Linking Faculty Involvement in High-Impact Practices to First-Year Student Participation
Fassett, Kyle T. and BrckaLorenz, Allison
National Resource Center Research Brief, 2021(2), 1-4, 2021.
Tasked with developing, encouraging, and participating in highly impactful educational experiences, faculty serve in roles vital to first-year student success. Known for benefiting many students, high-impact practices assist institutions in promoting a variety of outcomes ranging from retention to civic engagement. Using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), we investigated the relationship between faculty emphasis and participation in high-impact practices with first-year student participation at over 80 diverse four year institutions. We found that faculty values for participation are positively related to student participation, but faculty involvement in more high-impact practices could decrease student participation. Administrators should consider ways to support their faculty in providing these experiences and to assess potential barriers for providing equitable quality high impact practices.
Full version

Honors college faculty support for high-impact practice participation
Miller, A., Silberstein, S., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 44(3), , 2021.
Much of the existing research on honors colleges or programs is focused on the student experience, with less information offered concerning the faculty perspective. This study presents findings from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), comparing support for high-impact practices between faculty who teach honors courses and those who do not. Along with core FSSE items, this study uses responses from 1,487 faculty members at 15 institutions on two experimental items about teaching honors courses. A series of ordinary least squares and binary logistic regression analyses suggest that faculty who teach honors courses are more likely to supervise undergraduates on research and internships and to think that it is important for students to participate in learning communities, study abroad, and research with faculty. These findings are interpreted within the context of previous research and current theory, bridging knowledge from the fields of higher education and gifted education.
Full version

Teaching honors courses: Perceptions of engagement from the faculty perspective.
Miller, A., Silberstein, S., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(1), 3-27, 2021.
Research suggests that honors students are more likely to be engaged in some, but not all, aspects of the college experience, although there is less information available from the faculty perspective. This study presents findings from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), comparing various engagement-related practices between faculty who teach honors courses and those who do not. Along with core FSSE items, this study uses responses from 1,487 faculty members at 15 institutions on two items about teaching honors courses. A series of ordinary least squares regression analyses suggest that faculty who teach honors courses are more likely to encourage engagement in the areas of studentâ??faculty interaction, learning strategies, and collaborative learning, even after controlling for other demographic and institutional variables. These findings are considered within the context of existing research and theory, connecting knowledge from higher education and gifted education.
Full version

Teaching honors courses: Perceptions of engagement from the faculty perspective
Miller, A., Silberstein, S., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Journal of Advanced Academics, , , 2020.
Research suggests that honors students are more likely to be engaged in some, but not all, aspects of the college experience, although there is less information available from the faculty perspective. This study presents findings from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), comparing various engagement-related practices between faculty who teach honors courses and those who do not. Along with core FSSE items, this study uses responses from 1,487 faculty members at 15 institutions on two items about teaching honors courses. A series of ordinary least squares regression analyses suggest that faculty who teach honors courses are more likely to encourage engagement in the areas of student?faculty interaction, learning strategies, and collaborative learning, even after controlling for other demographic and institutional variables. These findings are considered within the context of existing research and theory, connecting knowledge from higher education and gifted education.
Full version

Reflections on the state of student engagement data use and strategies for action
Kinzie, J., Cogswell, C. A., & Wheatle, K. I. E.
Assessment Update, 27(2), 1–2, 14–15, 2015.
Although the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) collects responses from hundreds of participating colleges and universities every year, its ultimate goal is not to collect data but to catalyze improvement in undergraduate education. Launched in 2000 by the Pew Charitable Trusts in response to growing national and local pressures for higher education to focus on measures of education quality and for colleges and universities to engage in meaningful improvement, the NSSE has become a leader in a campaign to focus attention on a number of relatively clear characteristics of effective environments for teaching and learning. The NSSE‘s process indicators related to good practices in undergraduate education provide diagnostic information about concrete activities that can guide interventions to promote improvement. By 2014, more than 1,500 institutions had participated in the NSSE, and over 4.5 million students had completed the questionnaire. In addition, the launch of two complementary instruments, the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), have furthered efforts to encourage the use of data for improvement by equipping institutions with information about faculty perceptions and entering students‘ expectations for engagement. Given these noble goals and all the student engagement data, what impact has the NSSE had on the use of data for improvement on campuses? And what lessons does this work suggest for the improvement agenda in higher education?
Full version

Refreshing engagement: NSSE at 13
McCormick, A. C., Gonyea, R. M., & Kinzie, J.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(3), 6–15, 2013.
Thirteen years ago, 276 bachelor's-granting colleges and universities inaugurated a new approach to assessing college quality by participating in the first national administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The timing was right. Policymakers were growing increasingly impatient with an ongoing yet unsustainable pattern of cost escalation, skepticism was building about how much students were learning in college, and regional accreditors were ratcheting up their demands on colleges and universities to adopt assessment for purposes of improvement. Meanwhile, higher education's leaders were frustrated by the crude metrics dominating the discourse about college quality. It's been said that a dean at one of those early-adopting institutions enthusiastically proclaimed: ?Finally, a test I actually want to teach to!?NSSE introduced a simple yet effective reframing of the quality question: ask undergraduates about their educationally purposeful experiences. It incorporated several important design principles: emphasize behaviors that prior research found to be positively related to desired learning outcomes; emphasize actionable information?behaviors and experiences that institutions can influence; standardize survey sampling and administration to ensure comparability between institutions; provide participating institutions with comprehensive reports detailing their own students' responses relative to those at comparison institutions, plus an identified student data file to permit further analysis by the institution. NSSE was administered to first-year students and seniors, opening a window on quality at these ?bookends? of the undergraduate experience. In addition to reporting item-by-item results, the project created summary measures in the form of five ?Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice? that focused attention on key dimensions of quality in undergraduate education: level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. The new survey caught on fast. Annual participation now numbers 600?700 institutions, for a cumulative total of more than 1,500 colleges and universities in the US and Canada. What started as a bold experiment in changing the discourse about quality and improvement in undergraduate education?and providing metrics to inform that discourse?is now a trusted fixture in higher education's assessment landscape. High rates of repeat participation offer compelling testimony of the project's value. Of the first group of 276, 93 percent administered the survey in NSSE's tenth year or later. The Web-based survey is now offered as a census of first-year students and seniors, permitting disaggregated analyses by academic unit or demographic subgroup. In 2013, some 1.6 million undergraduates were invited to complete the survey, providing both valuable information for more than 620 participating campuses and a comprehensive look at student engagement across a wide variety of institutions. The 2013 administration marks the first major update of the survey since its inception. In the following pages, we summarize what we've learned over NSSE's first 13 years, why we're updating the survey, and new insights and diagnostic possibilities represented by these changes. Although NSSE's companion surveys, the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), are incorporating parallel changes, here we focus on the changes to NSSE.
Full version

Gender gaps in collegiate teaching style: Variations by course characteristics
Nelson Laird, T. F., Garver, A. K., & Niskodé-Dossett, A.S.
Research in Higher Education, 52, 261–277, 2011.
Using data from over 9,000 faculty members that participated in the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), this study examined the moderating role a range of course characteristics played on the effects of gender on the percentage of class time spent on various activities, a measure of teaching style. Results revealed gender differences, but that the gaps between men and women in lecturing and active classroom practices varied by disciplinary area, course level, and the number of times a course had been taught by the same instructor. The results confirm that gender effects depend on context, which implies that efforts to improve teaching and learning must also adapt to the instructional context.

