Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)
Semantic HTML reconstructed from the OCR item tree (headings, text, lists, tables, form fields). overlay · view JSON
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Kentucky State University
About Your Engagement Indicators Report
Engagement Indicators (EIs) provide a useful summary of the detailed information contained in your students' NSSE responses. By combining responses to related NSSE questions, each EI offers valuable information about a distinct aspect of student engagement. Ten indicators, based on three to eight survey questions each (a total of 47 survey questions), are organized into four broad themes as shown at right. Theme Engagement Indicator
Academic Challenge Higher-Order Learning
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning
Discussions with Diverse Others
Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction
Effective Teaching Practices
Report Sections Campus Environment Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
Overview (p. 3) Displays how average EI scores for your students compare with those of students at your comparison group institutions.
Theme Reports (pp. 4-13) Detailed views of EI scores within the four themes for your students and those at comparison group institutions. Three views offer varied insights into your EI scores:
Mean Comparisons
Straightforward comparisons of average scores between your students and those at comparison group institutions, with tests of significance and effect sizes (see below).
Score Distributions
Box-and-whisker charts show the variation in scores within your institution and comparison groups.
Performance on Indicator Items
Responses to each item in a given EI are summarized for your institution and comparison groups.
Comparisons with High-Performing Institutions (p. 15) Comparisons of your students' average scores on each EI with those of students at institutions whose average scores were in the top 50% and top 10% of 2018 and 2019 participating institutions.
Detailed Statistics (pp. 16-19) Detailed information about EI score means distributions, and tests of statistical significance.
Detailed Statistics (pp. 16-19)
Detailed information about EI score means, distributions, and tests of statistical significance.
Interpreting Comparisons
Mean comparisons report both statistical significance and effect size. Effect size indicates the practical importance of an observed difference. For EI comparisons, NSSE research has concluded that an effect size of about .1 may be considered small, .3 medium, and .5 large (Rocconi & Gonyea, 2018). Comparisons with an effect size of at least .3 in magnitude (before rounding) are highlighted in the Overview (p. 3).
EIs vary more among students within an institution than between institutions, like many experiences and outcomes in higher education. As a result, focusing attention on average scores alone amounts to examining the tip of the iceberg. It's equally important to understand how student engagement varies within your institution. Score distributions indicate how EI scores vary among your students and those in your comparison groups. The Report Builder and your Major Field Report (both to be released in the fall) offer valuable perspectives on internal variation and help you investigate your students' engagement in depth.
How Engagement Indicators are Computed
Each EI is scored on a 60-point scale. To produce an indicator score, the response set for each item is converted to a 60-point scale (e.g., Never = 0; Sometimes = 20; Often = 40; Very often = 60), and the rescaled items are averaged. Thus a score of zero means a student responded at the bottom of the scale for every item in the EI, while a score of 60 indicates responses at the top of the scale on every item.
For more information on EIs and their psychometric properties, refer to the NSSE website: nsse.indiana.edu
Rocconi, L.M., & Gonyea, R.M. (2018). Contextualizing effect sizes in the National Survey of Student Engagement: An empirical analysis. Research & Practice in Assessment, 13 (Summer/Fall), pp. 22-38.
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators
Overview
Kentucky State University
Engagement Indicators: Overview
Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on sets of NSSE questions examining key dimensions of student engagement. The ten indicators are organized within four broad themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and Campus Environment. The tables below compare average scores for your students with those in your comparison groups.
Use the following key:
△ Your students' average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude. △ Your students' average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude. No significant difference. Your students' average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.
△ Your students' average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.
No significant difference.
Your students' average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.
Your students' average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.
