Understanding the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, pronounced "nessie") serves as a valuable tool for assessing student involvement in educational activities and programs at universities and colleges across the United States and Canada. By gathering data on first-year and senior students' experiences, NSSE offers insights into how undergraduates allocate their time and what they gain from their college education. This information empowers institutions to identify areas for improvement and enhance the overall learning environment.

What is NSSE?

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is a survey mechanism used to measure the level of student participation at universities and colleges in Canada and the United States as it relates to learning and engagement. Since 2000, there have been over 1,600 colleges and universities that have opted to participate in the survey. Additionally, approximately 6.5 million students have completed the survey since 2000.

Purpose and Objectives

The initial idea of the National Survey of Student Engagement centers on providing an alternative metric of evaluation for colleges and universities to measure "quality" on a national platform and it is designed specifically to gauge the extent of student engagement. NSSE assesses effective teaching practices and student engagement in educationally purposeful activities. The survey offers an unconventional assessment for evaluating collegiate quality by collecting data that is used to depict institutional experiences and instructional practices that affects learning and college student success.

There are three envisioning principles for data collected by NSSE:

To allow a vehicle for institutions to improve upon its undergraduate studies program (e.g. how the institution aligns with its strategic foci).
External agencies such as accrediting bodies and state agencies of higher education could use the information to gauge institutional effectiveness.
One in three first-year students rarely met with an advisor.

How NSSE Works

Through its student survey, The College Student Report, NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about first-year and senior students' participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. NSSE assesses the extent to which first-year and senior students engage in educational practices associated with high levels of learning and development. At WSU, NSSE is offered to all first-year and senior students on all WSU campuses every other spring.

The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college. NSSE doesn’t assess student learning directly, but survey results point to areas where colleges and universities are performing well and aspects of the undergraduate experience that could be improved.

NSSE's Conceptual Framework

In 2013, colleges and universities across the US and Canada began administering a substantially revised version of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), otherwise known as NSSE 2.0. To mark that event, an updated conceptual framework revisits the instrument’s conceptual and theoretical roots, explains why and how the survey was updated, and briefly reviews the literature for arguably the most vital features of the update, the Engagement Indicators and High-Impact Practices. Appendices cover more detailed ground relating to the NSSE 2.0 development process and, more specifically, the creation of the ten Engagement Indicators.

The Conceptual Lineage of Student Engagement

Student engagement, as reflected by NSSE, is not a unitary construct but rather an umbrella term for a family of ideas rooted in research on college students and how their college experiences affect their learning and development. It includes both the extent to which students participate in educationally effective activities as well as their perceptions of facets of the institutional environment that support their learning and development. Central to the conceptualization of student engagement is its focus on activities and experiences that have been empirically linked to desired college outcomes. These influences go back to the 1930s, and span the fields of psychology, sociology, cognitive development, and learning theory, as well as a long tradition of college impact research. The concept also incorporates contributions from the field in the form of practical evaluations of the college environment and the quality of student learning, pressure for institutions to assess and be accountable for educational quality, concerns about student persistence and attainment, and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

The historical roots of student engagement can be traced to studies in the 1930s by educational psychologist Ralph Tyler, who explored the relationship between secondary school curriculum requirements and subsequent college success. At The Ohio State University, Tyler was tasked with assisting faculty in improving their teaching and increasing student retention, and as part of this work he designed a number of path-breaking “service studies” including a report on how much time students spent on their academic work and its effects on learning. Joining C. Robert Pace and other noted scholars, Tyler contributed his expertise in educational evaluation and the study of higher education environments to the Social Science Research Council’s Committee on Personality Development in Youth (1957-63), which furthered the study of college outcomes by turning attention to the total college environment. The committee concluded that student outcomes in college do not result exclusively from courses but rather from the full panoply of college life.

Focusing his research on both student and environmental factors related to college success, Pace went on to develop a number of questionnaires for students to report on the college environment. Pace’s studies of college environments documented the influence of student and academic subcultures, programs, policies, and facilities, among other factors, and how they vary among colleges and universities. Tyler’s early work showing the positive effects of time on task for learning was explored more fully by Pace (1980) who showed that the “quality of effort” students invest in taking advantage of the facilities and opportunities a college provides is a central factor accounting for student success. He argued that because education is both process and product, it is important to measure the quality of the processes; he used the term quality of effort to emphasize the importance of student agency in producing educational outcomes. Pace’s instrument, the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ), was created with substantial conceptual backing to operationalize “student effort”-defined as a straightforward measure of facility use so that students “would immediately know whether they had engaged in the activity and about how often”. The quality of effort construct rested on the assertion that the more a student is meaningfully engaged in an academic task, the more he or she will learn. Pace found that students gained more from their college experience when they invested more time and effort in educationally purposeful tasks such as studying, interacting with peers and faculty about substantive matters, and applying what they are learning to concrete situations. Importantly, he distinguished quality of effort from motivation, initiative, or persistence. Although quality of effort incorporates these elements, it takes place within and its strength depends on a specific educational context.