STEM/non-STEM differences in engagement at U.S. institutions
Nelson Laird, T. F., McCormick, A. C., Sullivan, D. F., & Zimmerman, C. K.
Peer Review, 13(3), 23–26, 2011.
A recent paper by one of us (Nelson Laird) and some colleagues brought some sobering news of differences between STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and non-STEM undergraduates with regard to approaches to learning that promote more complex, deeper understanding. Using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), Nelson Laird and colleagues examined disciplinary differences in the extent to which students are exposed to educational environments that promote deep approaches to learning. These approaches to learning are important because ?[s]tudents who use deep approaches to learning tend to perform better as well as retain, integrate, and transfer information at higher rates than students using surface approaches to student learning? (Nelson Laird, Shoup, Kuh, and Schwarz 2008, 470). Nelson Laird and colleagues found?using models with extensive statistical controls?that, nationally, STEM faculty generally use pedagogies that encourage higher-order, integrative, and reflective learning significantly less than faculty in non-STEM fields and, not coincidently, STEM seniors experience ?deep approaches to learning? less than seniors in non-STEM fields (for descriptions of the three measures, see Nelson Laird et al. 2008). The differences were small for Higher-Order Learning, the scale that is concerned with analysis, synthesis, and judgment regarding evidence?relatively good news?but quite large for the Integrative and Reflective Learning scales. The study by Nelson Laird and colleagues is a part of a larger body of work about students engaging in educationally purposeful activities?those educational practices known to positively influence valued educational outcomes, activities such as active and collaborative learning and those that involve much student?faculty interaction, as noted in many of the articles in this issue of Peer Review. We know of the positive impact of pedagogies of engagement not only on general student learning, but also on STEM learning, from years of research. It is discouraging that, nationally, faculty in STEM fields tend to have lower expectations for integrative and reflective learning relative to other faculty, and that results from seniors reflect those differences. The Integrative Learning scale assesses how often students use ideas from various sources and courses, include diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing assignments, and discuss ideas from readings or classes with faculty members and others outside of class. The Reflective Learning scale is a combination of responses to questions about trying out different perspectives and thinking about one‘s own beliefs. The kinds of intellectual self-reflection skills these questions are about are surely as important in the STEM disciplines as they are in other disciplines, but we see that STEM majors have far fewer opportunities to develop these skills than students in other majors. Indeed, one might argue that it is especially in STEM that students should acquire these skills, given the way empirical evidence tends to be seen as harder in science than in other disciplines. Discovering a bad premise or assumption and being open to other interpretations are just as important in STEM disciplines as elsewhere. These results caused us to want to look more closely at STEM/non-STEM differences and to determine whether there are circumstances where STEM seniors buck the general trends and are as engaged or more engaged than their non-STEM peers.

A comparison of student and faculty academic technology use across disciplines
Guidry, K. R., & BrckaLorenz, A.
EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 33(3), , 2010.
Our study extends the research into faculty and student use of contemporary academic technologies by asking five questions: How often do students report using academic technologies? How often do faculty report using academic technologies? Do students in different disciplines use these technologies more or less than their peers? Do faculty in different disciplines use these technologies more or less than their peers? Are there noticeable differences between how often students and faculty use these technologies? Our study examined responses to a pair of surveys ? the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) ? administered in the spring of 2009.

Research and discovery across the curriculum
Elrod, S., Kinzie, J., & Husic, D.
Peer Review, 12(2), 4–8, 2010.
The national conversation on undergraduate research is gaining momentum, in part because of its identification as one of the ten high-impact educational practices identified in an analysis of data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (Kuh 2008). However, the trend is not new; the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) has been a leading proponent of undergraduate research for the past thirty years. According to CUR, undergraduate research is ?an inquiry or investigation conducted by an undergraduate student that makes an original intellectual or creative contribution to the discipline.? Ramirez and Hoagland (2003) state that faculty and students should be encouraged to ??collaborate as partners in their explorations of uncharted intellectual terrain. The symbiosis established between the faculty member and undergraduate collaborator energizes and informs the faculty member‘s teaching and research while simultaneously introducing the student to the joys of discovery as well as to lessons in persistence, problem-solving and critical thinking.? Thus, it is as much a matter of effective teaching and learning as it is a matter of research and scholarship. In STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines, Project Kaleidoscope, working over the past twenty years to advance effective STEM education, has also played a role. The National Science Foundation‘s Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) and Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) programs and various scientific societies have also helped to promote, support, and highlight the work of undergraduate researchers. Many funding agencies, philanthropic foundations and other organizations have also touted and supported the educational benefits of undergraduate research across all disciplines for decades, including the National Humanities Alliance, which holds an annual Humanities Advocacy Day. Undergraduate research experiences are also held in high regard by faculty members: more than 50 percent of faculty members reported on the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) that participation in a research project with a faculty member is important for students (National Survey of Student Engagement 2008). Students in all disciplines are also increasingly calling for such experiences (Society of Physics Students 2008). In this article, we provide an analysis of the value of undergraduate research and suggest that its essence be used to infuse a pedagogy of research and discovery into courses across the curriculum for a more relevant, real-world, research-rich educational experience.

Why teacher-scholars matter: Some insights from FSSE and NSSE
Kuh, G. D., Chen, D., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
Liberal Education, 93(4), 40–45, 2007.

