Issuu

Engagement Indicators

University of Houston-Downtown

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

About This Report

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. The specific items within each EI are listed below, starting on page 5.

Report Sections

Overview (p. 3)

Theme Reports (pp. 4-13)

Comparisons with HighPerforming Institutions (p. 15)

Detailed Statistics (pp. 16-End)

Interpreting Comparisons

Theme

Academic Challenge

Learning with Peers

Experiences with Faculty

Campus Environment

Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Quality of Interactions

Supportive Environment

Displays how average EI scores for your students compare with those of students at your comparison group institutions.

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 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 all current- and prior-year institutions.

Detailed information about EI score means, distributions, and tests of statistical significance.

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. Your NSSE Tableau dashboards and Report Builder (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.

Engagement Indicators: Overview

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Overview

University of Houston-Downtown

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:

5 ▲ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.

4 △ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.

3 No significant difference.

2 ▽ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.

1 ▼ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.

Note: It is important to interpret the direction of differences relative to your institutional context. You may not see all of these symbols in your report.

First-Year Students

Theme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Learning with Peers

Seniors

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Quality of Interactions

Supportive Environment

Theme Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Student-Faculty Interaction

Your first-year students compared with

Your first-year students compared with Your first-year students compared with

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Academic Challenge

University of Houston-Downtown

Academic Challenge: First-year students

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.

Mean Comparisons

Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Your first-year students compared with

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 2025 Engagement Indicators

Academic Challenge

University of Houston-Downtown

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 difference a between your FY students and

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…

Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts

Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments

Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments

Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from their perspective

Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Identified key information from reading assignments

Reviewed your notes after class

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)

Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.)

Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website.

a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of

display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

Academic Challenge: Seniors

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Mean Comparisons Engagement Indicator

Learning

& Integrative Learning

Strategies

Reasoning

Score Distributions

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued)

Percentage point difference a between your seniors and Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…

Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts

Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

ideas from different courses when completing assignments

Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments

Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue

Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from their perspective

Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Identified key information from reading assignments

Reviewed your notes after class

Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)

Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, climate change, public health, etc.)

Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile 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.

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Learning with Peers: First-year students

Mean Comparisons

Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and interacting with peers from different backgrounds prepares 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. Your first-year students compared with Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public UHD

Engagement Indicator

Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Score Distributions Performance on Indicator Items

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

1b. Asked another student to help you understand course material

Explained course material to one or more students

Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students

Worked with other students on course projects or assignments

Discussions with Diverse Others 8a.

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website.

Learning with Peers: Seniors

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Learning with Peers

University of Houston-Downtown

Mean Comparisons

Engagement Indicator

Discussions with Diverse Others

Your seniors compared with UHD

Score Distributions Performance on Indicator Items

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others 8a.

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Experiences with Faculty University of Houston-Downtown

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

Engagement Indicator

Interaction

Your first-year students compared with

Score Distributions

Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Performance on Indicator Items

point difference a between your FY students and

Student-Faculty Interaction

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member

Effective Teaching Practices

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements

Taught course sessions in an organized way

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points

Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website.

Experiences with Faculty: Seniors

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Experiences with Faculty University of Houston-Downtown

Mean Comparisons

Your seniors compared with

Score Distributions

a between your seniors and

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member

Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

5a.

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website.

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Campus Environment University of Houston-Downtown

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 Engagement Indicator

Your first-year students compared with

Score Distributions

Supportive Environment

Performance on Indicator Items

Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…

(career services, student activities, housing, etc.)

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…

relig.,

Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)

(work, family, etc.)

14h.

14i.

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance

Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website.

Campus Environment: Seniors

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Campus Environment

University of Houston-Downtown

Mean Comparisons

Quality of Interactions

a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website.

This page intentionally left blank.

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Comparisons with High-Performing Institutions

University of Houston-Downtown

Comparisons with Top 50% and Top 10% Institutions

While NSSE’s policy is not to rank institutions (see go.iu.edu/NSSE-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 2024 and 2025 NSSE institutions, and (b) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 10% of all 2024 and 2025 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

Learning

and Integrative Learning

Reasoning

Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Interaction

Seniors

Your first-year students compared with

Your seniors compared with

Reflective and Integrative Learning

with Diverse Others

of Interactions

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 were used to determine the top 50% and top 10% institutions for each Engagement Indicator from all current- and prior-year 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 positive or non-significant with an effect size > -.10.

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Detailed Statisticsa

University of Houston-Downtown

Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students

Mean statistics

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Percentiled scores

Comparison results

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

University of Houston-Downtown

Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students

Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Campus Environment Quality of Interactions

Supportive Environment

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 Statistics: Seniors

Mean statistics

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

Detailed Statisticsa

University of Houston-Downtown

Percentiled scores Comparison results

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

Learning Strategies

Quantitative Reasoning

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

Detailed Statistics: Seniors

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

University of Houston-Downtown

Experiences with Faculty Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

Campus Environment

Quality of Interactions

Supportive Environment

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.

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.