Read also: Eligibility for National Awards

Student engagement is also rooted in the work of Alexander Astin (1984), who articulated a developmental theory for college students focused on the concept of involvement-or “the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” -and that what students gain from the college experience is proportional to their involvement. This involvement can be academic, social, or extracurricular. Astin hypothesized that the more involved the student is, the more successful he or she will be in college. He acknowledged that the concept of involvement resembles that of motivation, but distinguished between the two, arguing that motivation is a psychological state while involvement connotes behavior. These key ideas of time on task, quality of effort, and involvement have all contributed to the conceptualization of student engagement. Both Pace (1969, 1980) and Astin (1970, 1984) emphasized the important role of the college environment and what the institution does or fails to do to in relation to student effort and involvement. Also, in contrast to models of college impact that viewed students as passive subjects, Pace (1964, 1982) conceived of students as active participants in their own learning, and that one of the most important determinants of student success is active participation of the student by taking advantage of a campus’s educational resources and opportunities. Astin (1984) further articulated the vital role of the institution, in stating that the “effectiveness of any educational practice is directly related to the capacity of that policy or practice to increase involvement”.

Another root in the student engagement family tree is Tinto’s concept of integration, wherein integration refers to the extent to which a student (a) comes to share the attitudes and beliefs of peers and faculty and (b) adheres to the structural rules and requirements of the institution. Tinto (1975; 1993) proposed his theory of academic and social integration to explain voluntary student departure from an institution. He defined integration with regard to a student’s social and academic connection to the campus. Social integration refers to a student’s perceptions of interactions with peers, faculty, and staff at the institution as well as involvement in extracurricular activities. Academic integration refers to a student’s academic performance, compliance with explicit standards of the college or university, and identification with academic norms. Tinto’s was one of the first theories that viewed voluntary departure as involving not just the student but also the institution. Described as “interactionist” because it considers both the person and the institution, Tinto’s theory (1986) shifted responsibility for attrition from resting solely with the individual student and his or her personal situation to include institutional influences. Informed by Tinto’s work, the conceptualization of student engagement incorporates a student’s interactions with peers and faculty and the extent to which the student makes use of academic resources and feels supported at the institution.

Pascarella’s (1985) “general causal model for assessing the effects of differential college environments on student learning and cognitive development,” or, more simply, the “general causal model,” expanded on Tinto’s work by incorporating institutional characteristics and quality of student effort, and by linking to other outcomes in addition to retention. Pascarella theorized that students’ precollege traits correlate with institution types and that both of these influence the institutional environment and interactions with agents of socialization, such as faculty members, key administrators, and peers. Pascarella also acknowledged that student background has a direct effect on learning and cognitive development, beyond the intervening variables. By including quality of student effort, Pascarella affirmed Pace’s (1984) notion that students’ active participation in their learning and development is vital to learning outcomes. Pascarella viewed quality of effort as influenced by student background and precollege traits, the institutional environment, and by interactions with agents of socialization. Tinto’s and Pascarella’s emphasis on students’ interactions with their institution and on institutional values, norms, and behaviors provide the basis for the environmental dimensions of student engagement.

In The Impact of College on Students, Feldman and Newcomb (1969) synthesized some four decades of findings from more than 1,500 studies of the influence of college on students. Subsequent reviews by Bowen (1977), Pace (1979), and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) synthesized research on college students and collegiate institutions from the mid-1920s to the early 21st century. One unequivocal conclusion wholly consistent with the work of Pace and Astin is that the impact of college on learning and development is largely determined by individuals’ quality of effort and level of involvement in both the curricular and co-curricular offerings on a campus. Rather than being mere passive recipients of college environmental effects, students share responsibility for the impact of their own college experience.

The literature on effective teaching and learning has also contributed to the conceptualization of student engagement. In just seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education, Chickering and Gamson (1987) distilled 50 years of educational research on the teaching and learning activities most likely to benefit learning outcomes: (1) student-faculty contact; (2) cooperation among students; (3) active learning; (4) providing prompt feedback; (5) emphasizing time on task; (6) communicating high expectations; and (7) respecting diverse talents and ways of learning. This concise distillation-only four pages of text-has had a notable impact on how educational effectiveness is understood and promoted in higher education. Chickering and Gamson’s common-sense principles were intended to guide faculty members, administrators, and students, with support from state agencies and trustees, in their efforts to improve teaching and learning. They argued that, while each practice can stand alone, when all are present their effects multiply and exert a powerful force on undergraduate education. They also underscored the responsibility of educators and college and university leaders to foster an environment favorable to good practices in higher education, so as to ensure that students engage routinely in high levels of effective educational practice. Multivariate longitudinal analyses of these practices at a diverse group of 18 institutions have shown them to be related to cognitive development and several other positive outcomes, net of a host of control variables.