Examining the relationship between faculty identity and their civically engaged teaching practices
Jin, Seonmi; Zhang, Xiaoxia; BrckaLorenz, Allison
Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN, 2024, November.
This study explores the relationship between facultyâ??s identity and their civically engaged teaching practices, applying the Diversity Learning Environment model (Hurtado et al., 2012). We used the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), which included 13,531 faculty responses from 65 participating institutions, and conducted a multi-level modeling analysis.
Full version

Disciplinary Differences in Faculty Emphasis on Deep Approaches to Learning
Hiller, Stephen C.; Nelson Laird, Thomas F.
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, 2021, April.
This large-scale study compares how Biglan and Holland conceptualizations of academic disciplines in their ability to explain differences in faculty emphasis on deep approaches to learning in their courses. To examine these differences, several multiple regressions models are conducted 6,500 faculty and instructor responses to the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), using effect coding to better compare disciplinary categories. Analyses examining disciplines using Biglanâ??s three dimensions or Hollandâ??s theory suggest differences within each conceptualization that largely align with previous research. Comparisons between these two conceptualizations, while showing some overlap, indicate that Biglanâ??s dimensions explain slightly more variation, with a slightly greater range of magnitude in some effect sizes. These findings underscore for researchers, faculty, and educational developers the need to examine disciplinary effects on teaching practices while also suggesting for researchers the need to appropriately align disciplinary conceptualizations with their area of study.
Full version

Employing differential item function analysis in survey research
Paulsen, J., Merckle, R., & BrckaLorenz, A.
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2019, April.
One of the key assumptions involved in using any survey or measurement is that the instrument works consistently across groups. This is particularly important in survey research where group comparisons are ubiquitous. Differential item functioning analysis examines whether the instrument systematically biases in favor of one group. The findings from such an analysis are unattainable in traditional approaches to examining instrument validity, and yet, it is rare to find DIF analysis in surveys. This process illustrates DIF analysis with logistic regression using the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement. We find FSSE items did not show the presence of DIF. This provides confidence to users of this instrument that it measures the same constructs in the same way across different groups.
Full version

Time well spent: Flipped classrooms and effective teaching practices
Fassett, K. T., BrckaLorenz, A., Strickland, J., & Ribera, A.
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, 2019, April.
Good teaching practices are the crux of student education and require constant evaluation to meet current generations‘ learning needs. Flipped classrooms have sought a foothold in higher education to provide opportunities for deep learning through the delivery of content online prior to attending class while having activities related to processing and applying the information during class. Using a large-scale, multi-institution study of faculty teaching flipped courses, this study empirically links flipped procedures to other forms of effective educational practice and additionally focuses on the motivations and impacts on the faculty side of this pedagogical practice. Findings indicate numerous learning and development benefits for students with implications for supporting and motivating faculty across disciplines, faculty identities, and course types.
Full version

The time is now: A study promoting STEM faculty use of culturally inclusive teaching
Ribera, A., Priddie, C., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Tampa, FL, 2018, November.
This study aims to inform the conversation of inclusion in STEM. We analyzed nearly 3,000 faculty who shared their experiences with using culturally inclusive teaching in their selected undergraduate course. Our study serves as tool to promote discussions about strategies campus leaders may adopt to reinforce inclusion for all students.
Full version

Item nonresponse bias on the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement
Chiang, Y.-C., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Denver, CO, 2015, May.
Survey researchers often wonder about the impact of missing data and whether a sample with missing data is representative of a larger population. This study investigates the prevalence of item nonresponse bias among participants in the FSSE survey and its impact on the estimates of ten FSSE scale scores by comparing item nonresponse patterns across faculty-level characteristics such as gender identity, racial or ethnic identification, citizenship, employment status, academic rank, and the number of undergraduate or graduate courses taught. These analyses examined a set of FSSE items that comprise ten FSSE scales.
Full version

Global perspectives in curricula and deep approaches to learning: Examining faculty practices for engagement
Peck, L., Chiang, Y.-C., & BrckaLorenz, A.
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 2015, April.
Many higher education institutions today are placing a high level of importance on internationalization. One of the most popular means of providing students with a global perspective is through internationalizing a course curriculum. Global learning experiences in the classroom are seen as a way to expose students to multiple points of view on issues and foster cross-cultural understanding. Using results from the 2014 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), this study compared faculty use of global perspectives in student learning to their use of reflective and integrative learning and higher order learning practices?to see how the two are related. The influences of faculty characteristics, such as gender and academic rank, as well as institutional characteristics, will also be explored.
Full version

Testing the new scales on the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement
BrckaLorenz, A., Chiang, Y.-C., & Nelson Laird, T.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, FL, 2014, May.
The Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) annually collects information from thousands of faculty at baccalaureate degree-granting colleges and universities about student engagement both in and out of the classroom. With the update to the FSSE instrument in 2013, new scales were rigorously tested to aid in reporting and discussions about student engagement. FSSE staff have documented the array of analyses and tests used to evaluate the quality of these scales, including descriptive analysis and studies of validity and reliability.
Full version

Testing the new scales on the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement
BrckaLorenz, A., Chiang, Y.-C., & Nelson Laird, T.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, FL, 2014, May.
The Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) annually collects information from thousands of faculty at baccalaureate degree-granting colleges and universities about student engagement both in and out of the classroom. With the update to the FSSE instrument in 2013, new scales were rigorously tested to aid in reporting and discussions about student engagement. FSSE staff have documented the array of analyses and tests used to evaluate the quality of these scales, including descriptive analysis and studies of validity and reliability.
Full version

Senior leaders and teaching environments at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominately White Institutions
Cole, E. R., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Lambert, A.
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 2013, May.
Various scholars have entered the conversation on the educational effectiveness of HBCUs in comparison to PWIs. There is, however, an absence of research that examines the potential relationship between teaching practices and how faculty feel senior leaders (e.g., deans, provosts, presidents) contribute to fostering an environment that enhances their classroom effectiveness. This study uses data from the 2012 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) to examine the differences between faculty perceptions of senior leaders on HBCU and PWI campuses. The results add to our understanding of how much senior leaders support both faculty teaching practices and teaching-related resources.
Full version

Faculty emphasis on diversity conversations and conversations with diverse others
BrckaLorenz, A., Nelson Laird, T., & Shaw, M.
AAC&U Modeling Equity, Engaging Difference Conference, Baltimore, MD, 2012, October.
Using data from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), this study examines how often faculty structure class sessions around diverse topics and how often faculty report students having serious conversations with diverse others in their courses. Findings suggest that faculty most often structure course sessions around economic and social inequalities and report students having the most conversations with people of differing economic or social backgrounds. Faculty members‘ gender and race matter in predicting these measures of diversity in the classroom, but disciplinary area was the strongest predictor. Implications for assessment and institutional research are discussed.
Full version

Digging deeper into institutional data: Enhancing campus assessment findings with the FSSE report builder
Cole, E. R., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Shaw, M. D.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, New Orleans, LA, 2012, June.

