Enhancing Postsecondary Success: Engagement in the South ... · Student & Faculty Interaction ....

Cover Page to be Added

Enhancing Postsecondary Success: Engagement in the South Dakota Public Higher Education System 2009 Student Engagement Report

National Survey of Student

Engagement

Terry Baloun Highmore, SD

President

Kathryn Johnson Hill City, SD Vice President James O. Hansen Pierre, SD Secretary Randy Schaefer Madison, SD Member Harvey C. Jewett Aberdeen, SD Member

Dean Krogman Brookings, SD Member Randall K. Morris Spearfish, SD Member Carole Pagones Sioux Falls, SD Member Melanie Satchell Rapid City, SD Student Regent Executive Director Robert T. Tad Perry Chief Academic Officer Samuel B. Gingerich

Copyright 2009 by the South Dakota Board of Regents All rights reserved Additional copies of this report are available by contacting: South Dakota Board of Regents 306 East Capital Avenue, Suite 200 Pierre, SD 57501 605-773-3455 http://www.sdbor.edu

mailto:[email protected]�

Student Engagement Report: 2009 Page 3

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Measuring Student Engagement

Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The NSSE Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Use of NSSE in the Regental System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2008 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Level of Academic Challenge

Benchmark Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Statistical Significance of NSSE Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Institutional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Longitudinal Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Higher Education Policy Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Active & Collaborative Learning Benchmark Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Institutional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Longitudinal Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Higher Education Policy Impact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Student & Faculty Interaction Benchmark Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Institutional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Longitudinal Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Higher Education Policy Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Enriching Educational Experiences Benchmark Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Institutional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Longitudinal Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Higher Education Policy Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Supportive Campus Environment

Benchmark Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Institutional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Longitudinal Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Higher Education Policy Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

References & Appendices

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Appendix A - Items Use to Measure NSSE Benchmarks . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Appendix B - Institutional Specific Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Table of Contents


List of Tables & Figures Table ES.1: Institutional Performance on the Five NSSE Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 1: Sample Response Rates and Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 2: Student Perceived Academic Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 1:Level of Academic Challenge: Institutional Effect Size Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 2: Longitudinal Trends for Academic Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 3: Distinguished Graduation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 4: Student Perceived Active and Collaborative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 3: Active & Collaborative Learning: Institutional Effect Size Comparisons. . . . . . . 18 Figure 4: Longitudinal Trends for Active & Collaborative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 5: Longitudinal Trends for Active & Collaborative Learning: SDSM&T . . . . . . . . . 20 Table 5: Student Perceived Student-Faculty Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 6: Student-Faculty Interaction: Institutional Effect Size Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 7: Longitudinal Trends for Student-Faculty Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 6: Student Perceived Enriching Educational Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 8: South Dakota Salary Comparison of Peer Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 9: Enriching Educational Experience: Institutional Effect Size Comparisons. . . . . . 28 Figure 10: Longitudinal Trends for Enriching Educational Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 7: Student Perceived Supportive Campus Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 11: Supportive Campus Environment: Institutional Effect Size Comparisons. . . . . . 32 Figure 12: Longitudinal Trends for Supportive Campus Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33


Fostering a campus environment

that engages students is a basic principle that drives the retention of students in postsecondary education. The underlying premise behind research on student engagement is that an individual’s level of effort (in both academic and non-academic activities) is a critical factor in college success, and has been linked with student-based outcomes such as critical thinking, academic performance, and persistence rates. When institutions embrace the need to engage students through a range of campus related activities, a variety of positive outcomes are likely to occur. One of the most highly regarded measures of student engagement has been the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) which was developed by the Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research (ICPR). The survey is intended to measure first-year students’ and seniors’ engagement in broadly defined effective educational practices. Founded upon the “Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” the findings from the NSSE survey have confirmed that students who are actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities gain more from their college experience. These seven principles establish that good undergraduate education: 1) Encourages contact between students and faculty; 2) Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students; 3) Encourages active learning; 4) Gives prompt feedback; 5) Emphasizes time on task; 6) Communicates high expectations; and 7) Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

In 2002 a joint endeavor was undertaken between the Board of Regents and the National Center for Higher Education Management System (NCHEMS) to have all six Regental institutions participate in the NSSE project. First-year students and seniors are sampled to determine their engagement on benchmarks that allow for comparisons across national norms. As the NSSE has developed, student engagement was operationalized as a multi-dimensional construct which identifies key indicators or benchmarks of effective educational practice. These benchmarks include: 1. Level of Academic Challenge – An

institution’s ability to establish a challenging intellectual and creative environment for students.

2. Active and Collaborative Learning – The

level at which students are asked to collaborate with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material.

3. Student & Faculty Interaction – The extent

to which students interact with faculty members inside and outside of the classroom.

Executive Summary


4. Enriching Educational Experiences – An institution’s ability to foster complementary learning opportunities in and out of the classroom to augment academic programs.

5. Supportive Campus Environment – The

extent to which institutions cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus.

Using the data from the NSSE administrations, this report is synthesized in three major sections organized around each of the five benchmark classifications. In each of these sections, a brief description of the benchmark is provided followed by institution level comparisons from the 2008 administration. Longitudinal trends are then provided at the system level to depict the extent that students throughout the system have experienced gains in perceived engagement when compared to the national norms. When relevant, a section will conclude with a brief review of the policy issues that are influenced by factors addressed in the engagement benchmark.

2008 NSSE Participants

First-year students and seniors at each Regental institution were sampled and given an opportunity of responding either via a traditional paper questionnaire or via the web. At the national level in 2008, 35% of those students invited to participate ultimately responded to the instrument. Of the 8,703 first-year students and seniors in the system invited to participate, 3,423 (39%) responded to the survey with four institutions obtaining rates above the national average. Level of Academic Challenge

High scores on perceived Academic Challenge suggest that a university has promoted high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance. All institutions in the system were below the national norm (see Table ES.1), but a review of the trend analysis over time demonstrates that during

Table ES.1 Institutional Performance on the Five NSSE Benchmarks for the 2008 Administration

Benchmark Level BHSU DSU NSU SDSM&T SDSU USD Academic Challenge First-Year Senior Active/Collaborative First-Year Senior Faculty Interaction First-Year Senior Enriching Experience First-Year Senior Supportive Environment First-Year Senior Note: A check mark represents instances where the average score the benchmark was above the national norm for first-year students or seniors at the Regental institution.


the past two administrations students in the system have experienced gains in this area. On a policy level these scores can be attributed to a variety of initiatives that the Board of Regents has emphasized during the last decade including new admissions requirements, renewed placement guidelines, and the creation of the proficiency requirement for all associated and baccalaureate degree seeking students. Additionally, the positive trends the past few years could be attributed to the growing percentage of students who enter the Regental system having met a number of the College Readiness Benchmarks established by ACT, and attempts to lower the requirements of the Distinguished Graduation Track established by the South Dakota Department of Education has the potential to reverse a number of the gains developed in this particular student engagement area. Active and Collaborative Learning

Collaborating with others in solving problems or mastering difficult materials prepares students for the unanticipated barriers they will encounter on a daily basis

when they enter the workforce. Student perceptions of the overall Active and Collaborative Learning Environment at their institutions is intended to capture the extent that an interactive learning environment exists on the campus. Three institutions reported average scores on this benchmark that were higher than the national norm, with seniors at four of the Regental campuses perceiving a stronger growth in active and collaborative learning than was perceived by seniors across the nation. Longitudinal trends demonstrate that the trends for this benchmark have remained constant over the past seven years. Efforts by the Board of Regents to implement an ubiquitous computing environment at BHSU, NSU, SDSU and USD represents an important step toward providing students with the technological resources that are necessary for future collaborative efforts. Student & Faculty Interaction

Evidence suggests that students learn more about how experts think and solve problems through their direct interaction with faculty inside and outside the classroom. Thus, the quality of Student and

Faculty Interaction relates to the contact students have with faculty related to their coursework or research. All six of the Regental institutions had student perceptions at either the first-year or senior level (or both) that were higher than the national norms for this benchmark. Trend data also demonstrates positive growth in this area over the past seven years, with the 2008 administration marking the first instance where both first-year students and seniors were above the


national norm at the system level. Two important policy issues appear to be influential in this positive trend. First over the past six years South Dakota has made considerable investments to further expand its research capacity in the Regental system which has allowed faculty to not only share their research with students, but also provide an opportunity for joint collaboration with students on these projects. Second, the Board of Regents Salary Competitive Plan has helped to eliminate the existing gap between faculty salaries when compared to surrounding states. This has allowed the system to retain more of its talented faculty who are successful at engaging students. When coupled with the advancements that have been made in research, the end result is better teachers who are more engaged with their discipline. Enriching Educational Experiences

When students are exposed to a broader range of ideas and perceptions they acquire the important skills necessary for working with diverse backgrounds. This represents an Enriching Educational Experience which includes student activities such as internships, community service, and co-curricular activities. First-year students and seniors throughout the system fell below the national norm for this benchmark, but again positive increases have been experienced when examining the trend data, with seniors only falling slightly behind seniors throughout the country. Board initiatives to establish a variety of Centers of Excellence have assisted in providing a number of important enriching educational opportunities for students at each of the six campuses.

