally similar or trending lower for first-year students.

Statistically significant differences from national comparison groups are noted below.

LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE – CSP senior averages are higher than all three national comparison groups.

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING – CSP first-year averages are higher than all three comparison groups. CSP senior averages are higher than Selected Peers and NSSE 2008 groups.

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION – CSP first-year averages are higher than all three comparison groups. CSP senior averages are higher than Selected Peers and NSSE 2008 groups.

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES – CSP senior average is lower than Selected Peers group.

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT – CSP senior averages are higher than all three national comparison groups.

Group averages are listed below. The individual items making up the benchmark groupings are also listed.

LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE

● Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, doing homework or lab work, etc. related to academic program)

● Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings

● Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between 5 and 19 pages; and

number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages

● Coursework emphasizes: Analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory

● Coursework emphasizes: Synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations

and relationships

● Coursework emphasizes: Making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods

● Coursework emphasizes:Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations

● Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations

● Campus environment emphasizes: Spending significant amount of time studying and on academic work.

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

● Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions

● Made a class presentation

● Worked with other students on projects during class

● Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments

● Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)

● Participated in a community-based project (e.g., service learning) as part of a regular course

● Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION

*One survey item was modified in 2004 and is not included in the calculation of the trend table averages, so trend averages should not be compared to those in the first table.

● Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor

● Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor

● Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class

● Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student-life activities, etc.)

● Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance

● Worked on a research project with a faculty member outside of course or program requirements

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES

● Participating in co-curricular activities (organizations, campus publications, student government, social fraternity or sorority, etc.)

● Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment

● Community service or volunteer work

● Foreign language coursework / Study abroad

● Independent study or self-designed major

● Culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, etc.)

● Serious conversations with students of different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values

● Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own

● Using electronic medium (e.g., listserv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment

● Campus environment encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds

● Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT

● Campus environment provides the support you need to help you succeed academically

● Campus environment helps you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)

● Campus environment provides the support you need to thrive socially

● Quality of relationships with other students

● Quality of relationships with faculty members

● Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices

Comparisons by means on all NSSE individual items may be found in the Excel spreadsheet NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons.

Report prepared by David Stueber, , based on Institutional Report generated by NSSE staff.

1