Full version

Faculty emphasis on diversity topics and conversations with diverse others
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shaw, M. D., Cole, E. R., BrckaLorenz, A., & Cervera, Y.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, New Orleans, LA, 2012, June.
Using data from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), this study examines how often faculty structure class sessions around diverse topics and how often faculty report students having serious conversations with diverse others in their courses. Findings suggest that faculty most often structure course sessions around economic and social inequalities and report students having the most conversations with people of differing economic or social backgrounds. Faculty members‘ gender and race matter in predicting these measures of diversity in the classroom, but disciplinary area was the strongest predictor. Implications for assessment and institutional research are discussed.
Full version

Disciplinary differences in faculty members' emphasis on deep approaches to learning
Nelson Laird, T. F., Schwarz, M. J., Kuh, G. D., & Shoup, R.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Chicago, IL, 2006, May.
?Deep learning? is important in higher education because students who utilize such an approach tend to get more out of their educational experiences. As learning is a shared responsibility between students and faculty, it is equally important to examine how much faculty members emphasize deep approaches to learning as it is to assess how much students employ these approaches. This study examines disciplinary differences in faculty members‘ emphasis on deep approaches to learning. On average, faculty in education, arts and humanities, and social science fields emphasize deep learning more than their colleagues from other disciplinary areas, which is not entirely consistent with findings from a previous study on students.
Full version

Faculty Perceptions of Disciplinary Cultures and Their Relationship to Teaching: Validating Becher's Convergent-Divergent Dimension
Hiller, Stephen C.; Braught, Emily; Nelson Laird, Thomas
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, 2024, April.
Becherâ??s (1989) seminal work on academic disciplines proposed the Convergent-Divergent dimension to capture one social dynamic that distinguished disciplinary cultures, and yet little work has explored how the Convergent-Divergent dimension relates to faculty teaching practices. This study operationalizes this dimension in items appended to the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). With nearly 700 responses from faculty in 98 disciplines, this study examines the relationship of a Cultural Convergence construct with faculty teaching practices and whether faculty taught similarly to their disciplinary peers. Findings indicate that cultural convergence does not influence teaching practices in four of five areas, though the more convergent a discipline, the more faculty tend to teach similarly to their peers in three of five areas of teaching.
Full version

A Quantitative Review of Faculty Practices and Perceptions of the Scholarship for Teaching and Learning
Braught, Emily; BrckaLorenz, Allison
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Summit, 2024.
How do faculty perceive and interact with scholarship for teaching and learning? This session will review findings from the 2022 and 2023 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), exploring the extent to which classroom- and institutional-level assessment efforts are used to make improvements and hone teaching practices, the extent to which faculty collaborate and build community with one another to share out teaching practices, and the extent to which external motivations influence faculty frequency of practices related to the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Full version

NSSE's 3rd Decade: Highlighting New Emphases in Assessment and Student Engagement
BrckaLorenz, Allison; Cole, Jim; Gonyea, Robert; Kinzie, Jillian; McCormick, Alex; Sarraf, Shimon
Assessment Institute, 2021, October.
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is excited to enter our 3rd decade of assessment to improve educational quality and student outcomes. This session will highlight NSSE's suite of surveys – the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) and new emphases, including survey items on effective teaching and sense of belonging and data visualization tools. We'll also introduce enhancements including Topical Modules to assess inclusiveness and cultural diversity, advising, and quality in online education and HIPs
Full version

The Influence of Faculty on Marginalized Student Participation in High-Impact Practices
Fassett, Kyle T.; BrckaLorenz, Allison; Nelson Laird, Thomas F.
Association of American College & Universities Annual Meeting, 2021, January.
As creators and facilitators of high-impact practices, understanding how faculty promote or inhibit student participation is integral in continuing to equitably promote their benefits. Data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) paired with data from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) show differences in faculty participation in high-impact practices, the importance faculty place on student participation, and how these factors impact student participation. We will share findings from 83 diverse institutions to start a conversation about the faculty labor associated with high-impact practices and ways to increase equity in student participation of high-impact practices.
Full version

New insights into faculty advising: An overview of national patterns and trends
Fassett, Kyle; Woodlee, Kara M.; BrckaLorenz, Allison
NACADA Annual Conference, Virtual, 2020, October.
This session provides an overview of faculty advisors across the U.S. using a large-scale data-set from the 2019 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). Presenters will share survey findings including an overview of the national landscape of faculty advisors, what faculty tend to emphasize during the advising process, and what can be done to support faculty in their roles as advisors. Participants will be invited to share their experiences collaborating between faculty and advising units. Implications for attendees will be highlighted through a large group discussion.?
Full version

Faculty development for all? Investigating participation in development opportunities
Fassett, K., Strickland, J., Nelson Laird, T., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Annual Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 2019, June.
The session provides a broad overview of current faculty development practices, the faculty members who participate, and how participation relates to the use of effective teaching strategies. The session will incorporate the Faculty Learning Outcomes Framework to help attendees situate how the participation in faculty development practices relates to potential classroom outcomes. Data come from the 2014-2018 administrations of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) at 33 institutions. Patterns were examined based on faculty characteristics, disciplines, and demographics related to participation in teaching mentorships, teaching learning communities, and teaching-focused conferences.
Full version

Tableau tips and tricks: Building dynamic dashboards with survey data
BrckaLorenz, A., & Kirnbauer, T.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Denver, CO, 2019, May.
IR professionals are responsible for communication information to a broad audience through interactive data visualizations. For many professionals, using Tableau as a tool to create dynamic and appealing visualizations may be frustrating. The purpose of this poster presentation is to help decode Tableau jargon and provide participants with a guide for using essential Tableau features. This presentation will provide guidance on how to import custom colors, the power of using calculated fields and parameters, and other suggestions for building Tableau dashboards using survey data. Examples of visualizations will be shown using data from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE).
Full version

Reshaping the narrative on faculty time and motivations
BrckaLorenz, A., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
Association of American Colleges and Universities Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 2019, January.
Often lost in discussions about what students are doing and learning while in college are the critical roles that faculty play in students‘ learning and development. Relying on results from a large-scale, multi-institution study of thousands of faculty members, participants will examine how faculty spend their time on scholarly activities and how this time allocation relates to good teaching practices. Additionally, participants will discuss why faculty might be allocating their time in different ways, focusing particularly on faculty motivations and what institutions could do to support current trends or reshape the narratives about faculty productivity at their institutions. Connecting faculty time allocation to good teaching practices and motivations for teaching and doing research will provide participants with practical solutions and forewarn potential challenges for maintaining or changing current narratives about faculty work and postsecondary educational spaces.
Full version

A 10-year cross-section of STEM faculty teaching
Fassett, K., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Conference, Tampa, FL, 2018, November.
Studies have shown that faculty in STEM are slow to adopt pedagogies that improve learning outcomes. This study centered on female STEM faculty, as they have been, and are currently, marginalized in these disciplines. To explore faculty teaching practices, the study used data from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), which collects data on the ways and extent to which faculty engage students at four-year colleges and universities. A cross-sectional approach used data from three survey administrations spanning ten years to uncover differences in pedagogical approaches among female and male faculty. The Carnegie Basic Classifications for 2005, 2010, and 2015 were used to identify institution types. Master‘s colleges and universities with smaller, medium, and larger programs were collapsed into one group for the analysis. Each year, 48 to 71 institutions were represented in the sample. Of the total 62,000 FSSE respondents in 2007, 2012, and 2017, respectively 1,521; 917; and 1,300 met the criteria of working at a master‘s institution and in a STEM field. Female faculty were found to be using active teaching practices more than their male counterparts.
Full version