Supportive Campus Environment Campus investments in student support services are helpful in fostering an environment where faculty, students and staff can successfully co-mingle. When these resources are used correctly, the end result is a Supportive Campus Environment that further establishes students’ engagement in the broader learning community. First-year students at three of the Regental institutions perceived higher levels of this benchmark when compared to national norms, and seniors at two campuses had average scores above other colleges and universities throughout the country. Trends for this benchmark have continued to climb despite a moderate decline during the 2004 administration. On a policy level it is important to note that seniors in the system at the national level traditionally score lower on this measure than first-year students. Much of this may be attributed to the emphasis many institutions place on attracting and then retaining students during their first-year. The Regental system has undertaken a project in alignment with WICHE and the Lumina Foundation to correct this issue by identifying policies (academic, student support, financial) that serve as barriers for degree completion. The project focuses on identifying Ready Adults (those students with 90 or more credits) who stopped-out prior to graduation.

Overall student engagement continues to be a priority of the Regental system as institutional and system level initiatives have aided to improve factors that influence student perceptions of the five key benchmarks. Continued growth in these areas is necessary if South Dakota is to remain competitive in the ever-changing knowledge-based economy which relies upon a highly educated workforce.


Public higher education is facing an urgent

crisis in its ability to remain globally competitive as other countries continue to out-pace our capacity to foster postsecondary degree attainment for its citizens. The United States currently ranks 10th among developed countries in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds with a postsecondary degree, dropping from 7th in the past four years. For example, 55% of Canada’s 25-34 year old population has completed an associate’s degree or higher, compared with only 39% of this same population in the United States. Employment growth out to 2014 will be strongest in career fields that require some level of postsecondary education, with a 17% increase in jobs during the next five years requiring associate, baccalaureate, or graduate degrees1

. The percentage is even higher in South Dakota with 27% of our job growth expected in fields that require postsecondary degree completion, suggesting that our state must take action if it is to remain competitive in an ever changing innovative knowledge-based economy.

Persistence is a pressing issue in the United States, and researchers have put

considerable energy into uncovering features that increase student retention. Student engagement is one such factor that a growing body of research has found to be an important variable influencing postsecondary success. The basic premise behind research on student engagement is that an individual’s level of effort (in both academic and non-academic activities) is a critical factor in college success. The literature on student engagement is replete with evidence establishing a link with this construct and student-based outcomes such as critical thinking, academic performance, and persistence rates. Student characteristics (demographic features, level of academic preparation, etc.) have also been found to moderately influence student engagement, yet institutional characteristics are most likely to produce the most significant effect. Most pressing are the policies and practices that individual institutions have employed to increase engagement levels for its students. Emphasizing a focus toward student learning in the university mission, adoption of campus physical space that brings students together, or institutional culture have each been found to have positive effects on engagements.

The NSSE Project

The best known and longest running project for measuring student engagement has been the research undertaken by the Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research (ICPR) as it has developed the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The purpose of the instrument is to measure the extent that first-year students and seniors engage in broadly defined effective educational practices, and assess whether those practices are associated

Measuring Student Engagement


with student outcomes such as institutional and program satisfaction, persistence, and graduation rates. Students who are actively involved in both academic and out-of-class activities have been found to gain more from the college experience than those who are not involved. As the NSSE has developed, student engagement was operationalized as a multi-dimensional construct which identifies key indicators or benchmarks of effective educational practice. These benchmarks include:

1. Level of Academic Challenge – An institution’s ability to establish a challenging intellectual and creative environment for students.

2. Active and Collaborative Learning – The level at which students are asked to collaborate with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material.

3. Student Interactions with Faculty Members

– The extent to which students interact with faculty members inside and outside of the classroom.

4. Enriching Educational Experiences – An

institution’s ability to foster complementary learning opportunities in and out of the classroom to augment academic programs.

5. Supportive Campus Environment – The

extent to which institutions cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus.

Conceptualizing Student Engagement

In 1986, a collection of scholars interested in enhancing student persistence gathered and created the “Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” which established that good undergraduate education:

Encourages contact between students and faculty; Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students; Encourages active learning; Gives prompt feedback, Emphasizes time on task, Communicates high expectations, and Respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

Later through the support of the Pew Charitable Trust, a number of higher education officials converged to create an instrument to determine the extent that students at colleges and universities throughout the country engaged in these seven essential principles. Their goal was to develop an alternative to the yearly rankings published by such outlets as the U.S. New and World Report which many believe to rely too much on institutional resources and reputation. This publication alone sells more than two million copies each year, and such guides serve as the most frequently used resource for making college selections (Hossler & Foley, 1995). The result of their efforts was to employ the NSSE and begin collecting data from institutions throughout the United States. In support of their efforts, Pike (2004) recently found that institutional performance on the five engagement benchmarks have no relation to the U.S. News and World Report rankings for an institution’s academic excellence. Pike noted that “. . . the quality of a student’s education is not synonymous with the resources and reputation of an institution. In fact, educational quality seems to have little to do with resources and reputation” (p. 204).


The use of benchmarks allows for more accurate comparison over time and across institutions, and by evaluating the psychometric properties of NSSE data CPRP has combined 40 questions into five benchmark areas that are expressed on a 100 point scale. Benchmark data are available depicting responses from approximately 340 thousand students representing a broad assortment of institutions.

Use of NSSE in the Regental System In Fall 2001, the South Dakota Board of Regents approved a proposal that all institutions in the Regental system would participate in the 2002 NSSE project. Under a joint endeavor with the National Center for Higher Education Management System (NCHEMS) first-year students and seniors within the system were surveyed during the 2002 academic year, and subsequent data have been obtained in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. Ultimately, NSSE data is valuable for the Regental system because it provides administrators and policy makers with the relevant information they need to focus efforts that can possibly impact the undergraduate experience at public four-year institutions within the state. When correlated with existing Board of Regents policies for assessing student learning (general education goals, performance on the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency, etc.) the NSSE helps better understand how students are using the institutional resources that can assist them in achieving their educational goals. Using the data from the NSSE administrations, this report is synthesized in three major sections organized around each of the five benchmark classifications. In each of these sections, a brief description of the benchmark is provided followed by

institution level comparisons from the 2008 administration. Longitudinal trends are then provided at the system level to depict the extent that students throughout the system have experienced gains in perceived engagement when compared to the national norms. When relevant, a section will conclude with a brief review of the policy issues that are influenced by factors addressed in the engagement benchmark. 2008 NSSE Participants

First-year students and seniors at each

Regental institution were sampled and given an opportunity of responding either via a traditional paper questionnaire or via the web. At the national level in 2008, 35% of those students invited to participate ultimately responded to the instrument. Of the 8,703 first-year students and seniors in the system invited to participate, 3,423 (39%) responded to the survey with four institutions obtaining rates above the national average (see Table 1).

Table 1 Sample Response Rates

Institution First-Year Seniors Total BHSU 208 (31%) 232 (54%) 440 (40%) DSU 119 (48%) 164 (52%) 283 (50%) NSU 126 (48%) 130 (50%) 256 (49%) SDSM&T 107 (36%) 71 (41%) 178 (38%) SDSU 715 (39%) 760 (45%) 1,475 (41%) USD 426 (33%) 365 (34%) 791 (34%)

System 1,701 (37%) 1,722 (47%) 3423 (43%)


Five levels of mental activity (memorization, analysis, synthesis, making judgments, and application) are often reinforced in academic curriculum, and are perceived to be high in situations where students feel encouraged to put forth the necessary academic effort to spend their time studying, reading, writing, and preparing for courses. A university’s ability to require challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and educational quality. High student scores on perceived Academic Challenge suggests that a university has promoted high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance.

Research has found that perceived

academic challenge serves as a strong predictor for first-year student academic performance (Gordon, Ludlum, & Hoey, 2008) and this benchmark is calculated by summing responses to nine items that ask students to describe their level of classroom preparation, use of course materials, and their need to analyze, synthesize, and organize ideas. The nine items include:

1. Prepared for class by studying, reading,

writing, rehearsing, etc. 2. Overall number of assigned textbooks,

books, or book-length packs of course readings required.

3. Overall number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between five and 19 pages; and number of written papers or reports of fewer than five pages.

4. Coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory.

5. Coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships.

6. Coursework emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods.

7. Coursework emphasizing application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations.

8. Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations.

9. Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work.

Level of Academic Challenge


Institutional Comparisons

Using Cohen’s D to Depict the Statistical Significance of NSSE Scores

The values for each of the five NSSE benchmarks can vary significantly due to the fact that each consists of a different composition of questions. For example, the national norms for this past year varied as much as 25 points between benchmarks with participating campuses scoring as high as a 61 for Supportive Campus Environment, and as low as a 27 on perceived Enriching Educational Experiences. These differences are not meant to suggest that Enriching Education Experiences on campuses and universities throughout the United States are lacking, rather the scores represent a summative value of the survey items used to measure each of the respective benchmarks.

