NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators University of Houston-Downtown
IPEDS: 225432
NSSE 2019 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.
Report Sections
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
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 HighPerforming 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.
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. 2 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Overview
University of Houston-Downtown 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 lower (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude. First-Year Students Theme
Engagement Indicator
Higher-Order Learning Academic Challenge
Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies
Your first-year students compared with
Your first-year students compared with
Your first-year students compared with
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
----
----
----
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
---
---
---
Your seniors compared with
Your seniors compared with
Your seniors compared with
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
---
---
Supportive Environment
Seniors Theme
Engagement Indicator
--
Higher-Order Learning Academic Challenge
Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning
Learning with Peers
Collaborative Learning
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction
Campus Environment
Quality of Interactions
Discussions with Diverse Others
Effective Teaching Practices
Supportive Environment
-----
-----
---
NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 3
NSSE 2019 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
Mean
Your first-year students compared with Southwest Public Carnegie Class Effect Effect Mean size Mean size
Higher-Order Learning
36.8
37.3
-.04
37.8
-.07
37.3
-.03
Reflective & Integrative Learning
35.5
34.3
.10
35.0
.04
33.9
.13
Learning Strategies
36.8
37.2
-.03
38.5
-.12
37.7
-.07
Quantitative Reasoning
30.4
27.8 *
.17
27.6 *
.18
26.8 **
.23
UHD
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
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 Higher-Order Learning
60
Reflective & Integrative Learning
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Learning Strategies
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Quantitative Reasoning
60
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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.
4 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 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. a
Percentage point difference between your FY students and
Higher-Order Learning
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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
60
-8
-9
-8
4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts
65
-2
-3
-1
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source
67
-0
-3
-0
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information
69
+2
+0
+1
2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments
52
+4
+1
+5
2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues
51
+3
56
+8
+6
+10
70
+7
+6
+8
71
+1
+1
+1
2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept
72
+7
+6
+8
2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge
75
+1
-2
+1
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments
72
+1
-3
+1
9b. Reviewed your notes after class
60
9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials
62
Reflective & Integrative Learning Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
2c.
Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 2e.
Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective
-1
+4
Learning Strategies Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
-4 +0
-7
-7
-3
-1
Quantitative Reasoning 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, 6b. climate change, public health, etc.)
53 50
6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information
44
6a.
-0
+1
+4
+10
+10
+12
+5
+6
+8
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.
NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 5
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Academic Challenge
University of Houston-Downtown 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.
Mean Comparisons UHD
Your seniors compared with Carnegie Class Effect Mean size
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Southwest Public Effect Mean size
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
Higher-Order Learning
40.7
39.8 *
.07
40.5
.02
40.5
.01
Reflective & Integrative Learning
38.1
37.1 **
.08
38.1
.00
37.7
.03
Learning Strategies
41.1
38.9 ***
.15
39.4 ***
.12
39.9 **
.09
Quantitative Reasoning
30.9
29.5 **
.09
29.5 **
.08
29.3 **
.10
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 Higher-Order Learning
60
Reflective & Integrative Learning
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Learning Strategies
60
UHD
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Quantitative Reasoning
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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.
6 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Academic Challenge
University of Houston-Downtown 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. a
Percentage point difference between your seniors and
Higher-Order Learning
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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
76
4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts
75
+1
4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source
74
+4
+1
+1
4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information
74
+3
+0
+1
-1
-2 -0
-1 +1
Reflective & Integrative Learning Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments
64
2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues
61
+4
-1
+1
52
+3
-2
+1
66
+1
-0
+0
75
+3
+2
+2
2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept
73
+2
+1
+2
2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge
83
+1
9a. Identified key information from reading assignments
81
+4
+2
+3
9b. Reviewed your notes after class
73
+7
+8
+4
9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials
70
+5
+3
+2
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, 6b. climate change, public health, etc.)
60
+4
+5
+5
49
+5
+4
+4
6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information
46
+2
+2
+2
2c.
Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments
2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 2e.
Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from his or her perspective
-2
-3
-1
-3
+0
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"…
6a.
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.
NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 7
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Learning with Peers
University of Houston-Downtown 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 Engagement Indicator
Mean
Your first-year students compared with Southwest Public Carnegie Class Effect Effect Mean size Mean size
Collaborative Learning
34.3
33.2
.07
30.1 ***
.27
33.8
.04
Discussions with Diverse Others
36.4
39.4 *
-.18
38.3
-.12
38.7
-.14
UHD
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
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 Collaborative Learning
60
Discussions with Diverse Others
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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. a
Percentage point difference between your FY students and
Collaborative Learning
UHD
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
%
1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material
62
1f. Explained course material to one or more students
57
1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students
49
1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments
61
Southwest Public
+6
Carnegie Class
+14 -3
+4
-3
+4
+5
Texas Institutions
+4 -3 -5
+11
+4
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
70
-1
8b. People from an economic background other than your own
62
-8
+2 -7
+1 -7
8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own
59
-7
-5
-4
8d. People with political views other than your own
51
-14
-13
-17
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.
8 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Learning with Peers
University of Houston-Downtown 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 UHD
Your seniors compared with Carnegie Class Effect Mean size
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Southwest Public Effect Mean size
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
Collaborative Learning
32.2
31.7
.03
29.3 ***
.18
32.9
-.05
Discussions with Diverse Others
41.4
41.1
.02
39.4 ***
.12
40.5
.05
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 Collaborative Learning
60
Discussions with Diverse Others
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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. a
Percentage point difference between your seniors and
Collaborative Learning
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
%
1e. Asked another student to help you understand course material
42
-1
+3
-4
1f. Explained course material to one or more students
54
-2
+2
-6
1g. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students
46
-0
+4
1h. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments
64
+4
+9
+1
-3
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
77
+3
+7
+5
8b. People from an economic background other than your own
74
+0
+3
+0
8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own
71
+1
+5
+5
8d. People with political views other than your own
65
-3
-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.
NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 9
NSSE 2019 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
Your first-year students compared with
UHD
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Southwest Public Effect Mean size
Carnegie Class Effect Mean size
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
Student-Faculty Interaction
23.2
20.9 *
.15
21.7
.10
21.8
.09
Effective Teaching Practices
37.9
37.7
.02
38.9
-.07
37.7
.01
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 Student-Faculty Interaction
60
Effective Teaching Practices
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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. a
Percentage point difference between your FY students and
Student-Faculty Interaction
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
%
3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member
42
+5
+2
+3
3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)
27
+5
+5
+2
3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class
28
+3
+1
+1
38
+9
+5
+6
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
74
-1
-3
-2
5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way
68
-4
-6
-3
5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points
71
-1
-2
-1
5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress
68
+7
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments
59
+3
+2
+8 -3
+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.
10 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Experiences with Faculty
University of Houston-Downtown 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
Your seniors compared with
UHD
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Southwest Public Effect Mean size
Carnegie Class Effect Mean size
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
Student-Faculty Interaction
21.3
22.1
-.05
24.3 *** -.18
24.5 *** -.20
Effective Teaching Practices
39.4
39.0
.03
40.2
40.4 *
-.06
-.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 Student-Faculty Interaction
60
Effective Teaching Practices
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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. a
Percentage point difference between your seniors and
Student-Faculty Interaction
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…
%
3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member
38
-2
-8
-8
3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)
25
-0
-2
-3
3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class
27
-2
-6
-6
31
-0
-7
-6
5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements
77
-2
-3
-4
5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way
71
-5
-6
-6
5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points
74
-1
-3
-4
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…
5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress
63
+4
-1
-1
5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments
63
+2
-3
-2
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.
NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 11
NSSE 2019 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
Your first-year students compared with
UHD
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Southwest Public Effect Mean size
Carnegie Class Effect Mean size
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
Quality of Interactions
41.6
42.0
-.03
42.8
-.09
43.5
-.15
Supportive Environment
37.2
36.6
.05
35.8
.10
37.3
.00
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 Quality of Interactions
60
Supportive Environment
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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. a
Percentage point difference between your FY students and
Quality of Interactions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…
%
13a. Students
44
-4
-6
-7
13b. Academic advisors
50
-1
-3
-5
13c. Faculty
47
-1
-5
-5
13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.)
43
13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.)
49
-2 +5
-4 +1
-7 +1
Supportive Environment Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…
71
-3
-4
-3
14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.)