First-Year Students
Theme Engagement Indicator Your first-year students compared with HBCU Your first-year students compared with Regional Your first-year students compared with Like classification
Higher-Order Learning --
Academic Challenge Reflective & Integrative Learning [f94]
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning -- -- --
Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning -- -- --
Discussions with Diverse Others -- --
Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction -- --
Effective Teaching Practices
Campus Environment Quality of Interactions --
Supportive Environment [F3] [F26]
Seniors
Theme Engagement Indicator Your seniors compared with HBCU Your seniors compared with Regional Your seniors compared with Like classification
Academic Challenge Higher-Order Learning -- --
Reflective & Integrative Learning --
Learning Strategies -- -- --
Quantitative Reasoning -- --
Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning --
Discussions with Diverse Others -- -- --
Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction -- --
Effective Teaching Practices -- --
Campus Environment Quality of Interactions
Supportive Environment
Academic Challenge: First-year students
Enabling intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning. Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Mean Comparisons K-State Your first-year students compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Effect Effect Effect
Higher-Order Learning 31.0 37.4* -.43 38.4** -.57 35.9 -.36
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Reflective & Integrative Learning 31.2 35.8* -.36 35.1* -.33 33.6 -.20
Learning Strategies 32.3 37.9* -.40 38.8** -.47 37.2* -.36
Quantitative Reasoning 24.6 28.9 -.27 30.0 -.35 27.5 -.19
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued)
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point difference8 between your FY students and
HBCU Regional Like classification
Higher-Order Learning K-State
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized... %
4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations 50 -11 -23 -14
4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts 50 -13 -22 -13
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source 58 -11 -12 -8
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"...
2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments 43 -5 -11 -5
2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues 43 -7 -8 -3
2c. Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments 45 -7 -6 +1
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 51 -12 -12 -7
2e. Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective 62 -8 -8 -3
2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept 57 -15 -9 -8
2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge 53 -19 -23 -19
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments 51 -19 -23 -20
9b. Reviewed your notes after class 47 -18 -22 -17
9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials 43 -19 -23 -20
6a. Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.) 40 -13 -18 -10
6b. Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.) 37 -6 -9 -3
6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information 29 -12 -17 -9
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information 53 -16 -17 -10
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"...
Quantitative Reasoning
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"...
Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.
a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
Academic Challenge: Seniors
Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning. Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Lean Comparisons K-State Your seniors compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Effect Effect Effect
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Higher-Order Learning 41.7 42.8 -.08 39.5 .16 40.4 .09
Reflective & Integrative Learning 33.9 40.8** -.55 37.2 -.26 38.8* -.39
Learning Strategies 39.6 42.7 -.23 38.5 .07 38.8 .06
Quantitative Reasoning 30.2 33.1 -.19 31.1 -.06 29.7 .03
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Academic Challenge Kentucky State University
Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued)
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point differencea between your seniors and
HBCU Regional Like classification
Percentage point difference between your seniors and
Higher-Order Learning K-State
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized... %
4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations 75 -4 -5 -4
4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts 74 -3 -1 +0
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source 71 -4 +3 -0
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"...
2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments 57 -16 -12 -15
2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues 51 -14 -10 -14
2c. Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments 45 -12 -6 -11
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 58 -14 -6 -9
2e. Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective 72 -9 +2 -4
2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept 56 -22 -12 -17
2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge 73 -12 -8 -13
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"...
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments 80 -0 +6 -1
9b. Reviewed your notes after class 69 -7 +4 +5
9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials 64 -11 -2 -2
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information 69 -6 -1 -6
Reflective & Integrative Learning
Learning Strategies
Quantitative Reasoning
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"...
6a. Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.) 63 +2 +5 +7
6b. Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.) 45 -7 -3 +2
6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information 36 -16 -11 -7
Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.
a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
Learning with Peers: First-year students
Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and developing interpersonal and social competence prepare students to deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Mean Comparisons K-State Your first-year students compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Effect Effect Effect
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Collaborative Learning 33.2 35.2 -.14 34.1 -.07 31.6 .12
Discussions with Diverse Others 32.9 33.3 -.03 40.5** -.52 37.1 -.27
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point differencea between your FY students and
Collaborative Learning K-State Percentage point difference between your FY students and
HBCU Regional Like classification
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"... %
1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 57 + -1 +6
1f. Explained course material to one or more students 51 -10 -4
1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 47 -6 -1
1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 50 -10 -2
Discussions with Diverse Others
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with...
8a. People of a race or ethnicity other than your own 51 +2 -18 -10
8b. People from an economic background other than your own 50 -13 -27 -17
8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own 53 -2 -17 -8
8d. People with political views other than your own 41 -7 -32 -25
- Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.
- Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
Learning with Peers: Seniors
Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and developing interpersonal and social competence prepare students to deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Mean Comparisons K-State Your seniors compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Effect Effect Effect
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Collaborative Learning 32.8 39.6** -.50 32.2 .03 32.9 -.01
Discussions with Diverse Others 36.9 36.9 .00 38.1 -.07 38.1 -.07
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, * * *p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point differencea between your seniors and
Collaborative Learning K-State Percentage point difference between your seniors and
HBCU Regional Like classification
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"... %
1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material 44
1f. Explained course material to one or more students 51
1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students 56
1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments 67
Discussions with Diverse Others
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with...
8a. People of a race or ethnicity other than your own 57 -4 -3
8b. People from an economic background other than your own 55 -15 -14
8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own 55 -10 -8
8d. People with political views other than your own 59 -8 -10
- Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.
- Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
Experiences with Faculty: First-year students
Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Mean Comparisons K-State Your first-year students compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Effect Effect Effect
Student-Faculty Interaction 24.6 24.8 -.01 23.4 .08 24.2 .02
Effective Teaching Practices 29.8 35.2* -.36 38.4*** -.65 37.5*** -.58
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Student-Faculty Interaction K-State Percentage point differencea between your FY students and
HBCU Regional Like classification
3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member 40 -4 -4 -4
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"... %
3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.) 27 -4 +2 +1
3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 32 -3 +3 -1
3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member 37 -3 +3 -1
5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 51 -13 -25 -23
5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 45 -14 -30 -25
5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 37 -25 -38 -33
5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress 42 -17 -22 -22
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 37 -16 -23 -21
Effective Teaching Practices
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have...
Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.
a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
Experiences with Faculty: Seniors
Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Mean Comparisons K-State Your seniors compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Effect Effect Effect
Student-Faculty Interaction 28.2 34.1 -.36 25.3 .18 29.1 -.06
Effective Teaching Practices 36.2 38.5 -.14 40.8 -.33 40.4 -.30
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point differencea between your seniors and
Student-Faculty Interaction K-State Percentage point difference* between your seniors and
HBCU Regional Like classification
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"... %
3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member 52 +4
3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.) 36 +6
3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class 36 +1
3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member 62 +26
Effective Teaching Practices
Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have...
5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements 69 -4 -12 -11
5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way 67 -0 -14 -12
5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points 56 -14 -24 -23
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments 59 -1 -10 -11
5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress 64 +2 +0 -3
Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website.
a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
Campus Environment: First-year students
Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Mean Comparisons K-State Your first-year students compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Effect Effect Effect
Quality of Interactions 41.2 36.6 .34 43.8 -.22 43.3 -.17
Supportive Environment 30.5 35.6* -.37 37.1** -.49 35.4* -.36
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point differencea between your FY students and
| Quality of Interactions | K-State | HBCU | Regional | Like classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with... | % | |||
| 13a. Students | 59 | |||
| 13b. Academic advisors | 31 | |||
| 13c. Faculty | 38 |  |  |  |
| 13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) | 46 | |||
| 13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) | 29 | _ | -19 | |
| Supportive Environment | ||||
| Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized... | ||||
| 14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically | 59 | -7 | -19 | -14 |
| 14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) | 56 | -14 | -23 | -19 |
| 14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.) | 44 | -11 | -19 | -9 |
| 14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially | 47 | -21 | -27 | -23 |
| 14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) | 34 | -27 | -37 | -34 |
| 14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) | 33 | -10 | -13 | -10 |
| 14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) | 56 | -12 | -13 | -12 |
| 14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues | 30 | -24 | -18 | -19 |
| Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website. | ||||
a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
Campus Environment: Seniors
Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.
Mean Comparisons K-State Your seniors compared with
HBCU Regional Like classification
Engagement Indicator Mean Mean size Mean size Mean size
Effect Effect Effect
Quality of Interactions 37.7 41.3 -.27 43.7* -.51 44.9* -.61
Supportive Environment 25.6 34.8** -.61 32.1* -.47 34.1** -.60
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
Score Distributions
Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution's sample sizes.
Performance on Indicator Items
The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.