Because the benchmark scores operate in

this fashion it is difficult for one to simply look at campus performance on one particular engagement category in comparison to each of the other four. It is important to note that from year-to-year national norms are likely to change due to two primary factors. First, as colleges and universities throughout the country have been modifying campus activities and practices to improve student engagement, national scores have slowly increased each year. Second, the institutions involved in the project fluctuates from year-to-year indicating that minor instability is likely to occur stemming from the overall composition of campuses (private vs. public) and sampling techniques (random vs. census) employed each year.

To adjust for these modifications, an overall effect score has been calculated to depict the true extent that each Regental institution and the system deviate from the national norm. An effect score is basically a calculation that indicates the difference in an outcome from an average score (Institutional or System means in this case) from a comparison group (the national population). It is useful for not only determining the statistical and practical significance between two scores, but can serve as an accurate measure for tracking trends over time. A Cohen’s d is one of the most commonly used effect size measures, which is calculated by subtracting the institutional/system mean from the national mean and dividing by the standard deviation. A small effect size exists with a Cohen’s score of .20 or lower suggesting limited statistical difference. Values at .50 or higher represent medium or large effect scores.

Let us use the following example as an illustration. The national mean for academic challenge was a 52.9 for first year students with a standard deviation of 13.5. First-year students in the sample at BHSU averaged a 48.4 for this benchmark. At face value one might be likely to conclude that the level of academic challenge at BHSU is significantly lower when compared to colleges and universities throughout the United States. However, an effect size of -.34 is obtained representing only a moderate effect size.

Calculating Effect Size

BHSU Mean – National Mean

Cohen’s D = National Standard Deviation

48.4 – 52.9

Cohen’s D = = -.34 13.5


First-year students in the Regental

system perceived a slightly lower Level of Academic Challenge when compared with the 2008 national norm which was set at 52.9 (see Table 2). Seniors at each of the campuses also perceived lower levels of academic challenge when compared to students at colleges and universities throughout the country (56.5). As a system, academic challenge was slightly lower than the national norm (53.7 vs. 56.5). Gordon et al. (2008) noted that more than a semester and a half is necessary for a student to obtain an accurate perception of the level of engagement they are experiencing, at least as it relates to their performance. This may explain why seniors throughout the system indicated a higher level of academic challenge when compared to first-year students, with each campus experiencing a similar trend except for NSU. First-year students at NSU perceived a level of academic challenge that was above the system average, yet seniors reported a modest decline in this factor. Academic challenge was below the system mean for first-year students at BHSU, yet seniors’ average score on this benchmark was approximately seven points higher, and moderately higher than the system mean.

A Cohen’s d was calculated for each of

the institutional averages to determine the overall effect size when comparing campus

means to the national norm for all colleges and universities throughout the United States who had students respond to the NSSE. Figure 1 provides the effect scores calculated for all comparison groups within the system and the negative values signify that institutions scored lower than the national norm for perceived academic challenge.

Overall, perceived academic challenge

was lower at each institution, but a review of these scores indicate that a medium effect size was obtained by only the seniors at NSU when compared to other seniors throughout the country. This is best explained by the fact that seniors at this institution perceived a lower level of academic challenge when compared with first-year students. This inverse trend resulted in a significant difference when compared to the trend at other campuses in the system and throughout the country.

Table 2 Student Perceived Academic Challenge

Institutions First-Year Seniors BHSU 48.4 55.3 DSU 46.5 51.3 NSU 49.6 48.6 SDSMT 49.4 55.7 SDSU 48.2 53.8 USD 51.5 54.3

System 49.1 53.7

National 52.9 56.5

Figure 1 Level of Academic Challenge: Institutional

Effect Size Comparisons

Note: Cohen's d = .20 could be considered a small effect, .50 a medium effect, and .80 a large effect.

-0.33

-0.47

-0.24

-0.26

-0.35

-0.1

-0.08

-0.37

-0.56

-0.06

-0.19

-0.15

-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1-1E-150.1

BHSU

DSU

NSU

SDSMT

SDSU

USD

Senior First-Year


Longitudinal Trends The Regental system has administered the NSSE to first-year students and seniors five times during the last eight years, and a series of calculations were performed to determine system level trends on each of the benchmarks during this time frame. Figure 2 provides the effect size values for each of the five NSSE administrations for students perceived Academic Challenge. First-year students and seniors throughout the system have averaged below the national norm during each administration, yet an important trend appears to be occurring with this data. Overall, perceived academic challenge has progressively improved over the past eight years as first-year students and seniors have scored closer to the national mean since the 2002 administration. For instance, in 2002, 2003, and 2004 scores for first-year students produced medium effect scores suggesting sizable differences between the national and system means for perceived academic challenge. However, during the past three years, first-year students have achieved higher gains in this benchmark when compared to students at other colleges and universities throughout the United States. Average scores for perceived academic challenge have actually declined nationally during this timeframe, while scores within the system have improved. Scores for seniors have remained somewhat

consistent yet modest gains were made during the 2008 administration with seniors drawing closer to the national mean than ever before.

This positive trend can be attributed to a

variety of activities within the Regental system. For instance, BHSU has begun to make a concerted effort to increase the research activities for its undergraduate student population. Specifically, faculty have been encouraged to design curriculum and course assignments that require a research project for students, whom are then encouraged to submit their work for possible presentation at national or regional discipline conferences. This past year alone, 27 BHSU students had their work competitively selected for inclusion at the 23rd National Conference for Undergraduate Research (NCUR). NCUR, an annual conference dedicated to promoting undergraduate research, is the largest professional research symposium of its type. Each year approximately 2,000 under-graduate students from all fields and disciplines across the nation gather to share the knowledge they have gained through their research projects. The BHSU students attending the conference presented research in subjects such as physics, English, marketing, education, art and media studies, and microbiology just to name a few.

Figure 2 Longitudinal Trends for Academic Challenge Within the Regental System – 2002-2008

-0.45 -0.46 -0.44

-0.26 -0.28

-0.22 -0.25 -0.26 -0.29-0.20

-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

-1E-15

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008

First-Year Seniors


Higher Education Policy Impact

Long distance runners are renowned for their rigorous training regiments, and each year runners throughout the country train and compete at local and regional events with the hope of qualifying for the prestigious Boston Marathon. These runners increase their regiment each week as they attempt to meet personal bests and achieve established qualifying times. Resourceful runners use every possible opportunity to ensure optimal performance, even taking part in their most rigorous training just days before a race. A similar level of preparation exists within the education system in the United States as educators seek to provide students with opportunities that best prepare them for a postsecondary experience after high school by instituting a rigorous curriculum that challenges students and fosters study skills that are essential for success in this difficult environment.

Interestingly, recent research (McCarthy

& Kuh, 2006) has found that roughly half of the high school students study only three hours each week which is less than one-quarter of the average for first-year students at most four year colleges. Unfortunately, most of these students report receiving A’s and B’s in their courses with only:

• 70% of seniors writing three or more

papers at more than five pages or more; • 53% report putting effort into their

school work; • 51% felt they were challenged to do

their best work.

In light of these findings Kuh (2007) stated that “. . . many high school seniors are not prepared academically for college-level work and have not developed the habits of

the mind and heart that will stand them in good stead to successfully grapple with more challenging intellectual tasks” (p. 5). What many have referred to as the “Senior Slump” has become an increasing problem that places first-year students at a disadvantage. What odds would you give that long-distance runners would meet their best times if they decided to take off the month before competition once they had met the necessary qualifying time? In all likelihood they would lose much of the physical conditioning they had built up over months of training. Losing that capacity places the runner at a significant disadvantage compared to what their true potential would have been.

Now put this into an educational context, replacing the potential for meeting expectations while running the Boston Marathon with student postsecondary performance. Gaining access should not be the end goal for high school students as they should be encouraged to build their cognitive capacity right up until the point of entry. Doing so increases the potential that students can successfully navigate through their postsecondary experience. The emphasis on a rigorous high school


curriculum can serve as an important first step in this direction. The South Dakota Legislature sought to address this issue in 2003 when it adopted the Regents Scholar curriculum as an initial eligibility criteria for the Opportunity Scholarship program. ACT Inc. (2005a) recommends that all students take a college preparatory curriculum as research has continually demonstrated that students who complete a college preparatory curriculum increase their potential for success in their postsecondary experience.

The South Dakota Board of Regents has recently begun to publish the South Dakota High School Progression and Completion Report, which is produced every two years to document the extent that South Dakota High School graduates are entering the Regental system having met key College Readiness Benchmarks (having met established scores in English, mathematics, science, and reading on the ACT). The report determines the degree to which students were able to meet acceptable benchmark levels (All four met, one-three met, none met) to track student performance on factors such as first- and second-year cumulative GPA, progression, achievement on the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency, and four- and six-year graduation rates. Data from this report demonstrates that students who arrive meeting all four College Readiness Benchmarks have an increased chance for success in their postsecondary experience (graduating at three times the rate of students who fail to meet any of the four benchmarks). Those students who are required to take remedial education decrease their potential for completing a bachelor’s degree, and when this is coupled with ineffective study habits, students are not as prepared to engage in the educational activities that will allow them to achieve at the postsecondary level.