74
-4
-4
-4
14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)
63
14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially
67
14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically
14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)
65
14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)
54
14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.)
59
14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues
58
+0
+1 -5 -5
+10
-8
-3 +10
-6 +10
-0 -2
-7 +8
-1 +10
-9 +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. 12 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Campus Environment
University of Houston-Downtown 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
Your seniors compared with
UHD
Engagement Indicator
Mean
Southwest Public Effect Mean size
Carnegie Class Effect Mean size
Texas Institutions Effect Mean size
Quality of Interactions
43.8
42.6 **
.09
43.8
.00
43.2
.04
Supportive Environment
34.2
32.5 ***
.12
32.1 ***
.14
33.3
.06
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 Quality of Interactions
60
Supportive Environment
60
45
45
30
30
15
15
0
0 UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
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. a
Percentage point difference between your seniors and
Quality of Interactions
UHD
Southwest Public
Carnegie Class
Texas Institutions
Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…
%
13a. Students
62
13b. Academic advisors
50
13c. Faculty
57
+2
13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.)
51
+7
+4
+6
13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.)
49
+5
+0
+2
70
+0 +1
+3 +7
+5
+5 -1
+5 -6
-1
-3
-3
Supportive Environment Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…
14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically
-2
14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.)
70
+4
14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)
65
+8
+9
14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially
66
+2
+5
14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)
56
14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)
40
14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.)
50
14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues
50
-4 +7 +9
-0 -3
+6 -4
-1
-6 +4
+3 +10
-5 +8
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. NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 13
This page intentionally left blank.
14 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 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 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 NSSE a 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 comparable b 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
Your first-year students compared with
Theme
Engagement Indicator
UHD Mean
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning Reflective and Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning
36.8 35.5 36.8 30.4
Learning with Peers
Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices
Campus Quality of Interactions Environment Supportive Environment
NSSE Top 50% Mean Effect size 39.3 * -.19
✓
NSSE Top 10% Mean Effect size 41.0 *** -.32
36.8 39.9 ** 29.3
-.11 -.23 .08
34.3 36.4
35.4 41.3 ***
-.08 -.33
23.2 37.9
24.9 40.6 **
-.12 -.20
41.6 37.2
44.9 ** 38.1
-.28 -.07
NSSE Top 50% Mean Effect size 41.8 ** -.08
✓
NSSE Top 10% Mean Effect size 43.0 *** -.17
39.9 *** 40.8 31.3
-.14 .02 -.03
✓ ✓
41.6 *** 42.6 *** 32.7 ***
-.28 -.10 -.12
✓
38.6 *** 43.5 ***
-.47 -.14
Seniors
✓ ✓
✓
38.8 *** 42.5 *** 30.8
-.28 -.40 -.02
37.7 *** 43.2 ***
-.25 -.47
28.0 *** 42.7 ***
-.31 -.34
47.1 *** 40.1 **
-.46 -.22
✓
✓
Your seniors compared with
Theme
Engagement Indicator
UHD Mean
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning Reflective and Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning
40.7 38.1 41.1 30.9
Learning with Peers
Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others
32.2 41.4
36.1 *** 42.0
-.28 -.04
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices
21.3 39.4
29.9 *** 41.8 ***
-.54 -.17
33.9 *** 43.5 ***
-.80 -.30
43.8 34.2
45.2 *** 34.8
-.12 -.04
47.4 *** 37.0 ***
-.30 -.20
Campus Quality of Interactions Environment Supportive Environment
✓
✓
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. NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 15
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statistics
a
University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students Percentiled scores
Mean statistics
Comparison results Deg. of
c
5th
25th
50th
75th
95th
14.2
.99
15
25
40
45
60
Mean
SD
36.8
b
SE
freedom
e
Mean diff.