Using a typology of faculty to assess undergraduate education and plan for faculty development
BrckaLorenz, A., Fassett, K., & Nelson Laird, T.
Assessment Institute, Indianapolis, IN, 2018, October.
In this session, participants will learn about the relationships between a typology of faculty members and measures of effective educational practice. The typology comes from faculty responses on the time they spend on teaching activities; research, creative, or scholarly activities; and service activities from over 24,000 faculty at 154 institutions that participated in the 2017 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). After an interactive presentation of findings, participants will discuss the implications for assessing undergraduate education and planning for faculty development at their campuses.
Full version

Using a typology of faculty to assess undergraduate education and plan for faculty development
BrckaLorenz, A., Fassett, K., & Nelson Laird, T.
Assessment Institute, Indianapolis, IN, 2018, October.
In this session, participants will learn about the relationships between a typology of faculty members and measures of effective educational practice. The typology comes from faculty responses on the time they spend on teaching activities; research, creative, or scholarly activities; and service activities from over 24,000 faculty at 154 institutions that participated in the 2017 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE). After an interactive presentation of findings, participants will discuss the implications for assessing undergraduate education and planning for faculty development at their campuses.
Full version

Maximizing survey data for outreach, assessment, programming, and beyond
Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, FL, 2018, May.
This presentation provides a variety of real-life examples of how institutions have used survey data collected from students, faculty, and alumni within multiple contexts. Examples are drawn from institutions participating in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), and the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). The types of data use cover numerous categories: sharing on campus; recruitment; academic and career advising; publicity, alumni relations, and donor outreach; planning, assessment, and accreditation; program and curricular change; and advocacy and public policy. Attendees will learn about ways that they can optimize the use of available survey data for many different audiences, allowing the institutional research office to serve as a bridge that connects other stakeholders with available data.
Full version

Maximizing survey data for outreach, assessment, programming, and beyond
Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, FL, 2018, May.
This presentation provides a variety of real-life examples of how institutions have used survey data collected from students, faculty, and alumni within multiple contexts. Examples are drawn from institutions participating in the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), and the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). The types of data use cover numerous categories: sharing on campus; recruitment; academic and career advising; publicity, alumni relations, and donor outreach; planning, assessment, and accreditation; program and curricular change; and advocacy and public policy. Attendees will learn about ways that they can optimize the use of available survey data for many different audiences, allowing the institutional research office to serve as a bridge that connects other stakeholders with available data.
Full version

Ticking away the moments: Assessing faculty roles with time on task
BrckaLorenz, A., Nelson Laird, T., Fassett, K., & Yuhas, B.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, FL, 2018, May.
More frequent calls for accountability in higher education have led to increased scrutiny on what students are doing and learning while in college. Because faculty are important contributors to the student experience, the ability to realistically analyze how faculty spend their time engaging students in learning is a key component in being able to answer these calls for accountability. The purpose of this presentation will be to examine and discuss how faculty time on task can be used to enhance a wide variety of conversations about faculty roles, development, contributions, and productivity. A new method of analyzing faculty productivity will be presented, and participants will discuss how such an assessment of faculty time can be useful in discussions about institution mission and goals, faculty roles at the institution, faculty professional development, and faculty tenure and promotion.
Full version

Gifted education at the college level: Are faculty who teach honors courses really more engaging?
Miller, A. L., & Silberstein, S. M.
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY, 2018, April.
This study presents findings from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), comparing various engagement-related practices between faculty who teach honors courses and those who do not. Along with core FSSE items, this study uses responses from 1,487 faculty members at 15 institutions on two experimental items about teaching honors courses. A series of OLS regression analyses suggest that faculty who teach honors courses are more engaging in the areas of student-faculty interaction, learning strategies, and collaborative learning. Additional analyses for high-impact practices also suggest that faculty who teach honors courses are more likely to work with undergraduates on research, and to think that it is important for students to participate in learning communities, study abroad, and research with faculty.
Full version

Assessing diversity inclusivity in college courses: Updates and trends
Nelson Laird, T. F., Hurtado, S. S., & Yuhas, B. K.
Assessment Institute, Indianapolis, IN, 2017, October.
Using results from multiple administrations of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), participants in this session will examine how courses include diversity, what faculty and course characteristics predict that inclusion, and whether results have varied over time. The results come from survey items based on a comprehensive framework describing how nine course elements (e.g., purpose, content, assessment) vary in their inclusion of diversity. Session participants will learn about the framework and results and also will engage with the facilitators to discuss the implications of the results for those working to assess the inclusion of diversity across the curriculum.
Full version

Supporting faculty who advise: Using findings from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement to activate discussions
Ribera, A., & BrckaLorenz, A.
NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO, 2017, October.
The primary objective of this session is to have an informed discussion about ways to better support faculty who serve as academic advisors at four-year institutions. Session participants will leave this session with at least one personal and actionable goal to improve the conditions of faculty advisors at their institution. Using survey results from over 8,000 faculty advisors who taught undergraduates at 127 four-year institutions as a backdrop, participants will engage in active discussions about the academic culture and reward structures that affect faculty advisors. Participants will also learn the degree to which serving as a faculty advisor contributes to their use of effective educational practices in the classroom.
Full version

Why do we teach? Examining faculty teaching experiences and motivation
Recipient of the 2017 Robert J. Menges Award for Outstanding Research in Educational Development
BrckaLorenz, A., Yuhas, B., & Stupnisky, R. H.
Professional and Organizational Development Network Annual Conference, Montreal, ON, Canada, 2017, October.
Understanding faculty motivations for teaching can provide a powerful window into what encourages instructors to do the work of teaching. We administered a brief survey developed from self-determination theory to instructional staff at nineteen institutions across the country. These survey items investigated faculty experiences and motivations for teaching. The results varied by race and discipline, among other factors, and we will give an overview of our findings in this session. Discussion will focus on how these findings can inform faculty development and hiring practices. This session was a recipient of the 2017 Robert J. Menges Award for Outstanding Research in Educational Development.