Percentage point differencea between your seniors and
| Quality of Interactions | K-State | HBCU | Regional | Like classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with... | % | |||
| 13a. Students | 42 |  | -15 | -16 |
| 13b. Academic advisors | 70 | +13 | +7 | |
| 13c. Faculty | 49 |  | -10 | -14 |
| 13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.) | 34 | -9 | -16 | |
| 13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.) | 34 | -10 | -16 | |
| Supportive Environment | ||||
| Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized... | ||||
| 14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically | 63 | -3 | -9 | -9 |
| 14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.) | 55 | -12 | -12 | -14 |
| 14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.) | 36 | -21 | -17 | -17 |
| 14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially | 45 | -22 | -19 | -23 |
| 14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.) | 42 | -19 | -20 | -23 |
| 14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) | 6 | -33 | -25 | -30 |
| 14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.) | 46 | -15 | -5 | -16 |
| 14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues | 42 | -15 | +4 | -6 |
| Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile included in your Institutional Report and available on the NSSE website. | ||||
a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage - Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.
This page intentionally left blank.
Comparisons with Top 50% and Top 10% Institutions
While NSSE's policy is not to rank institutions (see nsse.indiana.edu/links/PNP), the results below are designed to compare the engagement of your students with those attending two groups of institutions identified by NSSEa for their high average levels of student engagement:
- institutions with average scores placing them in the top 50% of all 2018 and 2019 NSSE institutions, and
- institutions with average scores placing them in the top 10% of all 2018 and 2019 NSSE institutions.
While the average scores for most institutions are below the mean for the top 50% or top 10%, your institution may show areas of distinction where your average student was as engaged as (or even more engaged than) the typical student at high-performing institutions. A check mark (✓) signifies those comparisons where your average score was at least comparableb to that of the high-performing group. However, the presence of a check mark does not necessarily mean that your institution was a member of that group.
It should be noted that most of the variability in student engagement is within, not between, institutions. Even "high-performing" institutions have students with engagement levels below the average for all institutions.
First-Year Students K-State Your first-year students compared with
NSSE Top 50% NSSE Top 10%
Theme Engagement Indicator Mean Mean Effect size ✓ Mean Effect size ✓
Academic Challenge Higher-Order Learning 31.0 39.3** -.64 41.0*** -.77
Reflective and Integrative Learning 31.2 36.8** -.47 38.8*** -.64
Learning Strategies 32.3 39.9** -.56 42.5*** -.73
Quantitative Reasoning 24.6 29.3 -.31 30.8* -.41
Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning 33.2 35.4 -.16 37.7* -.33
Discussions with Diverse Others 32.9 41.3** -.56 43.2*** -.72
Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction 24.6 24.9 -.02 ✓ 28.0 -.22
Effective Teaching Practices 29.8 40.6*** -.82 42.7*** -.92
Campus Environment Quality of Interactions 41.2 44.9 -.32 47.1** -.50
Supportive Environment 30.5 38.1** -.58 40.1*** -.73
Seniors K-State Your seniors compared with
NSSE Top 50% NSSE Top 10%
Theme Engagement Indicator Mean Mean Effect size ✓ Mean Effect size ✓
Academic Challenge Higher-Order Learning 41.7 41.8 .00 ✓ 43.0 -.10 ✓
Reflective and Integrative Learning 33.9 39.9** -.49 41.6*** -.63
Learning Strategies 39.6 40.8 -.08 ✓ 42.6 -.21
Quantitative Reasoning 30.2 31.3 -.07 ✓ 32.7 -.16
Learning with Peers Collaborative Learning 32.8 36.1 -.24 38.6* -.43
Discussions with Diverse Others 36.9 42.0 -.33 43.5 -.43
Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction 28.2 29.9 -.11 33.9 -.36
Effective Teaching Practices 36.2 41.8 -.41 43.5 -.54
Campus Environment Quality of Interactions 37.7 45.2** -.63 47.4*** -.80
Supportive Environment 25.6 34.8** -.66 37.0*** -.81
Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation; *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 (2-tailed).
a. Precision-weighted means (produced by Hierarchical Linear Modeling) were used to determine the top 50% and top 10% institutions for each Engagement Indicator from all NSSE 2018 and 2019 institutions, separately by class. Using this method, Engagement Indicator scores of institutions with relatively large standard errors were adjusted toward the mean of all students, while those with smaller standard errors received smaller corrections. As a result, schools with less stable data—even those with high average scores—may not be among the top scorers. NSSE does not publish the names of the top 50% and top 10% institutions because of our commitment not to release institutional results and our policy against ranking institutions.
b. Check marks are assigned to comparisons that are either significant and positive, or non-significant with an effect size > -10.