Effect Sig.
f
size
g
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning UHD (N = 205) Southwest Public
37.3
13.5
.09
15
30
40
45
60
24,587
-.5
.617
-.035
Carnegie Class
37.8
13.3
.06
15
30
40
45
60
56,781
-1.0
.292
-.074
Texas Institutions
37.3
13.6
.23
15
30
40
45
60
3,824
-.5
.634
-.034
Top 50%
39.3
13.0
.04
20
30
40
50
60
205
-2.5
.012
-.194
Top 10%
41.0
13.0
.07
20
35
40
50
60
206
-4.2
.000
-.322
57
Reflective & Integrative Learning 35.5
12.2
.82
17
26
34
46
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 219)
34.3
12.1
.07
17
26
34
43
57
26,469
1.2
.159
.096
Carnegie Class
35.0
12.0
.05
17
26
34
43
57
60,954
.5
.567
.039
Texas Institutions
33.9
11.9
.19
14
26
34
40
54
4,106
1.6
.061
.130
Top 50%
36.8
11.8
.03
20
29
37
46
57
121,766
-1.3
.105
-.110
Top 10%
38.8
11.8
.07
20
31
40
46
60
25,433
-3.3
.000
-.277
60
Learning Strategies 36.8
13.0
.94
20
27
33
47
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 191)
37.2
13.9
.09
13
27
40
47
60
23,247
-.5
.651
-.033
Carnegie Class
38.5
13.9
.06
20
27
40
47
60
53,942
-1.7
.093
-.122
Texas Institutions
37.7
13.7
.23
20
27
40
47
60
3,628
-.9
.362
-.068
Top 50%
39.9
13.7
.04
20
33
40
53
60
104,714
-3.1
.002
-.225
Top 10%
42.5
14.0
.09
20
33
40
53
60
24,449
-5.7
.000
-.405
60 .170
Quantitative Reasoning 30.4
15.7
1.13
0
20
27
40
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 192)
27.8
15.4
.10
0
20
27
40
60
23,627
2.6
.019
Carnegie Class
27.6
15.5
.07
0
20
27
40
60
54,839
2.8
.013
.180
Texas Institutions
26.8
15.5
.26
0
20
27
40
60
3,677
3.6
.002
.234
Top 50%
29.3
15.2
.04
7
20
27
40
60
126,762
1.1
.299
.075
Top 10%
30.8
15.2
.08
7
20
33
40
60
34,130
-.4
.740
-.024
60 .075
Learning with Peers
Collaborative Learning 34.3
13.8
.90
10
25
35
45
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 235)
33.2
14.3
.09
10
20
35
40
60
28,387
1.1
.253
Carnegie Class
30.1
15.4
.06
0
20
30
40
60
236
4.2
.000
.273
Texas Institutions
33.8
13.4
.21
15
25
35
40
60
4,361
.5
.553
.040
Top 50%
35.4
13.7
.04
15
25
35
45
60
132,104
-1.1
.220
-.080
Top 10%
37.7
13.6
.08
15
30
40
50
60
28,650
-3.4
.000
-.246
-3.0
.011
-.183 -.116
Discussions with Diverse Others 36.4
16.8
1.20
5
20
40
50
60
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 194)
39.4
16.2
.11
10
25
40
55
60
23,422
Carnegie Class
38.3
16.2
.07
10
25
40
50
60
54,348
-1.9
.108
Texas Institutions
38.7
16.1
.27
10
25
40
55
60
3,658
-2.2
.062
-.138
Top 50%
41.3
14.9
.04
20
30
40
55
60
193
-4.9
.000
-.326
Top 10%
43.2
14.4
.09
20
35
40
60
60
195
-6.8
.000
-.470
16 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statistics
a
University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students Percentiled scores
Mean statistics
Comparison results Deg. of
c
5th
25th
50th
75th
95th
14.2
.98
0
10
20
30
50
Mean
SD
23.2
b
SE
freedom
e
Mean diff.
Effect Sig.