Indigenous and Pacific Islander students and faculty in higher education
BrckaLorenz, A., Saelua, N., & Kinzie, J.
AAC&U Diversity, Learning, & Student Success Conference, Jacksonville, FL, 2017, March.
Indigenous and Pacific Islander scholars are often the most invisible populations on college and university campuses, even though Native identities, cultures, and symbols are ubiquitous in higher education (Native mascots, ?lu‘au? themed parties). Yet very little is known about these complex, often marginalized communities, due to the limited amount of large-scale research focused on small populations. This poster will present findings about indigenous and Pacific Islander students and faculty from four years of data collection from hundreds of colleges and universities across the country. Participants will learn more about who these populations are, how these students are engaging in effective educational practices, and how these faculty are contributing to undergraduate student engagement.
Full version

Paying attention to often ignored small subpopulations in assessment work
BrckaLorenz, A., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
Association of American Colleges and Universities Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, 2017, January.
A more diverse society has led to a more diverse college-going population and faculty body, but the need for restoring public trust in higher education is especially important for subpopulations that have traditionally been marginalized within the higher education system. Often these groups represent small proportions of an overall population, which can present a variety of challenges when trying to conduct assessments of their experiences. This session explores the challenges and possible solutions for those working toward improving the experiences of small subpopulations. The session will consist of highly interactive discussions focusing on the value of inclusivity in restoring public trust in higher education, reflections on assessing the experiences of small subpopulations, and creating plans for further understanding the experiences of small subpopulations for the purpose inclusive improvement.
Full version

A comparison of STEM students' expectations for engagement and faculty teaching practices
BrckaLorenz, A., Cole, J., & Wang, L.
AAC&U Transforming Undergraduate STEM Education Conference, Boston, MA, 2016, November.
A misalignment of first-year student engagement expectations and the teaching practices of STEM faculty can undermine first-year students‘ engagement in effective educational practices. In this session, facilitators and participants will examine the results from 68 institutions that have participated in two large-scale national surveys to compare the engagement expectations of first-year STEM students and the teaching practices of lower-division STEM faculty. Presenters and audience will discuss what it means to align faculty teaching practices with student expectations. Session participants will be encouraged to reflect on opportunities and challenges they will likely face as they seek to improve student engagement.
Full version

Engaging international students through effective teaching strategies
Wang, R., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Professional and Organizational Development Conference, Louisville, KY, 2016, November.
With a rapid increase in the enrollment of international students in U.S. higher education institutions, more and more faculty members have encountered challenges in teaching international students. In this session, facilitators will use Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) data to discuss faculty approaches to the engagement of their international students. Facilitators and participants will discuss the strategies faculty members employ in teaching international students. Goals of this session include understanding the challenges that faculty members face in teaching international students and discussing the implementation of effective teaching strategies in participant‘s courses and campuses.
Full version

Faculty use of rubrics: An examination across multiple institutions
Thomas F. Nelson Laird, John Zilvinskis, & Polly A. Graham
Assessment Institute, Indianapolis, IN, 2016, October.
Assessment professionals identify rubrics as key tools in measuring student learning; however, the field of higher education lacks a clear picture of how much faculty use these tools as well as the ways rubrics are developed and used. For assessment professionals and faculty who work to improve undergraduate education, better understanding rubric development and use should enhance their ability to assist faculty members and ultimately improve teaching and learning on campuses. Relying on data from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), we will describe rubric implementation and development across over 20 institutions and discuss the implications of our findings.
Full version

Patterns of effective teaching practice for general education and non-general education courses
BrckaLorenz, A., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
AAC&U General Education & Assessment Conference, New Orleans, LA, 2016, February.
With over a decade of data collection and hundreds of institutional participants in the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), much can be learned about the engaging educational practices within general education courses at a variety of institution types and educational contexts. In this session, facilitators will use FSSE data to compare the degree to which instructors of general education courses and non-general education courses emphasize various forms of student engagement. Goals of the session include examining these comparisons within different campus or disciplinary contexts, discussing the goals of general education in promoting student engagement, and reflecting on opportunities and challenges in seeking to improve or examine student engagement within general education courses.
Full version

Examining patterns of effective teaching practices across disciplinary areas
BrckaLorenz, A., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2015, June.
Variation in the use of effective teaching practices across disciplinary areas can be an impediment to improving undergraduate education but can also provide an opportunity for dialog. Using data from the 2013 and 2014 administrations of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), this session will explore the similarities and differences in patterns of engaging teaching practices across disciplinary fields for instructors in Canada and the United States. FSSE measures instructor perceptions and expectations of undergraduate student engagement in educationally purposeful activities and the extent to which instructors promote student learning and development in their courses at four-year colleges and universities. The focus of engaging teaching practices examined in this session will be the value instructors place on students participating in reflective and integrative learning activities, instructor emphasis on higher-order learning activities, and the opportunity students have to engage in discussions with diverse others. During this session, participants will 1) learn about a method for measuring instructor engagement in effective teaching practices, 2) examine and discuss patterns in engaging teaching practices across disciplinary fields for instructors at Canadian institutions, 3) consider how these patterns compare to those of instructors in the United States, and 4) discuss what these patterns say about the different teaching contexts and fields and what that means for efforts to improve undergraduate education. Understanding the similarities and differences in disciplinary cultures in different contexts may help make sense of the disciplinary dissonance and shed light on how to achieve teaching and learning improvement across contexts.
Full version

How often is often? Testing the meaning of vague quantifiers
Dumford, A. D., Chiang, Y.-C., Nelson Laird, T., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Denver, CO, 2015, May.
Survey researchers often wonder about the meaning of vague quantifiers such as ?sometimes? or ?often? as employed by surveys. This study focuses on assessing the equivalence reliability of the updated Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), with particular emphasis on whether two parallel forms of items produce similar results (e.g., have equal means, variances, and errors). These analyses examined a set of FSSE questions asked in two different ways?first, with vague quantifiers and, second, with a quantifiable time allocation. This poster will provide details about the methods and results of these analyses using data from the 2014 administration of FSSE.
Full version

Teaching development issues for diverse associate instructors
Kearns, K., BrckaLorenz, A., La Touche, R., & Lynton, J.
IU-Bloomington Center for Innovative Teaching & Learning Series on High-Impact Practices, Bloomington, IN, 2015, March.
Graduate students from diverse backgrounds prepare for and experience their instructional activities differently from their majority colleagues. These experiences can diminish graduate students‘ confidence and impede their teaching efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. Learn about the teaching experiences of diverse IUB graduate students from the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement for Graduate Student Instructors (FSSE-G). In addition, hear first-hand teaching experiences from Rachel La Touche (Sociology) and Jordan Lynton (Anthropology), participants of the CITL‘s Intersections of Identity and Instruction Graduate Student Learning Community. Graduate student participants will develop a context for their experiences and acquire strategies for seeking mentoring that is attentive to their teaching concerns.