In 2006 the South Dakota Department of Education (DOE) implemented new minimum graduation requirements, which will apply to all seniors graduating in 2010. They developed the Basic, Advanced, and Distinguished graduation tracks, and the Distinguished track was designed to align with the Regents Scholar curriculum to make it easier for students and parents to make decisions about coursework that would best ensure postsecondary success. The administrative rules for the Opportunity Scholarship program were changed to reflect this policy shift. However, there are now discussions underway that would eliminate the three tracks due to the stigma assigned with the Basic track curriculum. As a result, it is important to continue efforts that encourage high school students in the state to complete a rigorous curriculum that can influence their readiness for the postsecondary experience.

Table 3 Distinguished Graduation Requirements

Coursework Credit Hours English 4 Social Science 3 Mathematics 4 Science 4 Foreign Language 2 Computer Studies ½ Fine Arts 1 PE/Health ½ Economics ½ Other 2


Students who are involved in interactive learning environments are more engaged in their postsecondary experience. For instance, curriculum designed to have students collaborate with other students and their teacher (inside and outside the classroom) has the power to increase student interest in the subject material and the discipline as a whole. When this occurs, students have been found to learn because they are intensely involved in their education and are asked to think about what they are learning in different settings. Thus, collaborating with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material prepares students for the unanticipated barriers they will encounter on a daily basis when they enter the workforce. Research findings exploring this aspect of engagement indicates that full-time students are more likely to perceive an active and collaborative environment as are students enrolled in science and mathematics based majors, as well as professional programs.

The NSSE instrument asks students to

respond to seven items that are used to measure a student’s overall Active and Collaborative Learning environment at their institution and in their classroom. Overall, this benchmark serves as an indicator to capture the extent that an interactive learning environment exists on the campus, and students who score high on this engagement dimension indicate extensive work with classmates inside and outside of the classroom, participation in community-

based projects, and having discussed ideas from readings with others outside class. The seven items include:

1. Participated in community-based project

(e.g., service learning) as part of a course.

2. Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions.

3. Making class presentations. 4. Worked with classmates outside of class

to prepare class assignments. 5. Worked with other students on projects

during class. 6. Tutored or taught other students (paid or

voluntary). 7. Discussed ideas from your readings or

classes with others outside of class (students, family members, coworkers, etc.).

Active & Collaborative Learning



For the 2008 administration, first-year student perceptions of the Active and Collaborative Learning environment in the Regental system fell slightly below the national norm (39.5 vs. 42.5). When examining scores at the institutional level, DSU and NSU indicated stronger perceptions of this benchmark when compared to the national norm (see Table 4). The average score for seniors throughout the system was below the national norm on this benchmark; however, two of the six Regental campuses reported average scores above the national mean, including both BHSU and DSU.

DSU was the only institution in the system with students at the first-year and senior level who perceived higher levels of active and collaborative learning than the national norm (see Figure 3). This effect was stronger for first-year students at DSU, and a small positive effect score was also reported for first-year students at NSU. However, a moderate decline emerged for NSU seniors surveyed in the 2008 administration. BHSU also reported a positive effect score for seniors, and Figure 3 depicts the dramatic change in student scores at this institution when comparing first-year student averages in relation to the national norm. As national norms indicate, seniors perceive a higher level of active and

collaborative learning than first-year students; however one would expect that seniors in the Regental system would maintain similar effect scores when compared to the national norms. Although no significant positive or negative effects appear to exist, four institutions (BHSU, NSU, SDSU, and USD) produced a slight positive change in student active and collaborative learning when comparing first-year students and seniors at those same institutions. When compared with similar students at the national level, seniors at these four institutions perceived a stronger growth in active and collaborative learning than was perceived by seniors across the nation. This represents a value-added improvement for these four institutions at higher levels than would have been expected when compared with similar students at the national level.

Table 4 Student Perceived Active and Collaborative

Learning Institutions First-Year Seniors

BHSU 37.5 51.4 DSU 44.1 51.2 NSU 43.2 48.6 SDSMT 41.6 49.6 SDSU 39.1 48.2 USD 37.9 49.8

System 39.5 49.4

National 42.5 50.8

Figure 3 Active and Collaborative Learning:

Institutional Effect Size Comparisons


-0.3

0.09

0.04

-0.05

-0.2

-0.27

0.03

0.02

-0.13

-0.06

-0.18

-0.06

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

BHSU

DSU

NSU

SDSMT

SDSU

USD


Longitudinal Trends Figure 4 provides the effect size for each of the five NSSE administrations for students perceived Active and Collaborative Learning. First-year students and seniors throughout the system have averaged below the national norm during each administration, and effect scores have varied only slightly during each data collection period. Overall perceived collaborative and active learning has remained unchanged over the past seven years as first-year students and seniors have scored close to the national mean since the 2002 administration. However, the system as a whole experienced a modest decline in the 2002, 2003, and 2004 scores for first-year students and seniors Yet, during the past three years, perceptions for both student groups have improved and returned to similar levels obtained during the 2002 administration. Perceptions for seniors in the system have remained consistent in comparison to the national mean for each administration period. In 2002, seniors were closest to the national norm, yet this fell off slightly in 2004 to a level consistent with first-year students. The past two administrations have reported positive trends back to initial norm comparisons obtained for seniors in 2002. Regental institutions have undertaken a

variety of steps to improve the collaborative and active learning environment on campus. In particular, this benchmark score has been of particular interest at SDSM&T as it regards applied, hands-on learning and the acquisition of teaming skills to be a distinctive aspect of its curriculum. For example, the junior- and senior-level curriculum is increasingly hands-on and applied. Students at this level are asked to undertake a senior design or senior capstone experience and the CAMP program fields enterprise teams of students that compete nationally with considerable success.

One particular issue that has been

identified is the fact that the rigor of the foundational study of chemistry, calculus, and other specialized discipline-specific topics at the freshman and sophomore level limit efforts to integrate active-learning strategies in lower-level classes. Data from the 2004 administration noted a significant decline for first-year students at SDSM&T (see Figure 5). First-year year students had achieved a -.13 and -.17 effect scores during the 2002 and 2003 administrations respectively. Yet, this declined significantly in 2004 producing a -.40 effect score suggesting a noticeable difference between the SDSM&T freshman and the national student population. To ensure that this decline did not continue to widen, the

Figure 4 Longitudinal Trends for Collaborative and Active Learning Within the Regental System

2002-2008

-0.18-0.23

-0.31-0.20 -0.18

-0.04-0.10 -0.12 -0.10 -0.08

-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

00.1

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008

First-Year Seniors


administration at SDSM&T felt that the Tablet PC program provided a unique opportunity to address this issue, and to ensure that the tablets would be used as tools in active and collaborative learning, a series of “FIRST in the Classroom Summer Faculty Cohort” training programs were initiated in which a group of faculty members spent the summer learning about and developing active-learning techniques to use in instruction in conjunction with the Tablet PC. The summer 2009 cohort will represent the institution’s fifth summer training program, and this summer’s training will focus on active learning enabled by their ubiquitous wireless infrastructure, a web-based student response system tool, and the fact that all students (freshmen through seniors) will have tablets beginning in fall 2009.

Additionally, a freshmen seminar, Inter-disciplinary Sciences 110, was created and required of all science majors starting in Fall 2005. The seminar focuses in climate-change issues as examined from multiple disciplinary perspectives and the cohort of faculty members teaching the coursework together to integrate engaged learning strategies into the course. The impact of these initiatives will require more time to determine the long-term impact, but a positive trend first-year student scores for this benchmark has been evident. As is evidence in Figure 6, first-year students and senior perceptions of an active and collaborative learning environment has improved greatly since 2004, with first-year students moving closer to the national norm set by comparable first-year students throughout the country.

Figure 5 Longitudinal Trends for Collaborative and Active Learning at SDSM&T

2002-2008

-0.13 -0.17

-0.40

-0.17

-0.06

-0.11 -0.12 -0.12-0.06 -0.07

-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

00.1

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008

First-Year Seniors


Higher Education Policy Impact Educational technology standards

established by the International Society for Technology in Education (2007) indicate the potential for using one-to-one computing to enhance creativity, innovation, and collaboration. One critical issue confronting postsecondary education is the development of curriculum and infrastructure that fosters technology-based skills necessary for flourishing in a knowledge-based economy. Colleges and universities throughout the country have begun to implement mobile computing initiatives to assist in developing these 21st century skills. Peneul (2006) noted that a significant number of these initiatives have sought to transform classroom instruction by making it “. . . more ‘student-centered,’ that is, more differentiated, problem- or project-based, and demanding of higher-order thinking skills” (p. 335).

