Group items tagged

National Survey of Student Engagement What is student engagement? Student engagement represents two critical features of collegiate quality. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities. The second is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum and other learning opportunities to get students to participate in activities that decades of research studies show are linked to student learning. What does NSSE do? Through its student survey, The College Student Report, NSSE annually collects information at hundreds of four-year colleges and universities about student participation in programs and activities that institutions provide for their learning and personal development. The results provide an estimate of how undergraduates spend their time and what they gain from attending college. 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 individual survey questions and the five NSSE Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice. 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.

Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) Areas measured by the AUSSE The survey instruments used in the AUSSE collect information on around 100 specific learning activities and conditions along with information on individual demographics and educational contexts.The instruments contain items that map onto six student engagement scales: Academic Challenge - the extent to which expectations and assessments challenge students to learn; Active Learning - students' efforts to actively construct knowledge; Student and Staff Interactions - the level and nature of students' contact and interaction with teaching staff; Enriching Educational Experiences - students' participation in broadening educational activities; Supportive Learning Environment - students' feelings of support within the university community; and Work Integrated Learning - integration of employment-focused work experiences into study. The instruments also contain items that map onto seven outcome measures. Average overall grade is captured in a single item, and the other six are composite measures which reflect responses to several items: Higher-Order Thinking - participation in higher-order forms of thinking; General Learning Outcomes - development of general competencies; General Development Outcomes - development of general forms of individual and social development; Career Readiness - preparation for participation in the professional workforce; Average Overall Grade - average overall grade so far in course; Departure Intention - non-graduating students' intentions on not returning to study in the following year; and Overall Satisfaction - students' overall satisfaction with their educational experience.

"Abstract The authors compared the underlying student response patterns to an end-of-course rating instrument for large student samples in online, blended and face-to-face courses. For each modality, the solution produced a single factor that accounted for approximately 70% of the variance. The correlations among the factors across the class formats showed that they were identical. The authors concluded that course modality does not impact the dimensionality by which students evaluate their course experiences. The inability to verify multiple dimensions for student evaluation of instruction implies that the boundaries of a typical course are beginning to dissipate. As a result, the authors concluded that end-of-course evaluations now involve a much more complex network of interactions. Highlights ► The study models student satisfaction in the online, blended, and face-to-face course modalities. ► The course models vary technology involvement. ► Image analysis produced single dimension solutions. ► The solutions were identical across modalities. Keywords: Student rating of instruction; online learning; blended learning; factor analysis; student agency"

Abstract Few traditions in higher education evoke more controversy, ambivalence, criticism, and, at the same time, support than student evaluation of instruction (SEI). Ostensibly, results from these end-of-course survey instruments serve two main functions: they provide instructors with formative input for improving their teaching, and they serve as the basis for summative profiles of professors' effectiveness through the eyes of their students. In the academy, instructor evaluations also can play out in the high-stakes environments of tenure, promotion, and merit salary increases, making this information particularly important to the professional lives of faculty members. At the research level, the volume of the literature for student ratings impresses even the most casual observer with well over 2,000 studies referenced in the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) alone (Centra, 2003) and an untold number of additional studies published in educational, psychological, psychometric, and discipline-related journals. There have been numerous attempts at summarizing this work (Algozzine et al., 2004; Gump, 2007; Marsh & Roche, 1997; Pounder, 2007; Wachtel, 1998). Student ratings gained such notoriety that in November 1997 the American Psychologist devoted an entire issue to the topic (Greenwald, 1997). The issue included student ratings articles focusing on stability and reliability, validity, dimensionality, usefulness for improving teaching and learning, and sensitivity to biasing factors, such as the Dr. Fox phenomenon that describes eliciting high student ratings with strategies that reflect little or no relationship to effective teaching practice (Ware & Williams, 1975; Williams & Ware, 1976, 1977).