| 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
===== PAGE 3 =====
# 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:
| 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 | | | |
===== PAGE 4 =====
## 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.
| | 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 |
| 4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information | 53 | -16 | -17 | -10 |
| Reflective & Integrative Learning | | | | |
| 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 |
| Learning Strategies | | | | |
| Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"... | | | | |
| 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 |
| 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.) | 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 |
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.
===== PAGE 6 =====
## 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.
| | Percentage point difference between your seniors 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 | 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 |
| 4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information | 69 | -6 | -1 | -6 |
| Reflective & Integrative Learning | | | | |
| 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 |
| Learning Strategies | | | | |
| 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 |
| 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.
===== PAGE 8 =====
## 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.
| 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. |
| 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. |
===== PAGE 9 =====
## 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.
| 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. |
| 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. |
===== PAGE 10 =====
## 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.
| Student-Faculty Interaction | K-State | Percentage point differencea between your FY students 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 | 40 | -4 | -4 | -4 | |
| 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 | |
| Effective Teaching Practices | | | | | |
| Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have... | | | | | |
| 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 | |
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.
===== PAGE 11 =====
## 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.
| 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 |
| 5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress | 64 | +2 | +0 | -3 |
| 5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments | 59 | -1 | -10 | -11 |
| 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.
===== PAGE 13 =====
## 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.
| 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.
===== PAGE 14 =====
This page intentionally left blank.
NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
===== PAGE 15 =====
## 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:
(a) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 50% of all 2018 and 2019 NSSE institutions, and
(b) 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.
===== PAGE 16 =====