During the 2008-09 academic year the

South Dakota Board of Regents sought to establish a ubiquitous computing environment throughout the Regental system. However, despite student, administrative, and executive branch support, the Board was required to defer action on the system-wide plan due to concerns about the proposed funding options. Despite this action, the Board of Regents has directed university leadership at the six Regental institutions to move forward with individual plans for implementing ubiquitous computing and approved a modest mobile computing fee to assist in building the infrastructure and providing faculty with critical professional development opportunities.

Ubiquitous computing has the potential

to transform existing learning environments and produce positive influences on a combination of both direct and indirect effects on student engagement. Many policy

makers have been critical of mobile computing initiatives, arguing that an increase in technology-based expenditures should produce noticeable increases in student learning outcomes through high stakes testing. Ubiquitous computing should be envisioned as a resource that does more than increase student test scores, and embraced because of the less tangible and measurable skills that results from a more collaborative learning process. Research on ubiquitous computing programs have observed an increase in student collaboration among peers (Norris & Soloway, 2004) and teachers (Mouza, 2008).

The collaborative environment that

technology helps to promote has breathtaking possibility to influence innovation that can enhance future organizational output and economic growth. For instance, as classmates at Harvard in the early 1970s, Bill Gates and Paul Allen formed Microsoft after collaborating on projects outside their coursework to develop the first software system for the Altair 8080 microcomputer. Similarly, what is currently known as Facebook was envisioned when Mark Zuckerburg collaborated with fellow Harvard students to create an online student directory that is now worth an estimated 15 billion dollars. More important than the learning outcomes noted above is the impact these experiences are having on student learning styles. Teachers become learning facilitators rather than distributors of information (McClintock, 1999), whereby they are engaging in more class discussion, supervision of activities, and dialoguing with students and less time on classroom management and individual seat work. Faculty have been found to employ a greater use of small groups (Swan et al., 2007) because instructors have found it easier to manage small group interaction, with a stronger reliance on simulations (Colella, 2000) and projects (Honey & Henriquez, 2000).


Many students make a conscious decision to attend a small private university with the understanding that they will experience an intimate classroom environment which includes increased one-on-one exposure to faculty when compared with larger colleges and universities. However, frequency alone is not the most enduring feature when it comes to the interaction that students have with faculty as the quality of this interaction has been found to positively influence engagement in the academic experience. Furthermore, evidence suggests that students learn more about how experts think and solve problems through their direct interaction with faculty inside and outside the classroom. As a result, the ability for students to interact with a faculty member on a personal level can increase engagement in the subject matter even for those students outside the discipline.

Gordon et al. (2008) found that seniors’

high level of interaction with faculty was a strong predictor for students’ academic performance at the end of their academic career. As a result, teachers become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, lifelong learning, and the Student and

Faculty Interaction benchmark relates to contact students have with faculty that includes feedback on projects and assignments, as well as discussions about ideas, careers, and collaborative projects.

As an engagement dimension, student

and faculty interaction is calculated by summing student responses on six items. These items are intended to measure the level of discussion they have with their instructor regarding grades, assignments, and career paths, as well as their interaction with faculty beyond coursework including research projects, committees, and activities. These items include:

1. Worked or planned to work with a

faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements.

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

3. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor.

4. Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor.

5. Discussed ideas from readings or classes with faculty members outside of class. 6. Received prompt feedback on academic performance.

Student & Faculty Interaction


Institutional Comparisons First-year students at two of the Regental

institutions perceived a slightly higher level of Student and Faculty Interaction when compared with national norms (see Table 5). First-year students perceived higher levels of interaction with faculty at DSU and NSU than students in the national norm group. USD students in their first-year were only a small fraction of a point away from matching the perceptions of students at colleges and universities throughout the United States. Seniors at all six Regental institutions reported higher levels of student-faculty interaction than the national norm group. This was the only benchmark out of the five NSSE indicators where all students at the same academic level indicated a positive perception at levels higher than the national norm. Also as a whole, seniors at each campus throughout the system also scored higher on this benchmark when compared to first-year students at the respective institutions.

Effect size calculations for Student and

Faculty Interaction depict the smallest effect sizes for any of the five benchmarks. Four institutions including BHSU, SDSMT, SDSU, and USD produced a slight positive change in perceived student-faculty interaction when comparing first-year students and seniors at those same

institutions. Seniors at five of the institutions reported stronger effect scores when compared to the perceptions of first-year students. These data are similar to what has been reported for the two previous engagement benchmarks, depicting a value-added improvement at higher levels than would have been expected by similar students at the national level. To emphasize this point, one would expect senior values to remain consistent at an institution in accordance with first-year student perceptions. The national norm is adjusted for the gains obtained by all institutions throughout the country, thus one would expect a similar effect size for first-year students and seniors. Yet, first-year students at BHSU reported a -.15 effect size, stronger gains were obtained by seniors (+.09) when compared with other institutions.

Table 5 Student Perceived Student-Faculty

Interaction Institutions First-Year Seniors


National 34.6 42.3

Figure 6 Student-Faculty Interaction: Institutional

Effect Size Comparisons

Note: Cohen's d = .20 could be considered a small effect, .50 a medium effect, and .80 a large effect

-0.15

0.11

0.11

-0.18

-0.06

-0.01

0.09

0.12

0.03

0.05

0.05

0.16

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

BHSU

DSU

NSU

SDSMT

SDSU

USD

Senior First-Year


Longitudinal Trends

Over the past seven years the system has experienced a slight curvilinear trend in regards to student perceptions on the Student and Faculty Interaction benchmark in relation to the national norms. First-year students pulled further away from the national average during the 2003 and 2004 administration, but have improved considerably during the past two distribution periods. In 2006, the overall effect score increased by roughly .14 indicating a trend toward a non-significant difference when compared to the national norm. This past year, this value increased to a +.06 noting that first-year students in the system were above the national average for this benchmark (yet not significantly higher). Seniors throughout the system have been in line with other seniors throughout the country for this benchmark, surpassing the national average this past year to match the growth trend reported for first-year students.

As campuses have reviewed their

performance data for this benchmark, a number of institutions have emphasized the important role that high level interaction with faculty can have on student retention and engagement. For example, during the past four years, DSU implemented several new programs to increase student-faculty interactions inside and outside the

classroom. A new first-year experience course (GS 100: University Experience) with common curriculum and a series of talking points was developed. The course, taught by the students’ academic advisor, is included on their fall schedule and is graded - satisfactory vs. unsatisfactory. As the course has developed, faculty have collaborated to further develop a new online evaluation tool to better align with course goals.

Additionally, as a function of the the

advising process that occurs between faculty and students at DSU, a comprehensive program was implemented to assist faculty as they interact with their advisees. The faculty developed online advising handbooks for faculty and students and advising training workshops for faculty. The workshops provide opportunities for faculty to develop and improve their advising skills. The team also implemented a revamped withdrawal procedure to obtain exit survey data from students and an expansion of the academic advising holds to promote early advisor/advisee contacts. This also facilitated the development of an Early Alert Program used to help identify students who may be having academic or personal problems, putting them academically at risk.

Figure 7 Longitudinal Trends for Student & Faculty Interaction Within the Regental System

2002-2008

-0.14

-0.26 -0.26

-0.11

0.06-0.04 -0.06

-0.11-0.04

0.14

-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

00.10.2

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008

First-Year Seniors



Over the past six years the state of South Dakota has made considerable investments to further expand the research capacity in the Regental system. A number of research centers have been developed, as well as a significant increase in the number of Ph.D. programs. These programs have the potential to increase the access that undergraduate students have to engage in research activities with faculty members who are engaging in cutting edge research in their respective areas. However, for many stakeholders of public higher education there is a lasting misconception that faculty research activities interfere with the teaching and learning process. Yet, research findings support the fact that engaging students in an environment that emphasizes research and creative activity is an essential pathway to increased retention. For example, Volkwein & Carbone (1994) observed the research climates at a number of universities, and classified departments based on their orientation toward research and teaching (high, moderate, low). They found that students in departments with a strong balance between research and teaching experienced greater intellectual growth and discipline related skill development.

Not only does student curiosity about research increase, but students also find themselves to be more confident in their abilities, have shown greater interest in STEM based fields, and also increased expectations for obtaining a Ph.D. (Russell, 2006). This had been found to be even more relevant for liberal arts colleges which are found to have more students who participate in research opportunities, and students from these institutions are two times as likely to go on to earn a Ph.D. when compared with other institutional types. As faculty orient themselves more toward research, student involvement in research activities also increase. Faculty who take the time to discuss the nature of their research, further engage students by fostering greater appreciation for research activities and the discipline.

