NSSE 2014:Accolades and Action ItemsFaculty Senate Nov. 20, 2014

Patrick Barlow, Ph.D., Assessment Coordinator

Accolades

• Administered to First Year (828) and Senior Students (674)

• Survey had 3 major sections: Standard items (87), Standard Demographics (22) UW Consortium (23), Experiences with Writing Module (13)

• 3 Comparison Groups: UW system peers (8), Carnegie Class (264), entire 13/14 NSSE group (983)

• Accolades: • Access to High Impact Practices• Supportive campus environment• Improvement in Engagement Indicators FY to SR year• Improvement in Writing Experiences• Overall Satisfaction and Desire to Return.

Engagement Indicators: FY

Engagement Indicators: FY

HIPs

• 62% of FY students experience at least one HIP (primarily service learning)

• 96% of SR students experience at least one HIP.

HIPs

Campus support: FY

Campus Support: SR

Satisfaction & Desire to Return

First-year

Senior

Percentage Rating Their Overall Experience as "Excellent" or "Good"

89%

94%

87%

93%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

UW Comprehensives

UW-L

UW Comprehensives

UW-L

First-year

Senior

Percentage Who Would "Definitely" or "Probably" Attend This Institution Again

86%

91%

85%

90%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

UW Comprehensives

UW-L

UW Comprehensives

UW-L

Experiences with Writing: First Year

Most Common to Least Common Writing Tasks: First Year(based on frequency count of Most or All assignments)

Assignments/Student Behaviors %1Analyzed or evaluated something you read, researched, or observed 56

2Received feedback from a classmate, friend, or family member about a draft before turning in your final assignment

49

3Summarized material you read, such as articles, books, or online publications

46

4Argued a position using evidence and reasoning 425Gave Feedback to a classmate about a draft for outline 396Addressed a real or imagined audience 35

7Talked with a classmate, family member, friend to develop your ideas before starting assignment

33

8Wrote in the style and format of a specific field 30

9Described your methods or findings related to data you collected 27

10Explained in writing the meaning of numerical or statistical data 17

Instructor Behaviors

1Provided clear instructions describing what she or he wanted you to do 83

2Explained in advance the criteria used to grade your assignment 783Explained in advance what he or she wanted you to learn 61

Experiences with Writing: Seniors

Most Common to Least Common Writing Tasks: Seniors(based on frequency count of Most or All assignments)

Assignments/Student Behaviors %1Analyzed or evaluated something you read, researched, or observed 702Wrote in the style and format of a specific field 623Summarized material you read, such as articles, books, or online publications 564Argued a position using evidence and reasoning 485Described your methods or findings related to data you collected 406Addressed a real or imagined audience 39

7Received feedback from a classmate, friend, or family member about a draft before turning in your final assignment 33

8Talked with a classmate, family member, friend to develop your ideas before starting assignment 30

9Explained in writing the meaning of numerical or statistical data 2910Gave Feedback to a classmate about a draft for outline 24

Instructor Behaviors1Provided clear instructions describing what she or he wanted you to do 852Explained in advance the criteria used to grade your assignment 823Explained in advance what he or she wanted you to learn 64

Action Items

• Action Items:• Low Engagement in Learning Strategies (SR&FY)• Low Engagement in Diversity Experiences (SR&FY)• Low Student Faculty Interaction (primarily FY)• Concerns on Access to General Education Courses and

Advising (FY)• Writing Experiences: Nature of Tasks (FY)• Addressing Personal Obstacles to Academic Progress (SR)

Learning Strategies (SR % shown)

UW-L UW Comprehensives Carnegie Class NSSE 2013 & 2014

Mean MeanEffect

size MeanEffect

size MeanEffect

size

Learning Strategies FY 37.7 36.3* .10 39.7*** -.14 39.5*** -.13

Learning Strategies SR 37.8 37.2 .04 41.0*** -.21 40.3*** -.17Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding.

Discussions with Diverse Others (SR % shown)

UWLUW

Comprehensives Carnegie Class NSSE 2013 & 2014

Mean MeanEffect

size MeanEffect

size MeanEffect

size

Discussions with Diverse Others FY 36.6 35.9 .04 40.3*** -.23 40.9*** -.27

Discussions with Diverse Others SR 36.9 37.1 -.01 41.5*** -.28 41.8*** -.31

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding.

Student Faculty Interaction: FY Results

UW-LYour first-year students compared with

UW Comprehensives Carnegie Class NSSE 2013 & 2014Engagement Indicator Mean Mean

Effect size Mean

Effect size Mean

Effect size

Student-Faculty Interaction 17.8 19.9*** -.15 20.0*** -.15 20.3*** -.17

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding.