f
size
g
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction UHD (N = 210) Southwest Public
20.9
14.9
.09
0
10
20
30
50
25,424
2.3
.028
Carnegie Class
21.7
14.9
.06
0
10
20
30
50
58,542
1.5
.136
.153 .103
Texas Institutions
21.8
15.0
.24
0
10
20
30
50
3,959
1.4
.192
.093
Top 50%
24.9
14.8
.05
5
15
20
35
55
82,241
-1.7
.095
-.115
Top 10%
28.0
15.5
.14
5
15
25
40
60
217
-4.7
.000
-.306
60
Effective Teaching Practices 37.9
13.2
.93
20
28
40
48
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 204)
37.7
13.5
.09
16
28
40
48
60
24,542
.3
.768
.021
Carnegie Class
38.9
13.6
.06
16
28
40
48
60
56,751
-.9
.321
-.070
Texas Institutions
37.7
13.9
.23
16
28
40
48
60
3,801
.2
.839
.015
Top 50%
40.6
13.2
.04
20
32
40
52
60
91,916
-2.7
.004
-.202
Top 10%
42.7
14.0
.09
20
32
44
56
60
24,238
-4.8
.000
-.339
60
Campus Environment
Quality of Interactions 41.6
13.7
1.02
16
32
44
52
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 180)
42.0
12.7
.09
18
34
44
52
60
21,691
-.4
.702
-.029
Carnegie Class
42.8
12.5
.06
20
36
44
52
60
49,892
-1.2
.216
-.093
Texas Institutions
43.5
12.2
.21
20
36
45
52
60
195
-1.8
.082
-.148
Top 50%
44.9
11.4
.04
24
38
46
54
60
179
-3.2
.002
-.281
Top 10%
47.1
11.8
.08
24
40
50
58
60
181
-5.4
.000
-.461
60
Supportive Environment 37.2
14.8
1.09
13
25
40
50
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 183)
36.6
13.6
.09
15
28
38
45
60
185
.6
.574
.046
Carnegie Class
35.8
13.8
.06
13
25
38
45
60
52,276
1.4
.179
.099
Texas Institutions
37.3
13.3
.23
15
28
38
48
60
199
-.1
.959
-.004
Top 50%
38.1
13.2
.04
18
30
40
48
60
183
-.9
.401
-.070
Top 10%
40.1
13.2
.09
18
30
40
50
60
185
-2.9
.010
-.217
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.
IPEDS: 225432 NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 17
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statistics
a
University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: Seniors Percentiled scores
Mean statistics
Comparison results Deg. of
c
5th
25th
50th
75th
95th
14.4
.42
20
30
40
55
60
Mean
SD
40.7
b
SE
freedom
e
Mean diff.
Effect Sig.
f
size
g
Academic Challenge
Higher-Order Learning UHD (N = 1164) Southwest Public
39.8
13.9
.07
20
30
40
50
60
37,915
.9
.027
.066
Carnegie Class
40.5
13.7
.05
20
30
40
50
60
1,198
.2
.603
.016
Texas Institutions
40.5
13.8
.19
20
30
40
50
60
1,687
.2
.678
.014
Top 50%
41.8
13.5
.04
20
35
40
55
60
1,184
-1.1
.010
-.081
Top 10%
43.0
13.5
.08
20
35
40
55
60
32,268
-2.3
.000
-.173
60
Reflective & Integrative Learning 38.1
13.1
.37
17
29
37
49
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1228)
37.1
12.7
.06
17
29
37
46
60
1,302
1.0
.007
.080
Carnegie Class
38.1
12.5
.05
17
29
37
47
60
1,265
.0
.924
.003
Texas Institutions
37.7
12.5
.17
17
29
37
46
60
1,774
.4
.320
.032
Top 50%
39.9
12.2
.04
20
31
40
49
60
1,252
-1.8
.000
-.145
Top 10%
41.6
12.2
.08
20
34
40
51
60
1,354
-3.5
.000
-.282
60
Learning Strategies 41.1
13.9
.42
20
33
40
53
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1122)
38.9
14.6
.08
13
27
40
53
60
36,226
2.2
.000
.149
Carnegie Class
39.4
14.5
.06
13
27
40
53
60
69,414
1.7
.000
.120 .086
Texas Institutions
39.9
14.3
.20
13
27
40
53
60
6,039
1.2
.010
Top 50%
40.8
14.4
.04
20
33
40
53
60
119,316
.3
.482
.021
Top 10%
42.6
14.3
.07
20
33
40
60
60
1,192
-1.5
.000
-.105
60 .088
Quantitative Reasoning 30.9
16.4
.49
0