This investment in research within South

Dakota appears to be paying off as students have been granted a broader opportunity to collaborate with faculty in their research efforts. To further expand this opportunity for students, a number of states have developed a competitive resource pool that allows faculty to engage in research projects that involve undergraduate students. For example, USD and BHSU competitive research grants encourage undergraduate

researchers to work with faculty mentors to develop their research skills. Additionally SDSU’s Research Support Fund provides $50,000 to support student travel for research purposes. Students in the Regental system have also been given the opportunity to take part in the Student Research Poster Session which is held in the Capitol Rotunda each year during the Legislative session.


Exposure to a broader range of ideas and perceptions is a fundamental feature of the postsecondary experience. When students acquire the important skills necessary for working with diverse backgrounds, they increase their potential to build important workforce skills necessary for the innovative and knowledge-based economy of the future. Students provided with complementary learning opportunities inside and outside of the classroom are able to better augment their individual academic programs. Diverse learning experiences such as these help teach students important qualities about themselves and others. The NSSE determines student engagement levels related to an Enriching Educational Experience based on their responses to eight items. These items seek feedback on student experiences such as internships, community service, and co-curricular activities (student organizations,

publications, etc.) and capstone courses that provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge.

Although considered to be a positive

indicator for student engagement, research has shown that enriching educational experiences can be best suited for students as they progress into the postsecondary experience. For instance, Gordon et al. (2008) observed a negative effect for this dimension on freshman academic performance, noting that “too positive an engaging experience may be detrimental early in a student’s career, distracting them from basic studies and adjusting to the environment” (p. 26). Overall, the eight items include:

1. Participated in a variety of co-curricular

activities or a culminating senior experience (comprehensive exam, capstone course, thesis, project, etc.).

2. Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own.

3. Had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values.

4. Encouraged contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds.

5. Used an electronic medium (Listserv, chat group, internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment.

6. Participated in internships or field experiences, community service or volunteer work.

7. Completed foreign language coursework, study abroad, independent study or self-designed major.

8. Participated in a learning community or some formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together.

Enriching Educational Experiences


Institutional Comparisons First-year students at each of the

Regental institutions perceived lower levels of an Enriching Educational Experience when compared with the national norm. However, perceptions for seniors at USD were slightly higher when compared to the average reported for all seniors throughout the country surveyed during the 2008 administration (see Table 6). This particular benchmark produced the largest division between seniors and first-year students. Overall seniors reported higher levels (37.7) when compared to first-year students (22.7) on this benchmark.

Effect scores for first-time students and

seniors at each of the campuses varied considerably. First-year students at four institutions reported effect scores that ranged between -.35 to -.38, indicating a medium difference when compared with the national norm. However, first-year students at NSU had a very small negative effect score suggesting little to no difference in the enriching educational experience at that campus. This is interesting to note when examining the effect size reported for seniors at NSU, which is the third engagement benchmark where seniors lost ground in relation to the national norm based on scores reported by the first-year students at that institution. Much of this is

attributed to the fact that first-year student perceptions for these benchmarks are traditionally higher throughout the Regental system.

Seniors at BHSU, DSU, NSU, and

SDSM&T reported effect scores (-.21 vs. -.40) that depict a moderate difference in perceptions for this construct compared to all other NSSE participants. USD and SDSU scores suggest not only limited distinction between seniors from this benchmark, but these institutions also experienced a sizable value-added effect when comparing these scores to the first-year student population. For instance, first-year students at USD fell considerably below the national norm on this benchmark, but seniors gained significant ground to fall just short of the national norm for an enriching educational experience.

Figure 9 Enriching Educational Experience:



-0.51

-0.36

-0.05

-0.35

-0.35

-0.38

--0.27

-0.4

-0.29

-0.21

-0.09

-0.01

-0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1-1E-150.1

BHSU

DSU

NSU

SDSMT

SDSU

USD

Senior First-Year

Table 6 Perceived Enriching Educational Experience Institutions First-Year Seniors


System 22.7 37.7

National 27.1 39.9


Longitudinal Trends

Longitudinal trends over the past seven years are difficult to display due to a number of changes in the items used to measure student Enriching Educational Experience. For example, in 2004 a number of new items were included in the survey to better capture factors that influence enriching experiences. As a result, only data dating back to the 2004 administration can be depicted in the trend analysis. When examining the data in the Regental system, students’ average scores have come closer in line with national norms over the past four years. First-year students had experienced a slight decrease in effect scores between the 2004 and 2006 administration, dropping to a noticeable difference when compared to other students throughout the country for that particular year. This inverse trend was reversed this past year as only a moderate effect score was reported for first-year students.

Seniors on the other hand experienced a

positive linear trend over the same four-year period, indicating that seniors throughout the system are perceiving a heightened level of engagement in this area in the Regental system. This change may be best reflected in campus efforts over the past four years to target institutional policies and practices that increase student engagement experiences in

these areas. For example, SDSU will launch its first freshman common reading program during fall semester, 2009. The project is built around the work of Kuh et.al. (2005) Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. Themes from Kuh’s work that have framed this experience include fostering student and faculty discussion in and outside of the campus, connecting students with opportunities to encounter diversity and become involved in civic engagement. Faculty from across the campus who are teaching sections of freshman ‘opportunities’ and orientation courses will integrate the featured book: Mountains Beyond Mountains: The story of Dr. Paul Farmer, a man who would cure the world by Tracy Kidder.

Not only will faculty use the book as a

springboard for discussion and service-learning projects, but also student affair and residential life staff and community members are actively planning complementary co-curricular and supplemental out-of-class experiences for students. This effort emerged in response to SDSU’s results on the National Survey of Student Engagement, as part of a broader effort of increasing student engagement.

Figure 10 Longitudinal Trends for Enriching Education Experiences Within the Regental System

2002-2008

-0.40-0.50

-0.34

-0.29

-0.17-0.12

-0.60-0.50-0.40-0.30-0.20-0.100.00

2004 2006 2008

First-Year Seniors



During the late 1990’s the Board of Regents adopted the Reinvestment Through Efficiencies Plan which included detailed efficiency reviews of university operations and academic programs. As part of the Plan, seven goals were identified to enhance the educational quality and service provided by South Dakota’s public universities. The seventh goal called for the development of a Center of Excellence on each campus to provide the resources necessary to make a selected academic program of regional and/or national quality. Nine Centers of Excellence were established throughout the Regental system including: • BHSU – Mathematics & Science

Education • DSU – Computer/Information Systems • NSU – International Business • SDSM&T – Advanced Manufacturing &

Production • SDSU – Engineering Technology,

Biostress, and Geographic Information Science

• USD – Disaster Mental Health and Civic Leadership

Students at these institutions are

afforded an opportunity to take part in the educational experiences offered through these centers. For instance, the Center of Excellence in Mathematics and Science Education provides enhanced preparation for selected students from elementary and middle school education programs, as well as secondary education majors in mathematics, biology, chemistry, environmental physical science, and physical science. Students in this program complete a rigorous curriculum that emphasizes a thorough preparation in the content

of mathematics and the sciences, hands-on experience in the latest teaching strategies and instructional technologies, and a year-long classroom apprenticeship under a master teacher.

The Center of Excellence in Information

Science enables South Dakota State University faculty and students, to carry out collaborative research, seek professional development, and implement educational programs in the applications of geographic information science. Students play an integral role in the research performed by the center as they take part in an internship which also includes the development of a scholarly study.

Since the Plans were developed, campus

leadership has been asked to provide an annual report to the Board updating the status for each feature of the initiative. Specifically, institutional leaders are given an opportunity to identify key benchmarks that are tied to performance funds available within the Regental system. Black Hills State University is seeking to increase the number of students admitted to teacher education with majors in mathematics and science, and Dakota State University is attempting to increase the number of female students with majors in computer science


and information systems.

A new line of instructional research has recently examined the behaviors of college faculty referred to as perceived teacher confirmation. Ellis (2000) defined this as “the transactional process by which teachers communicate to students that they are recognized and acknowledged as valuable and significant individuals” (p. 266). When such behaviors are present in the classroom, students have been found to have higher levels of motivation, feelings of empowerment, as well as increased affective and cognitive learning. When applied to the broader campus environment, the same perceptions have resulted in increased student engagement. Research suggests that students perform better and are more satisfied with their college experience when they feel the university is committed to their success, and if they perceive good working and social relations among different groups on campus.

Campus investments in student support

services are helpful in fostering an environment where faculty, students and staff can successfully co-mingle. When these resources are used correctly, the end

result is a campus environment that further

establishes a student’s engagement in the broader learning community. When combined with an institution’s ability to foster engagement in the four other benchmark areas, students are increasingly likely to have the resources necessary to persist in the postsecondary environment. The NSSE uses four items to determine student perceptions related to a Supportive Campus Environment. These items include questions that elicit feedback on the quality of relationships they have with students, and faculty members in addition to campus support they receive to help them succeed in social, academic and non-academic areas. These four items include:

1. The campus helped students succeed

academically. 2. The campus provided support to help

students cope with non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.).

3. The campus network provided help for students to thrive socially.

4. The campus promoted supportive relations between students and their peers, faculty members, and administrative personnel and offices.