Using the updated NSSE to support evidence-informed improvement and accreditation
Kinzie, J.
Higher Learning Commission Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, 2015, March.
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and its affiliated surveys, FSSE and BCSSE, provide a fresh look at engagement, including insights about learning with technology, quantitative reasoning, and learning strategies. This presentation highlights findings, including those from the survey's new Topical Modules, and illustrates effective uses of NSSE results in accreditation as well as approaches to supporting evidence-informed improvement.
Full version

Are our writing assignments effective?
Cogswell, C.A., Howe, E.C., & Gonyea, R.M.
Professional & Organizational Development Conference, Dallas, TX, 2014, November.
As evidenced by their steadily growing investment in writing-across-the-curriculum programs, institutions recognize how writing can increase student engagement and learning. This session explores how faculty members use writing assignments in their teaching and how this compares across academic disciplines and by faculty characteristics. Special sets of questions appended to the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) point to ways faculty members can design effective writing tasks. Participants will discuss how interactive writing processes, meaning-constructing writing tasks, and clear expectations increase students‘ likelihood to engage in deep approach to learn. Implications for faculty and academic leaders will be presented.
Full version

Faculty and graduate student instructors’ perspectives on professional development
BrckaLorenz, A., Nelson Laird, T., & Harris, J.
Professional & Organizational Development Conference, Dallas, TX, 2014, November.
This session aims to document current uses and needs regarding professional development for senior faculty, new faculty, and graduate student instructors (GSIs). Findings from faculty members at approximately twenty institutions that participated in the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and from GSIs at eight institutions that participated in the pilot of FSSE for Graduate Student Instructors (FSSE-G) are utilized to identify impactful methods of professional development as well as potential areas for improvement. The goal of the session is to help participants understand ways they can enhance faculty and GSI experiences within the classroom.
Full version

Assessing faculty members' and graduate student instructors' engagement in and views about professional development
Harris, J., Nelson Laird, T., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Assessment Institute, Indianapolis, IN, 2014, October.
This session aims to document current uses and needs regarding professional development for senior faculty, new faculty, and graduate student instructors (GSIs). Findings from faculty members at approximately twenty institutions that participated in the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and from GSIs at eight institutions that participated in the pilot of FSSE for Graduate Student Instructors (FSSE-G) are utilized to identify impactful methods of professional development as well as potential areas for improvement. The goal of the session is to help participants understand ways they may assess faculty and GSI experiences with professional development in order to foster improvement.
Full version

Graduate student instructor engagement in and perspectives on professional development
BrckaLorenz, A.
Lilly Conference on College & University Teaching & Learning, Traverse City, MI, 2014, October.
This session aims to document current uses and needs regarding professional development for graduate student instructors (i.e. graduate students who teach undergraduates). Findings from graduate student instructors (GSIs) at eight institutions that participated in the pilot of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement for Graduate Student Instructors (FSSE-G) are utilized to identify impactful methods of professional development as well as potential areas for improvement. The goal of the session is to help participants understand ways they can enhance GSI professional development as instructors.
Full version

Faculty still matter to student engagement
Nelson Laird, T., Lambert, A., Cogswell, C.A., & Ribera, A.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Orlando, FL, 2014, May.
This study is a follow up to Umbach and Wawrzynski‘s (2005) much cited work connecting faculty teaching practices to student engagement. It relies on data from the same two national surveys used in the previous study. However, both the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement and National Survey of Student Engagement were significantly updated in 2013. As a result, our findings, which come from an updated and expanded set of measures for both students and faculty members, (1) confirm the prior study‘s findings by showing that students report higher levels of engagement and learning at institutions where faculty members use effective educational practices more and (2) show previously untested relationships between faculty practices and student engagement.
Full version

A fresh look at student engagement for accreditation and improvement
Kinzie, J.
Higher Learning Commission Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, 2014, April.
The updated National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and its affiliate surveys, FSSE and BCSSE, provide a fresh look on engagement, including insights about learning with technology, quantitative reasoning, and learning strategies. This session will highlight findings, and demonstrate effective uses of NSSE results in accreditation self-studies and quality improvement.
Full version

Faculty and diversity: Opportunity, encouragement, and inclusion
Nelson Laird, T. F., BrckaLorenz, A., & Peck, L.
AAC&U Diversity, Learning, & Student Success Conference, Chicago, IL, 2014, March.
Participants will hear findings from research on faculty and diversity education and discuss how these findings could be used to improve how diversity contributes to student learning.   Through a presentation of findings from a new ?diverse perspectives? section on the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), participants in this session will learn about how faculty perceive diversity offerings on campus, how much they encourage students to participate in diversity activities, and how much they include diversity content in their courses. Further, participants will gain an understanding of how these diversity indicators relate to one another and what predicts them. Session facilitators and participants will work together to create plans for making change in areas they know that they can influence (e.g., their courses, departments, or programs).
Full version

Undergraduate quality & the changing faculty: Examining pieces of the puzzle
Nelson Laird, T., & BrckaLorenz, A.
Association of American Colleges & Universities Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2014, January.
Institutions deal with pressures to improve undergraduate quality and manage their changing faculties, tasks that sometimes seem at odds. Facilitators of this session?with more than a decade of data from initiatives such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE)?will share three faculty profiles: 1) the faculty in 2025; 2) the faculty at the 50 highest scoring NSSE institutions; and 3) the faculty who tend to use effective practices more. Through comparing these profiles, session participants will engage questions and derive lessons about improving undergraduate quality while effectively managing a changing faculty.
Full version

Faculty use of writing assignments: Exploring classroom teaching practices
Cole, E. R., Gonyea, R. M., & Ahonen, C.
Professional & Organizational Development Conference, Pittsburg, PA, 2013, November.
As evidenced by their steadily growing investment in writing-across-the-curriculum programs, institutions recognize how writing can increase student engagement and learning. This session explores how faculty members use writing assignments in their teaching and how this compares across academic disciplines and institutional characteristics. Special sets of questions appended to both the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) point to ways faculty members can design effective writing tasks. Participants will discuss how interactive writing processes, meaning-constructing writing tasks, and clear expectations improve students‘ success in learning. Implications for faculty developers are also presented.
Full version

Responsive and responsible: Levels of faculty encouragement of civic engagement
Cole, E. R., & Howe, E. C.
Professional & Organizational Development Conference, Pittsburg, PA, 2013, November.
This session explores faculty members‘ perceptions of institutional emphasis on conflict resolution skills and examines how often they encourage students to engage with local, state, national, and global issues. Using data from the 2013 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE), this session engages attendees in discussion about which faculty, course, and institutional characteristics are likely to encourage student participation in civic engagement activities. Presenters will also facilitate a discussion among participants about learning from these faculty results, ideas for future research in this area, and implications for faculty developers and teaching practices.

Examining the importance of teaching clarity: Findings from FSSE
BrckaLorenz, A., Cole, E., Nelson Laird, T., & Ribera, T.
Professional & Organizational Development Conference, Seattle, WA, 2012, October.

Full version

Values of the tenure process: Findings from FSSE
BrckaLorenz, A., Ribera, T., & Shaw, M.
Professional & Organizational Development Conference, Seattle, WA, 2012, October.