Student Faculty Interaction: Senior Results

UW-LYour senior students compared with

UW Comprehensives Carnegie Class NSSE 2013 & 2014Engagement Indicator Mean Mean

Effect size Mean

Effect size Mean

Effect size

Student-Faculty Interaction 26.1 24.8* .08 23.2*** .18 23.7*** .15

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding.

Barriers for Academic Progress: FY

UW Consortium Item wording or description UW-L Mean UW MeanEffect

size

My advising interactions help me make better decisions about my academic goals (18% Disagree)

3.0 ▽ 3.1** -.13

 How satisfied have you been with the availability of courses needed to fulfill general education requirements? (32% Dissatisfied)

2.7 ▽ 2.9*** -.26

Difficulties getting the courses you need(45% minor, 27% mod, 10% major)

2.3 ▲ 2.0*** .32

Lack of good academic advising(30% minor, 12% mod, 4% major)

1.7 △ 1.6** .13

Barriers to Academic Progress: SR

Please rate the following as obstacles to your academic progress during the current academic year UW-L UW Comprehensives Effect

size

Lack of personal motivation (38 % Minor, 18 % Mod, 6% Major)

1.9 △ 1.8*** .17

Poor academic performance (28% Minor, 9 % Mod, 3% Major)

1.6 △ 1.4*** .20

Personal health issues, physical or mental (27% Minor, 16% Mod, 6% Major)

1.8 △ 1.6** .13

Writing Experiences: FY concerns

• First Year Responses to items on writing indicated concerns.• UWL experience contributed to Writing clearly and effectively

(below Carnegie and NSSE groups)

• Experiences with Writing Module indicated concerns:• Analyzed or evaluated something you read, researched, or

observed• Described your methods or findings related to data you

collected in lab or field work, a survey project, etc.• Argued a position using evidence and reasoning• Provided clear instructions describing what he or she wanted

you to do• Explained in advance what he or she wanted you to learn

Recommendations

1. For all students, engaging them in more academic and co-curricular activities that expose them to multiple perspectives and interactions across difference would help address some of the diversity concerns.

2. Finding paths for first year students to connect with faculty would be advantageous and would build on aspects of our Firm Footing project like Eagle Alert and the advising taskforce.

 

3. Ongoing review of our approaches to writing instruction and the nature of writing assignments appears warranted. This may be best started by looking at what is taking place in the first year.

 

4. Course access for lower division students as an obstacle to progress may prove to be a good area for review as we are already aware of some issues for access to science courses and the growing national interest on the need to monitor and report on graduation rates.

Response Rates

  First-year Senior

UW-L

UW Comprehensives

Carnegie Class

NSSE 2013 &

2014 UW-L

UW Comprehensives

Carnegie Class

NSSE 2013 &

2014Response rate 35% 25% 22% 22% 36% 30% 27% 26%Sampling errorb +/- 2.8% +/- 1.5% +/- 0.3% +/- 0.2% +/- 3% +/- 1.2% +/- 0.3% +/- 0.1%a. Comparison group response rate and sampling error were computed at the student level (i.e., they are not institution averages).b. Also called “margin of error,” sampling error is an estimate of the amount the true score on a given item could differ from the estimate based on a sample. For example, if the sampling error is +/- 5.0% and 40% of your students reply "Very often" to a particular item, then the true population value is most likely between 35% and 45%.

Representativeness: Race/Ethnicity

  First-year   Senior   Representativeness   Respondent % Population %   Respondent

%Population %

Female           65 56   65 58Full-time         100 99   95 95First-time, first-year     85 79   N/A N/ARace/ethnicitya                Am. Indian or Alaska Native 0 0   0 0Asian           2 2   1 2Black or African American   1 1   1 1Hispanic or Latino     3 3   3 3Native Hawaiian/Other Pac. Isl.

0 0   0 0White           87 87   91 90Other           0 0   0 0Foreign or nonresident alien 3 3   1 1Two or more races/ethicities 3 4   2 3Unknown         0 0   1 0

Representativeness: ACT

• First Year ACT scores• Population Avg/SD= 24.37/2.93• Respondent Avg/SD=24.67/3.04• t (3144) = 2.45, p < (.01), Cohen’s d = .10

• Senior ACT scores• Population Avg/SD= 24.81/2.95• Respondent Avg/SD=25.03/2.98• t (2494) = 1.55, p > (.12)