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
| Mean statistics | Percentiled scores | Comparison results | ||||||||||
| Mean | SDb | SEc | 5th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 95th | Deg. of freedome | Mean diff. | Sig.f | Effect sizeg | |
| Academic Challenge | ||||||||||||
| Higher-Order Learning | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 37) | 31.0 | 16.1 | 2.65 | 5 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 37.4 | 14.7 | .48 | 15 | 25 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 981 | -6.4 | .011 | -.430 |
| Regional | 38.4 | 12.9 | .31 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 45 | 60 | 37 | -7.4 | .009 | -.571 |
| Like classification | 35.9 | 13.1 | .51 | 20 | 25 | 35 | 40 | 60 | 38 | -4.8 | .082 | -.363 |
| Top 50% | 39.3 | 13.0 | .05 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 36 | -8.3 | .003 | -.638 |
| Top 10% | 41.0 | 13.0 | .10 | 20 | 35 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 36 | -10.0 | .001 | -.768 |
| Reflective & Integrative Learning | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 40) | 31.2 | 13.8 | 2.19 | 11 | 20 | 29 | 40 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 35.8 | 12.6 | .39 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 43 | 60 | 1,105 | -4.6 | .025 | -.364 |
| Regional | 35.1 | 11.7 | .28 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 43 | 57 | 1,846 | -3.9 | .038 | -.334 |
| Like classification | 33.6 | 11.6 | .43 | 17 | 26 | 31 | 40 | 54 | 757 | -2.4 | .211 | -.204 |
| Top 50% | 36.8 | 11.8 | .05 | 17 | 29 | 37 | 46 | 57 | 63,845 | -5.6 | .003 | -.475 |
| Top 10% | 38.8 | 11.8 | .10 | 20 | 31 | 40 | 46 | 60 | 13,251 | -7.6 | .000 | -.644 |
| Learning Strategies | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 32) | 32.3 | 13.9 | 2.47 | 20 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 37.9 | 14.3 | .49 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 47 | 60 | 881 | -5.7 | .028 | -.397 |
| Regional | 38.8 | 13.8 | .34 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 47 | 60 | 1,660 | -6.5 | .009 | -.472 |
| Like classification | 37.2 | 13.7 | .54 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 47 | 60 | 675 | -5.0 | .046 | -.363 |
| Top 50% | 39.9 | 13.7 | .06 | 20 | 33 | 40 | 53 | 60 | 54,802 | -7.6 | .002 | -.555 |
| Top 10% | 42.5 | 14.0 | .12 | 20 | 33 | 40 | 53 | 60 | 12,742 | -10.2 | .000 | -.727 |
| Quantitative Reasoning | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 31) | 24.6 | 16.0 | 2.87 | 0 | 13 | 20 | 40 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 28.9 | 16.2 | .54 | 0 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 60 | 923 | -4.4 | .140 | -.269 |
| Regional | 30.0 | 15.3 | .38 | 7 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 60 | 1,677 | -5.4 | .051 | -.353 |
| Like classification | 27.5 | 15.1 | .59 | 0 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 60 | 682 | -3.0 | .288 | -.195 |
| Top 50% | 29.3 | 15.2 | .06 | 7 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 60 | 66,455 | -4.7 | .086 | -.308 |
| Top 10% | 30.8 | 15.2 | .11 | 7 | 20 | 33 | 40 | 60 | 17,814 | -6.2 | .023 | -.407 |
| Learning with Peers | ||||||||||||
| Collaborative Learning | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 43) | 33.2 | 14.8 | 2.25 | 10 | 25 | 30 | 45 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 35.2 | 14.4 | .41 | 10 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 1,276 | -2.0 | .361 | -.142 |
| Regional | 34.1 | 14.1 | .32 | 10 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 1,949 | -.9 | .671 | -.065 |
| Like classification | 31.6 | 13.7 | .50 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 60 | 798 | 1.6 | .461 | .115 |
| Top 50% | 35.4 | 13.7 | .05 | 15 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 69,266 | -2.3 | .281 | -.164 |
| Top 10% | 37.7 | 13.6 | .11 | 15 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 14,932 | -4.5 | .030 | -.331 |