Full version

Digging deeper into institutional data: Using reports and tools from NSSE and FSSE to explore disciplinary differences
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shaw, M. D., & Cole, E. R.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011, May.

Full version

Civic engagement on college campuses: Implications from NSSE and FSSE
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shaw, M. D., & Cole, E. R.
American College Personnel Association Annual Convention, Baltimore, MD, 2011, March.

Full version

How writing contributes to learning and how institutions can increase that contribution: Lessons from NSSE & FSSE
Gonyea, R. M., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Anderson, P.
Association of American Colleges & Universities Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 2010, January.

Full version

Using NSSE and FSSE to link technology to student learning and engagement
Guidry, K. R., Garver, A., & BrckaLorenz, A.
ELI Annual Meeting, Austin, TX, 2010, January.

Full version

Displaying FSSE and NSSE results in combination: An overview of web-based tools and reports
Garver, A. K., Shaw, M. D., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum, Atlanta, GA, 2009, June.

Full version

Improving deep learning on campus: Lessons from NSSE and FSSE
Nelson Laird, T. F., & Kinzie, J. L.
Collaboration for the Advancement of College Teaching & Learning, Bloomington, MN, 2007, November.

Documenting differences in deep approaches to learning using NSSE and FSSE
Nelson Laird, T. F., & Buckley, J.
Indiana University Scholarship of Teaching & Learning Conference, Bloomington, IN, 2007, April.

Promoting essential learning outcomes in general education courses
Nelson Laird, T. F., Maguire, M., & Regosin, E.
Association of American Colleges & Universities Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 2007, January.

Full version

Faculty Insights: Talking about Career Plans in the Disciplines
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2018, 5.
Full version

Faculty Insights: Talking about Career Plans with Lower-Division Students
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2018, 7.
Full version

Faculty Insights: Course Goals for Student Development
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2018, 9.
Full version

Faculty Insights: Job Skills Development
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2018, 11.
Full version

Faculty Insights: High-Impact Practices
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2018, 12.
Full version

Faculty Incorporation of Diversity and Institutional Commitment
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2017, 12.
Full version

How Faculty Spend Their Time
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2017, 13.
Full version

FSSE Topical Module: Inclusiveness and Engagement with Cultural Diversity
In Engagement Insights: Survey Findings on the Quality of Undergraduate Education—Annual results 2017, 13.
Full version

Instructional Staff Race and Gender Relate to Experiences with Faculty
In Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education—Annual results 2016, 10 - 11.
Full version

Use of Rubrics Common Among Faculty
In Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education—Annual results 2016, 11.
Full version

Faculty Perceptions of Safety and Support
In Engagement insights: Survey findings on the quality of undergraduate education—Annual results 2015, 10.
Full version

Efforts to Improve Teaching Pay Off (FSSE)
In Bringing the institution into focus—Annual results 2014, 20.
Full version

Looking within FSSE Results
In A fresh look at student engagement—Annual results 2013, 24 - 25.
Full version

Faculty Survey Results by Major Field
In Promoting student learning and institutional improvement: Lessons from NSSE at 13—Annual results 2012, 20.
Full version

Time Faculty Expect Students to Spend Preparing for Class
In Fostering student engagement campuswide—Annual results 2011, 20.
Full version

BCSSE and FSSE
In Major differences: Examining student engagement by field of study—Annual results 2010, 15 - 16.
Full version

BCSSE and FSSE
In Assessment for improvement: Tracking student engagement over time—Annual results 2009, 21 - 22.
Full version

FSSE
In Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to look within—2008 results, 20.
Full version

Part-Time and Working Students
In Engaged learning: Fostering success for all students—Annual report 2006, 19 - 20.
Full version

Reflective Learning
In Engaged learning: Fostering success for all students—Annual report 2006, 20 - 21.
Full version

BCSSE-FSSE-NSSE Institutional Examples
In Engaged learning: Fostering success for all students—Annual report 2006, 21 - 22.
Full version

Faculty Perceptions of Student Engagement
In Converting data into action: Expanding the boundaries of institutional improvement—2003 annual report, 19.
Full version

How to FSSE: Everything you need to know
Allison BrckaLorenz & Kyle Fassett
March 23, 2021.

Recording

NSSE 2020 Follow-Up Webinar: Using Results Collected During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Alex McCormick, Jillian Kinzie, Bob Gonyea, Allison BrckaLorenz, Shimon Sarraf and Jennifer Brooks, NSSE and FSSE Project Staff
June 2, 2020.

Recording

NSSE & FSSE 2020: Guidance on COVID-19 Disruptions
Alex McCormick, Jillian Kinzie, Bob Gonyea, Allison BrckaLorenz, Shimon Sarraf and Jennifer Brooks, NSSE and FSSE Project Staff
March 26, 2020.

Recording

This or That? Getting to Know Your Faculty
Kyle Fassett & Allison BrckaLorenz
February 7, 2019.

Recording

Tableau, Psychometrics, and Content Summaries, Oh My! FSSE Tools and Resources
Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager
February 15, 2018.

Recording

Introducing the Inclusiveness and Engagement with Cultural Diversity Topical Module
Jillian Kinzie, Associate Direct of the Center for Postsecondary Research and Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager
October 31, 2017.

Recording

Examining Engagement for Small Populations
Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and Sarah Hurtado, NSSE Institute Project Associate
March 9, 2017.

Recording

Using FSSE Demographic Data to Look Within Your Institution
Allison BrkcaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and Bridget Yuhas, FSSE Project Associate
February 23, 2017.

Recording

Adding Context to NSSE with FSSE
Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and Research Analyst, and Bridget Yuhas, FSSE Project Associate
January 12, 2016.

Recording

FSSE Overview: Basics, Administration, Reporting, and Resources
Allison Brckalorenz and Bridget Yuhas
August 7, 2015.

Recording

Need more answers about NSSE 2013?
Jillian Kinzie, NSSE Associate Director, and Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and NSSE Research Analyst
December 4, 2012.

Recording

Using NSSE and FSSE to explore deep approaches to learning
Amy Ribera, NSSE Research Analyst
November 14, 2012.

Recording

FSSE 2.0: What to expect in 2013
Tom Nelson Laird, FSSE Principal Investigator, Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and Research Analyst; Leah Peck and Eddie Cole, Jr., FSSE Project Associates
July 31, 2012.

Recording

Using FSSE topical findings: Part 2. Live question and answer session
Mahauganee Shaw and Eddie Cole, Jr., FSSE Project Associates
April 24, 2012.

Recording

What to Expect from FSSE Participation
Mahauganee Shaw and Eddie Cole, Jr., FSSE Project Associates
May 17, 2011.

Recording

What to expect from participation in FSSE
Tom Nelson Laird
June 15, 2010.

Recording

Using FSSE and NSSE data: An overview of existing tools and reports
Amy Garver and Mahauganee Shaw
September 9, 2008.

Recording