Similarly, as part of their comprehensive reviews of research on college impact, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) identified a range of pedagogical and programmatic interventions-such as peer teaching, note taking, active discussion, integration across courses, and effective teaching practices-that increase students’ engagement in learning and academic work and thereby enhance their learning and development. In How College Affects Students (1991), these authors concluded that “the greater the student’s involvement or engagement in academic work or in the academic experience of college, the greater his or her level of knowledge acquisition and general cognitive development”.

From the perspective of involvement, quality of effort, time on task, academic and social integration, as well as the principles for good practice in undergraduate education, student engagement can be seen as encompassing the choices and commitments of students, of individual faculty members, and of entire institutions (or schools and colleges within larger decentralized institutions). Students’ choices include their quality of effort and their involvement in educational experiences and activities both in and outside of class. In choosing courses or course sections, students may consider not just the course content, schedule, and what they know about the instructor, but also the amount and type of work required. Once enrolled in courses, students make decisions about how to allocate their efforts and about whether and how to associate with their fellow students, be it through formal co-curricular activities or informally. The relevant choices and commitments of faculty and institutions, on the other hand, relate primarily to the principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Faculty members make choices about the learning activities and opportunities in their courses, their expectations of students, the nature and timing of their feedback to students, their formal and informal facilitation of student learning outside of class, and so on. Institutional leaders and staff make choices about establishing norms and allocating resources to support student success. For example, library and student affairs professionals may consider evolving student needs when choosing how to create supportive learning environments and provide programs, speakers, and events that enrich the undergraduate experience. Through their policies and practices) during college that have significantly impacted desired learning outcomes and overall student experiences, regardless of institutional type and the individual. Purposeful institutional priorities and practices lead to student engagement and student success in college.

Key Components of NSSE

NSSE utilizes several key components to gather and present data on student engagement:

Engagement Indicators (EIs)

NSSE developed ten student Engagement Indicators (EIs) that are categorized in four general themes: academic challenge, learning with peers, experiences with faculty, and campus environment. NSSEs ten Engagement Indicators include: higher-order learning, reflective and integrative learning, learning strategies, quantitative reasoning, learning with peers, discussions with diverse others, experiences with faculty, effective teaching practices, quality of interactions, and supportive environments.

High-Impact Practices (HIPs)

Moreover, NSSE provides results on six High-Impact practices (HIPs) that are duly noted for their positive outcomes on student learning and retention. These HIPs are known by researchers as educational experiences that shift one's trajectory of success in college. The HIPs refer to: learning community, service-learning, research with faculty (effective for first-year student and seniors), internship or field experience, study abroad, and culminating senior experience that seniors should engage in (e.g.

How Institutions Use NSSE Data

Institutions use their data to identify aspects of the undergraduate experience inside and outside the classroom that can be improved through changes in policies and practices more consistent with good practices in undergraduate education. NSSE results are compiled for UCORE Assessment to provide indirect evidence of student learning on the outcomes of the UCORE general education program at the first-year and senior levels.

Beyond the UCORE context, NSSE results are also reviewed by university leadership and disaggregated for undergraduate academic degree programs, colleges, and campuses to provide information about the student perspective to help continually improve the learning experience for students. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) provides WSU valuable data for UCORE Assessment, as well as undergraduate academic degree programs, departments, colleges, campuses and the university, by providing information about the student perspective to help continually improve the learning experience for students.

Note: NSSE also provides participating institutions with a variety of reports. As reported in the 2023 National Survey of Student Engagement Summary of Key Evidence for UCORE (PDF), results from the 2023 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) indicate that most WSU seniors (93%) have considerable confidence in their ability to complete tasks requiring critical thinking and analysis of arguments and information. As reported in the 2021 National Survey of Student Engagement Summary of Key Evidence for UCORE (PDF), results from the 2021 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) indicate that most WSU seniors (87%) have considerable confidence in their ability to complete tasks requiring clear writing. As reported in the 2019 National Survey of Student Engagement Summary of Key Evidence for UCORE (PDF), results from the 2019 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) indicate that nearly all WSU seniors responding to NSSE have considerable confidence in their ability to complete tasks requiring critical thinking (94%) and creative thinking (93%). In concert with the UCORE Director, the UCORE Committee and Subcommittee for Assessment review NSSE results mapped to the learning outcomes of the UCORE general education program following each administration for UCORE Assessment.

NSSE provides participating institutions a variety of reports that compare their students' responses with those of students at self-selected groups of comparison institutions. Comparisons are available for ten Engagement Indicators, six High-Impact Practices, and all individual survey questions. Each November, NSSE also publishes its Annual Results, which reports topical research and trends in student engagement results. NSSE researchers also present and publish research findings throughout the year.

Participating in NSSE

Bachelor's degree-granting institutions are invited to participate in NSSE to assess the quality of undergraduate education-providing institutions diagnostic, actionable information that fosters and catalyzes evidence-based improvement efforts. NSSE registration opens in late summer and closes in fall for the following spring administration.

Nearly 1,700 four-year colleges and universities have participated in our surveys of students and faculty. 252,336 students responded to NSSE in 2022.

tags: #NSSE #(National #Survey #of #Student #Engagement)