| Discussions with Diverse Others | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 33) | 32.9 | 15.7 | 2.75 | 15 | 20 | 35 | 40 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 33.3 | 15.7 | .53 | 10 | 20 | 30 | 45 | 60 | 898 | -.4 | .877 | -.028 |
| Regional | 40.5 | 14.6 | .36 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 55 | 60 | 1,669 | -7.6 | .003 | -.522 |
| Like classification | 37.1 | 15.5 | .61 | 10 | 25 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 679 | -4.2 | .129 | -.273 |
| Top 50% | 41.3 | 14.9 | .06 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 55 | 60 | 65,783 | -8.4 | .001 | -.564 |
| Top 10% | 43.2 | 14.4 | .12 | 20 | 35 | 40 | 60 | 60 | 14,781 | -10.3 | .000 | -.717 |
Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students
| Mean statistics | Percentiled scores | Comparison results | ||||||||||
| Mean | SDb | SEc | 5th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 95th | Deg. of freedome | Mean diff. | Sig.f | Effect sizeg | |
| Experiences with Faculty | ||||||||||||
| Student-Faculty Interaction | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 39) | 24.6 | 19.2 | 3.07 | 5 | 10 | 15 | 35 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 24.8 | 16.0 | .51 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 35 | 55 | 1,029 | -.2 | .942 | -.012 |
| Regional | 23.4 | 15.0 | .36 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 35 | 55 | 39 | 1.2 | .711 | .077 |
| Like classification | 24.2 | 15.1 | .57 | 0 | 15 | 20 | 35 | 55 | 41 | .3 | .920 | .021 |
| Top 50% | 24.9 | 14.8 | .07 | 5 | 15 | 20 | 35 | 55 | 38 | -.4 | .906 | -.025 |
| Top 10% | 28.0 | 15.5 | .19 | 5 | 15 | 25 | 40 | 60 | 38 | -3.4 | .278 | -.219 |
| Effective Teaching Practices | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 37) | 29.8 | 13.7 | 2.27 | 12 | 20 | 28 | 36 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 35.2 | 15.0 | .49 | 12 | 24 | 36 | 45 | 60 | 973 | -5.4 | .034 | -.358 |
| Regional | 38.4 | 13.3 | .32 | 16 | 28 | 40 | 48 | 60 | 1,727 | -8.6 | .000 | -.648 |
| Like classification | 37.5 | 13.0 | .50 | 16 | 28 | 40 | 48 | 60 | 707 | -7.6 | .001 | -.584 |
| Top 50% | 40.6 | 13.2 | .06 | 20 | 32 | 40 | 52 | 60 | 48,094 | -10.8 | .000 | -.816 |
| Top 10% | 42.7 | 14.0 | .12 | 20 | 32 | 44 | 56 | 60 | 12,630 | -12.9 | .000 | -.918 |
| Campus Environment | ||||||||||||
| Quality of Interactions | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 32) | 41.2 | 11.8 | 2.10 | 22 | 33 | 40 | 48 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 36.6 | 13.8 | .48 | 12 | 28 | 38 | 46 | 60 | 856 | 4.7 | .061 | .339 |
| Regional | 43.8 | 11.5 | .30 | 22 | 38 | 44 | 52 | 60 | 1,518 | -2.6 | .216 | -.222 |
| Like classification | 43.3 | 11.9 | .48 | 20 | 36 | 44 | 52 | 60 | 646 | -2.1 | .339 | -.174 |
| Top 50% | 44.9 | 11.4 | .05 | 24 | 38 | 46 | 54 | 60 | 44,232 | -3.6 | .073 | -.319 |
| Top 10% | 47.1 | 11.8 | .11 | 24 | 40 | 50 | 58 | 60 | 11,103 | -5.9 | .005 | -.499 |
| Supportive Environment | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 32) | 30.5 | 12.8 | 2.28 | 10 | 23 | 28 | 40 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 35.6 | 13.6 | .47 | 15 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 857 | -5.0 | .040 | -.372 |
| Regional | 37.1 | 13.6 | .34 | 15 | 28 | 38 | 45 | 60 | 1,605 | -6.6 | .007 | -.486 |
| Like classification | 35.4 | 13.7 | .55 | 13 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 658 | -4.9 | .048 | -.360 |
| Top 50% | 38.1 | 13.2 | .06 | 18 | 30 | 40 | 48 | 60 | 52,761 | -7.6 | .001 | -.577 |
| Top 10% | 40.1 | 13.2 | .13 | 18 | 30 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 10,935 | -9.5 | .000 | -.725 |
a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).
b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.
c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI (equal to the sample mean ± 1.96 x SE) is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean.
d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall.
e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.
f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.
g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.