One unique feature of this

benchmark is that first-year students traditionally report higher levels of a supportive campus environment than seniors, due to the fact that retention rates for students in their first year have been markedly low. To address this issue, many campuses have expanded support services geared toward ensuring that a supportive campus environment exists for students during this difficult transition period.




First-year students at five of the Regental institutions perceived higher levels of a Supportive Campus Environment than seniors on their campus. BHSU was the only institution where seniors averaged a higher score on this benchmark, yet this is partially explained by the fact the first-year students fell noticeably below the national and system mean during the 2008 administration. When simply examining the mean scores for each institution based on student academic classification, two of the campuses (DSU & NSU) both scored above the national mean for this engagement criteria. Seniors at three institutions (DSU, NSU & BHSU) perceived a supportive campus environment at higher levels than the average student enrolled at colleges and universities throughout the United States.

Effect size calculations for each

Regental institution depict a combination of both medium sized negative and positive effect scores (see Figure 11). Overall, this engagement benchmark notes the second instance where a number of South Dakota public institutions report positive effect scores for both first-year students and seniors. Most notably, first-year students at DSU had positive effect scores, and seniors

increased at a higher than expected rate than the national average when noting the overall difference in their mean scores as opposed to the national benchmark. Surprisingly, the inverse occurred at NSU as seniors had a small positive effect score, but slightly lower than first-year students. Seniors appeared to lose ground at a rate higher than would be expected.

Most surprising are the effect scores

noted by BHSU. Although first-year students reported a medium negative effect, the seniors greatly surpassed what would have been expected as their mean score exceeded first-year students at BHSU, and fell above the national norm for the average seniors at colleges and universities around the country.

Table 7 Student Perceived Supportive Campus

Environment Institutions First-Year Seniors

BHSU 53.5 59.8 DSU 62.2 60.9 NSU 64.6 59.6 SDSMT 57.3 51.9 SDSU 57.7 56.5 USD 57.8 55.1 System 58.0 56.8 National 61.1 58.0

Figure 11 Supportive Campus Environment:



-0.4

0.06

0.18

-0.2

-0.19

-0.17

0.09

0.15

0.08

-0.31

-0.08

-0.15

-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

BHSU

DSU

NSU

SDSMT

SDSU

USD

Senior First-Year


Longitudinal Trends

For the system, a generally positive

trend exists when exploring the effect scores for both first-year students and seniors. When compared with each of the other four benchmarks, student perceptions for a supportive campus environment have increased at roughly the same rate except for the 2004 administration period. Although first-year students consistently score higher than seniors on their engagement benchmarks, they have also been further away from the national mean reported for all first-year students who responded. This past year marked the closest that the system came to the national mean, with only a small negative effect score of -.06.

Overall this positive trend is notable as

campuses have worked to further enhance the campus environment to ensure student engagement with this particular principle. For example, a number of steps have been taken as a result of USD’s participation in the Foundations of Excellence® self-study process. Among them is a transition to a professional advising model for entering students. The number of advisors in the Academic Advising Center was increased, and they now serve as the primary advisors for almost all entering on-campus students

through completion of their first 48 credit hours. This change provides the opportunity for one-on-one meetings during which students are introduced to the various components of their education at USD and plans of study are developed. A learning specialist was also added to the staff of the advising center. This individual is available to meet with students to evaluate learning styles and develop strategies to build upon strengths and compensate for weaknesses. Other changes included an expansion of the Supplemental Instruction program and a strengthened Early Alert process.


At both the system and national level, senior level students report a decline in the supportive campus environment when compared to first-year students. Much of this trend may be best explained by the fact that many colleges and universities throughout the United States make concerted efforts to attract and retain a traditional student population. Emphasis is placed on retaining students into the second year because data suggest that the first year is a critical point in the postsecondary experience. Despite this fact, there is a sizable number of students who come close

Figure 12 Trends for Supportive Campus Environment Reported by First-Year Students & Seniors

Within the Regental System – 2002-2008

-0.23 -0.23-0.30

-0.17 -0.16

-0.15 -0.18 -0.18-0.13

-0.06

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008

First-Year Seniors


to the point of graduation but eventually withdraw or “stop-out” due to a variety of unforeseeable circumstances. Researchers use the term “Ready Adult” to define this student population which consists of students who are close to degree completion (normally less than 20 credit hours) but have failed to obtain their degree.

Recently, the South Dakota

Regental system has been selected along with four other states (New Jersey, Arkansas, Colorado, and Nevada) to participate in a grant project entitled Non-traditional No More: Policy Solutions for Adult Learners sponsored through a joint effort with the Lumina Foundation for Education and the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). The goals of Non-traditional No More is to 1) increase adult learners’ access to and success in postsecondary education; and 2) stimulate and guide policy and practice changes that will create a more navigable path to degree attainment for ready adults. To evaluate the Ready Adult population in the Regental system a series of data extracts were explored using the common student identification number. These were compared against the following academic terms to determine the number of students who “stopped-out” within the system and have yet to return to complete their degrees. Using this data mining procedure, an unduplicated count of “stop-out” students were identified and evaluated to determine their degree progression prior to exiting the system. Only degree seeking students with 90 or more credits toward graduation were identified, and over the last five years a total of 4,480 ready adults had left the Regental system. On average these students had completed more than 128 credit hours and left before a degree could be granted.

Off-site campus locations and the expansion of distance education through the Electronic University Consortium (EUC) have provided the infrastructure for providing Ready Adults with avenues for public education. However, the current tuition rates for courses offered at these institutions are markedly higher than the price traditional students pay while on campus. As a result of legislative compromises in the development of the various centers in the state, the Board was required to implement both a State- and Self-support tuition rate. Students enrolled in classes offered at one of the six main campuses pay a lower state-supported tuition rate which is off-set by state appropriations from the general fund. The self-support rate has been established to require that students cover the full cost for delivering the course without state appropriations to offset a portion of the cost. A tuition review committee has been working to develop recommendations for the Board of Regents to off-set the impact that self-support tuition rates have on those students who seek to complete their degrees outside the traditional campus environment. Most critical to these recommendations is establishing a revenue neutral approach to bringing down the self-support tuition rate to offset the financial loss to the institutions, or secure legislative support to implement a


common State-support rate for all courses offered in the Regental system.

Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 471-500.

Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher

confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication Research, 26, 264-291.

Gordon, J., Ludlum, J., & Hoey, J. J. (2007).

Validating NSSE against student outcomes: Are they related? Research in Higher Education, 49, 19-39.

Honey, M., & Henriquez, A. (2000). More

things that do make a difference for youth. Union City School District, NJ. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://ww.aypf.org/compendium/C2s18pdf

Hossler, D., & Foley, E. M. (1995). Reducing

the noise in the college choice process: The use of college guidebooks and ratings. In R. D., Walleri & M. K. Moss (eds.), Evaluating and responding to college guidebooks and rankings, New directions for institutional research Series No. 88 (pp. 21-20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (2007, Winter). What student

engagement data tell us about college readiness. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 4-8

Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbrach, P.

D. (2004, Fall). Aligning faculty activities and student behavior: Realizing the promise of great expectations. Liberal Education, 24-31.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E.J. &

Associates (2005). Student success in

college: creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McCarthy, M. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Are

students ready for college? What student engagement data say. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 664-69.

McClintock, R. (1999). The educator’s

manifesto: Renewing the progressive bond with posterity through the social construction of digital learning communities. New York: Institute for Learning Technologies, Teacher College, Columbia University. [Online] Retrieved July 18, 2008 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/manifesto/contents.html

Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops:

Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 447-472.

Norris, C., & Soloway. E. (2004). Envisioning

the handheld centric classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30, 281-294.

Penuel, W. R. (2005). Implementation and

effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329-348.

Swan, K., van ‘t Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., &

Schenker, J. (2007). Ubiquitous computing and changing pedagogical possibilities: Representations, conceptualizations and uses of knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36, 481-515.

Volkwein, J. F., & Carbone, D. A. (1994). The

impact of departmental research and teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education 65, 147-167.

References


Academic Challenge

10. Prepared for class by studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, etc.

11. Overall number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings required.

12. Overall number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between five and 19 pages; and number of written papers or reports of fewer than five pages.

13. Coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory.

14. Coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships.

15. Coursework emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods.

16. Coursework emphasizing application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations.

17. Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations.

18. Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work.

Active/Collaborative Learning

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

9. Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions.

10. Making class presentations. 11. Worked with classmates outside of

class to prepare class assignments.

12. Worked with other students on projects during class.

13. Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary).

14. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, coworkers, etc.).

Student-Faculty Interaction

7. Worked or planned to work with a faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements.

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

9. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor.

10. Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor.

11. Discussed ideas from readings or classes with faculty members outside of class.

12. Received prompt feedback on academic performance.

Enriching Educational Experiences

9. Participated in a variety of co-curricular activities or a culminating senior experience (comprehensive exam, capstone course, thesis, project, etc.).

10. Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own.

11. Had serious conversations with students who are very different from

Appendix A: Items Used to Measure NSSE Benchmarks


you in terms of religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values.

12. Encouraged contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds.

13. Used an electronic medium (Listserv, chat group, internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment.

14. Participated in internships or field experiences, community service or volunteer work.

15. Completed foreign language coursework, study abroad, independent study or self-designed major.

16. Participated in a learning community or some formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together.


5. The campus helped students succeed academically.

6. The campus provided support to help students cope with non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.).

7. The campus network provided help for students to thrive socially.

8. The campus promoted supportive relations between students and their peers, faculty members, and administrative personnel and offices.


Five administrations of the NSSE instrument have occurred over the past seven years (2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008), and Table A.1 provides institutional scores for student perceptions of the four benchmarks (no adjustments could be made for comparisons on Enriching Educational Experience prior to 2004 due to adjustment in survey items). Additionally, the adjustments were made by the IUCPRP to the 2008 benchmark scores for student-faculty interaction to allow for trend analysis.

Table A.1 First-Year Student Perceptions Across NSSE Benchmarks: Institutional & Trend Comparison

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 Trend Academic Challenge

BHSU 48.2 (-.42) 46.6 (-.55) 47.9 (-.43) 47.6 (-.31) 48.4(-33) + DSU 46.3 (-.56) 44.6 (-.71) 46.3 (-.54) 43.2 (-.64) 46.5(-47) + NSU 42.5 (-.84) 46.6 (-.60) 46.0 (-.57) 45.2 (-.49) 49.6(-24) + SDSMT 51.4 (-.19) 49.5 (-.34) 48.1 (-.41) 48.1 (-.28) 49.4(-26) - SDSU 48.2 (-.42) 47.0 (-.53) 47.5 (-.46) 46.9 (-.37) 48.2(-35) ** USD 48.5 (-.40) 49.9 (-.31) 47.7 (-.44) 52.9 (+.08) 51.5(16) +

National Norm 53.9 54.1 53.6 51.8 52.9

Active/Coll. Learning BHSU 36.9 (-.30) 34.0 (-.55) 37.1 (-.34) 37.9 (-.21) 37.5(-30) + DSU 41.6 (+.01) 40.9 (-.09) 39.8 (-.16) 39.2 (-.13) 44.1(09) + NSU 33.0 (-.57) 38.4 (-.26) 35.5 (-.48) 37.5 (-.24) 43.2(04) + SDSMT 39.5 (-.13) 39.7 (-.17) 36.2 (-40) 38.6 (-.17) 41.6(-06) + SDSU 37.3 (-.28) 33.2 (-.60) 35.1 (-.47) 36.8 (-.28) 39.1(-21) + USD 38.6 (-.19) 40.8 (-.09) 36.8 (-.36) 38.3 (-.19) 37.9(-28) -

National Norm 41.4 42.2 42.3 41.3 42.6

Stu.-Fac. Interaction (SFC) BHSU 34.2 (-.24) 31.6 (-.39) 34.6 (-.24) 33.7 (+.09) 36.3 (-19) - DSU 34.7 (-.22) 34.6 (-.24) 32.7 (-.34) 38.3 (+.35) 42.1 (10) + NSU 37.9 (-.05) 36.8 (-.12) 34.6 (-.24) 37.8 (+.32) 43.4 (16) - SDSMT 34.7 (-.22) 31.5 (-40.) 30.6 (-.45) 33.8 (+.10) 36.5 (-18) - SDSU 35.3 (-.18) 29.9 (-.48) 30.9 (-.43) 32.3 (+.01) 39.2 (-05) - USD 35.7 (-.16) 38.0 (-.06) 33.4 (-.30) 36.7 (+.26) 40.7 (+3) **

National Norm 38.8 39.2 39.2 32.1 40.2

Supportive Campus Env. BHSU 51.5 (-.50) 56.0 (-.36) 56.3 (-.36) 52.9 (-.34) 53.5(-40) + DSU 56.9 (-.21) 57.8 (-26) 56.6 (-.36) 56.9 (-.12) 62.2(06) + NSU 59.3 (-.08) 63.9 (+.08) 60.8 (-.11) 58.1 (-.05) 64.6(19) + SDSMT 56.9 (-.21) 58.0 (-.25) 56.7 (-.34) 57.8 (-.07) 57.3(-20) + SDSU 58.0 (-.15) 58.4 (-.25) 57.6 (-.29) 55.8 (-.18) 57.7(-18) - USD 55.7 (-.28) 56.2 (-.35) 55.5 (-.41) 55.8 (-.18) 57.8(-17) +

National Norm 60.8 62.4 62.8 59.1 61.1 Note: Numbers in parenthesis are Cohen’s d standardized effect scores. ** Represents no

noticeable trend.

Appendix B: Institutional Specific Trends


Similar results were observed when examining trend analysis on senior perceptions of the four benchmarks. Seniors at NSU and SDSU perceived positive trends in benchmark scores on three of the four indicators. BHSU, SDSMT, and USD seniors experienced positive trends on two of the four benchmarks, while students at DSU noted no noticeable positive trends during the four years of NSSE administration on their campus (see Table A.2).

Table A.2 Senior Perceptions Across NSSE Benchmarks: Institutional & Trend Comparison

2002 2003 2004 2006 2008 Trend Academic Challenge

BHSU 53.9 (-.24) 54.5 (-.20) 53.1 (-.32) 51.0 (-.34) 55.3(-.08) ** DSU 51.1 (-.44) 48.8 (-.61) 49.4 (-.58) 46.4 (-.66) 51.3(-.36) - NSU 49.2 (-.57) 48.6 (-.62) 48.7 (-.63) 49.6 (-.44) 48.6(-.55) - SDSMT 57.3 (-01.) 58.7 (+.09) 57.3 (+.02) 54.4 (-.09) 55.7(-.06) - SDSU 54.0 (-.24) 53.1 (-.30) 53.8 (-.27) 53.2 (-.18) 53.8(-.19) - USD 55.3 (-.15) 53.2 (-.26) 53.5 (-.29) 51.8 (-.28) 54.3(-.15) -

National Norm 57.4 57.4 57.6 55.8 56.5

Active/Coll. Learning BHSU 48.7 (-.07) 49.2 (-.07) 49.1 (-.14) 47.3 (-.18) 51.4(+.03) + DSU 54.3 (+.28) 50.2 (-.01) 49.9 (-.09) 47.6 (-16.) 51.2(+.02) - NSU 45.9 (-24.) 49.1 (-.08) 48.3 (-.19) 51.4 (+.06) 48.6(-.13) + SDSMT 48.0 (-.11) 48.5 (-.12) 49.4 (-.12) 49.3 (-.06) 49.6(-.07) + SDSU 47.3 (-.16) 47.7 (-.17) 47.7 (-.23) 47.2 (-.19) 48.2(-.15) + USD 48.8 (-.06) 45.5 (-30.) 47.8 (-.22) 49.8 (-.04) 49.8(-.06) -

National Norm 49.8 50.4 51.4 50.4 50.8

Stu.-Faculty Interaction BHSU 42.3 (-.24) 47.9 (-.01) 46.2 (-.12) 38.1 (-.15) 50.2(+.22) + DSU 50.5 (+.15) 45.1 (-.14) 41.8 (-.32) 37.0 (-.20) 50.2(+.22) + NSU 41.7 (-.27) 45.7 (-.11) 42.9 (-.28) 42.8 (+.07) 48.7(+.15) + SDSMT 43.1 (-.21) 44.5 (-.17) 44.5 (-.19) 41.9 (+.03) 45.6(+.01) + SDSU 46.4 (-.05) 43.3 (-.22) 46.2 (-.12) 39.6 (-.08) 47.7(+.11) + USD 47.6 (+.004) 46.0 (-.10) 46.0 (-.12) 43.0 (+.08) 50.1(+.22) +

National Norm 47.5 48.1 48.7 41.3 45.5

Supportive Campus Env. BHSU 49.3 (-.47) 53.7 (-.30) 54.8 (-.27) 52.4 (-.22) 59.8(+.09) + DSU 60.6 (+.13) 60.1 (+.05) 55.7 (-.22) 55.7 (-.05) 60.9(+.15) - NSU 57.9 (-.02) 58.0 (-.07) 58.3 (-.08) 59.9 (+.17) 59.6(+.08) + SDSMT 53.3 (-.26) 53.2 (-.33) 54.1 (-.30) 53.2 (-.18) 51.9(-.31) - SDSU 53.4 (-.26) 51.1 (-.45) 56.1 (-.20) 54.0 (-.14) 56.5(-.08) + USD 53.9 (-.23) 57.4 (-.10) 54.2 (-.30) 51.0 (-.29) 55.1(-.15) +

National Norm 58.2 59.2 59.7 56.6 58.0


1 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Date post:	10-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Enhancing Postsecondary Success: Engagement in the South ... · Student & Faculty Interaction ....

Documents