20
33
40
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1131)
29.5
16.1
.09
0
20
27
40
60
36,758
1.4
.004
Carnegie Class
29.5
16.2
.06
0
20
27
40
60
70,203
1.3
.005
.083
Texas Institutions
29.3
16.0
.23
0
20
27
40
60
6,091
1.6
.002
.101
Top 50%
31.3
16.0
.04
7
20
33
40
60
146,775
-.4
.401
-.025
Top 10%
32.7
15.8
.08
7
20
33
40
60
1,190
-1.9
.000
-.117
60 .034
Learning with Peers
Collaborative Learning 32.2
15.2
.42
5
20
30
40
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1276)
31.7
15.8
.08
5
20
30
45
60
1,365
.5
.218
Carnegie Class
29.3
16.4
.06
0
20
30
40
60
1,325
2.9
.000
.177
Texas Institutions
32.9
15.1
.20
5
20
35
45
60
6,833
-.7
.139
-.046
Top 50%
36.1
14.0
.04
15
25
35
45
60
1,297
-3.9
.000
-.280
Top 10%
38.6
13.5
.10
15
30
40
50
60
1,406
-6.4
.000
-.472
Discussions with Diverse Others 41.4
17.4
.52
5
30
40
60
60
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1113)
41.1
16.7
.09
10
30
40
60
60
1,178
.3
.565
.018 .122
Carnegie Class
39.4
16.7
.06
10
25
40
55
60
1,146
2.0
.000
Texas Institutions
40.5
16.8
.24
10
30
40
60
60
6,038
.9
.117
.052
Top 50%
42.0
15.6
.04
15
30
40
60
60
1,126
-.6
.220
-.041
Top 10%
43.5
15.4
.08
20
35
45
60
60
1,163
-2.1
.000
-.138
18 • NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS
NSSE 2019 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statistics
a
University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: Seniors Percentiled scores
Mean statistics
Comparison results Deg. of
c
5th
25th
50th
75th
95th
16.5
.48
0
10
20
30
60
Mean
SD
21.3
b
SE
freedom
e
Mean diff.
Effect Sig.
f
size
g
Experiences with Faculty
Student-Faculty Interaction UHD (N = 1191) Southwest Public
22.1
16.3
.08
0
10
20
35
55
38,764
-.8
.081
-.051
Carnegie Class
24.3
16.2
.06
0
10
20
35
60
73,650
-3.0
.000
-.185
Texas Institutions
24.5
16.6
.23
0
10
20
35
60
6,380
-3.2
.000
-.196
Top 50%
29.9
15.9
.07
5
20
30
40
60
60,318
-8.6
.000
-.539
Top 10%
33.9
15.8
.17
10
20
35
45
60
10,153
-12.6
.000
-.796
60
Effective Teaching Practices 39.4
15.0
.44
12
28
40
52
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1163)
39.0
14.1
.07
16
28
40
52
60
1,229
.4
.343
.030
Carnegie Class
40.2
14.0
.05
16
32
40
52
60
1,195
-.8
.076
-.056
Texas Institutions
40.4
13.7
.19
16
32
40
52
60
1,632
-1.0
.041
-.070
Top 50%
41.8
13.6
.04
20
32
40
52
60
1,186
-2.4
.000
-.173
Top 10%
43.5
13.5
.08
20
36
44
56
60
1,248
-4.1
.000
-.303
60
Campus Environment
Quality of Interactions 43.8
13.2
.41
20
35
46
55
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1016)
42.6
12.7
.07
18
35
44
52
60
1,075
1.2
.005
.093
Carnegie Class
43.8
12.4
.05
20
36
46
54
60
1,044
.0
.982
-.001
Texas Institutions
43.2
12.6
.18
18
36
45
53
60
1,449
.6
.211
.045
Top 50%
45.2
11.8
.04
23
38
48
54
60
1,031
-1.4
.001
-.120
Top 10%
47.4
12.0
.06
24
40
50
58
60
1,065
-3.6
.000
-.301
60 .117
Supportive Environment 34.2
15.0
.45
10
23
35
45
Southwest Public
UHD (N = 1096)
32.5
14.6
.08
8
23
33
43
60
1,162
1.7
.000
Carnegie Class
32.1
14.4
.06
8
23
33
40
60
1,128
2.1
.000
.143
Texas Institutions
33.3
14.5
.21
10
23
33
43
60
1,597
.9
.088
.058
Top 50%
34.8
13.9
.04
13
25
35
45
60
1,115
-.6
.205
-.041
Top 10%
37.0
14.0
.10
13
28
38
48
60
1,205
-2.8
.000
-.197
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.
IPEDS: 225432 NSSE 2019 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 19