Detailed Statisticsa Kentucky State University
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
Mean statistics Percentiled scores Comparison results
Mean SDb SEc 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th Deg. of freedome Mean diff. Sig.f Effect sizeg
Academic Challenge
K-State (N = 27) 41.7 18.1 3.49 5 35 45 60 60
Higher-Order Learning
HBCU 42.8 14.6 .65 20 35 45 60 60 524 -1.1 .701 -.076
Regional 39.5 13.3 .33 20 30 40 50 60 26 2.2 .542 .162
Like classification 40.4 13.6 .66 20 30 40 50 60 28 1.3 .720 .093
Top 50% 41.8 13.5 .06 20 35 40 55 60 26 -.1 .986 -.005
Top 10% 43.0 13.5 .11 20 35 40 55 60 26 -1.3 .708 -.098
K-State (N = 29) 33.9 13.8 2.55 14 23 31 46 60
HBCU 40.8 12.5 .53 20 31 40 51 60 581 -6.9 .004 -.545
Regional 37.2 12.5 .31 17 29 37 46 60 1,675 -3.2 .170 -.257
Like classification 38.8 12.1 .57 20 31 40 49 60 472 -4.8 .040 -.395
Top 50% 39.9 12.2 .05 20 31 40 49 60 49,176 -6.0 .008 -.489
Top 10% 41.6 12.2 .12 20 34 40 51 60 9,626 -7.6 .001 -.627
Learning Strategies
K-State (N = 26) 39.6 15.1 2.95 13 27 40 53 60
HBCU 42.7 13.7 .62 20 33 40 53 60 503 -3.1 .256 -.228
Regional 38.5 14.5 .37 13 27 40 53 60 1,566 1.1 .707 .074
Like classification 38.8 14.4 .72 13 27 40 53 60 427 .8 .779 .057
Top 50% 40.8 14.4 .06 20 33 40 53 60 53,807 -1.2 .675 -.082
Top 10% 42.6 14.3 .11 20 33 40 60 60 17,182 -3.0 .287 -.208
Quantitative Reasoning
HBCU 33.1 15.5 .71 7 20 33 40 60 507 -2.9 .344 -.190
Regional 31.1 15.8 .40 0 20 33 40 60 1,579 -.9 .774 -.056
Like classification 29.7 16.4 .81 0 20 27 40 60 435 .5 .889 .028
Top 50% 31.3 16.0 .06 7 20 33 40 60 66,190 -1.1 .730 -.067
Top 10% 32.7 15.8 .12 7 20 33 40 60 18,378 -2.5 .411 -.161
Learning with Peers
K-State (N = 30) 32.8 14.3 2.62 10 25 30 45 55
HBCU 39.6 13.5 .56 20 30 40 50 60 607 -6.8 .008 -.501
Regional 32.2 15.6 .38 5 20 30 45 60 1,742 .5 .852 .035
Like classification 32.9 15.0 .70 10 20 35 45 60 487 -.1 .959 -.010
Top 50% 36.1 14.0 .06 15 25 35 45 60 57,550 -3.3 .194 -.239
Top 10% 38.6 13.5 .14 15 30 40 50 60 9,168 -5.8 .019 -.432
Discussions with Diverse Others
HBCU 36.9 15.9 .73 10 25 40 50 60 506 .0 .992 -.002
Reflective & Integrative Learning
K-State (N = 26) 30.2 15.0 2.94 0 20 33 40 53
Collaborative Learning
K-State (N = 26) 36.9 18.1 3.53 15 20 30 60 60
Regional 38.1 16.0 .41 10 25 40 50 60 1,575 -1.2 .707 -.074
Like classification 38.1 15.7 .78 10 25 40 50 60 430 -1.2 .714 -.074
Top 50% 42.0 15.6 .06 15 30 40 60 60 65,672 -5.1 .092 -.329
Top 10% 43.5 15.4 .12 20 35 45 60 60 25 -6.6 .072 -.431
Detailed Statistics: Seniors
| Mean statistics | Percentiled scores | Comparison results | ||||||||||
| Mean | SDb | SEc | 5th | 25th | 50th | 75th | 95th | Deg. of freedome | Mean diff. | Sig.f | Effect sizeg | |
| Experiences with Faculty | ||||||||||||
| Student-Faculty Interaction | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 28) | 28.2 | 15.4 | 2.89 | 0 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 55 | ||||
| HBCU | 34.1 | 16.6 | .72 | 10 | 20 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 553 | -6.0 | .061 | -.362 |
| Regional | 25.3 | 16.0 | .40 | 0 | 15 | 25 | 35 | 55 | 1,641 | 2.9 | .346 | .178 |
| Like classification | 29.1 | 16.4 | .79 | 5 | 15 | 30 | 40 | 60 | 462 | -1.0 | .760 | -.059 |
| Top 50% | 29.9 | 15.9 | .10 | 5 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 60 | 26,664 | -1.7 | .569 | -.107 |
| Top 10% | 33.9 | 15.8 | .25 | 10 | 20 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 4,069 | -5.7 | .053 | -.364 |
| Effective Teaching Practices | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 27) | 36.2 | 19.8 | 3.80 | 0 | 20 | 36 | 56 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 38.5 | 15.7 | .69 | 12 | 28 | 40 | 52 | 60 | 537 | -2.3 | .469 | -.143 |
| Regional | 40.8 | 13.6 | .34 | 20 | 32 | 40 | 52 | 60 | 27 | -4.5 | .246 | -.331 |
| Like classification | 40.4 | 13.3 | .65 | 16 | 32 | 40 | 52 | 60 | 28 | -4.2 | .290 | -.303 |
| Top 50% | 41.8 | 13.6 | .07 | 20 | 32 | 40 | 52 | 60 | 26 | -5.5 | .158 | -.406 |
| Top 10% | 43.5 | 13.5 | .12 | 20 | 36 | 44 | 56 | 60 | 26 | -7.3 | .067 | -.538 |
| Campus Environment | ||||||||||||
| Quality of Interactions | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 26) | 37.7 | 14.3 | 2.82 | 14 | 23 | 42 | 48 | 60 | ||||
| HBCU | 41.3 | 12.9 | .59 | 18 | 32 | 42 | 50 | 60 | 496 | -3.6 | .177 | -.275 |
| Regional | 43.7 | 11.5 | .31 | 23 | 36 | 44 | 52 | 60 | 25 | -6.0 | .046 | -.514 |
| Like classification | 44.9 | 11.5 | .58 | 24 | 38 | 46 | 54 | 60 | 27 | -7.2 | .019 | -.615 |
| Top 50% | 45.2 | 11.8 | .05 | 23 | 38 | 48 | 54 | 60 | 47,811 | -7.4 | .001 | -.630 |
| Top 10% | 47.4 | 12.0 | .10 | 24 | 40 | 50 | 58 | 60 | 15,624 | -9.6 | .000 | -.805 |
| Supportive Environment | ||||||||||||
| K-State (N = 25) | 25.6 | 13.5 | 2.73 | 3 | 15 | 28 | 35 | 50 | ||||
| HBCU | 34.8 | 15.2 | .70 | 10 | 23 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 494 | -9.2 | .004 | -.606 |
| Regional | 32.1 | 13.9 | .36 | 10 | 23 | 33 | 40 | 60 | 1,539 | -6.5 | .021 | -.470 |
| Like classification | 34.1 | 14.1 | .71 | 10 | 25 | 35 | 43 | 60 | 416 | -8.5 | .004 | -.602 |
| Top 50% | 34.8 | 13.9 | .06 | 13 | 25 | 35 | 45 | 60 | 46,392 | -9.2 | .001 | -.659 |
| Top 10% | 37.0 | 14.0 | .15 | 13 | 28 | 38 | 48 | 60 | 8,806 | -11.4 | .000 | -.812 |
a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups).
b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.
c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI (equal to the sample mean ± 1.96 x SE) is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean.
d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall.
e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed.
f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.
g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.