Linking Faculty Involvement in High-Impact Practices to First-Year Student Participation
Fassett, Kyle T. and BrckaLorenz, Allison
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

Teaching honors courses: Perceptions of engagement from the faculty perspective.
Miller, A., Silberstein, S., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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

Honors college faculty support for high-impact practice participation
Miller, A., Silberstein, S., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.
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.
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.
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.

STEM/non-STEM differences in engagement at U.S. institutions
Nelson Laird, T. F., McCormick, A. C., Sullivan, D. F., & Zimmerman, C. K.

A comparison of student and faculty academic technology use across disciplines
Guidry, K. R., & BrckaLorenz, A.

Research and discovery across the curriculum
Elrod, S., Kinzie, J., & Husic, D.

Examining the relationship between faculty identity and their civically engaged teaching practices
Jin, Seonmi; Zhang, Xiaoxia; BrckaLorenz, Allison
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.

Disciplinary Differences in Faculty Emphasis on Deep Approaches to Learning
Hiller, Stephen C.; Nelson Laird, Thomas F.
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.

Employing differential item function analysis in survey research
Paulsen, J., Merckle, R., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.

Item nonresponse bias on the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement
Chiang, Y.-C., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.

Global perspectives in curricula and deep approaches to learning: Examining faculty practices for engagement
Peck, L., Chiang, Y.-C., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.

Testing the new scales on the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement
BrckaLorenz, A., Chiang, Y.-C., & Nelson Laird, T.
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.

Senior leaders and teaching environments at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominately White Institutions
Cole, E. R., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Lambert, A.
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.

Faculty emphasis on diversity conversations and conversations with diverse others
BrckaLorenz, A., Nelson Laird, T., & Shaw, M.
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.

Faculty emphasis on diversity topics and conversations with diverse others
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shaw, M. D., Cole, E. R., BrckaLorenz, A., & Cervera, Y.
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.

Faculty Perceptions of Disciplinary Cultures and Their Relationship to Teaching: Validating Becher's Convergent-Divergent Dimension
Hiller, Stephen C.; Braught, Emily; Nelson Laird, Thomas
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.

A Quantitative Review of Faculty Practices and Perceptions of the Scholarship for Teaching and Learning
Braught, Emily; BrckaLorenz, Allison
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.

NSSE's 3rd Decade: Highlighting New Emphases in Assessment and Student Engagement
BrckaLorenz, Allison; Cole, Jim; Gonyea, Robert; Kinzie, Jillian; McCormick, Alex; Sarraf, Shimon
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

The Influence of Faculty on Marginalized Student Participation in High-Impact Practices
Fassett, Kyle T.; BrckaLorenz, Allison; Nelson Laird, Thomas F.
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.

New insights into faculty advising: An overview of national patterns and trends
Fassett, Kyle; Woodlee, Kara M.; BrckaLorenz, Allison
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.?

Faculty development for all? Investigating participation in development opportunities
Fassett, K., Strickland, J., Nelson Laird, T., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.

Tableau tips and tricks: Building dynamic dashboards with survey data
BrckaLorenz, A., & Kirnbauer, T.
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).

A 10-year cross-section of STEM faculty teaching
Fassett, K., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.

Using a typology of faculty to assess undergraduate education and plan for faculty development
BrckaLorenz, A., Fassett, K., & Nelson Laird, T.
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.

Maximizing survey data for outreach, assessment, programming, and beyond
Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D.
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.

Maximizing survey data for outreach, assessment, programming, and beyond
Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D.
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.

Gifted education at the college level: Are faculty who teach honors courses really more engaging?
Miller, A. L., & Silberstein, S. M.
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.

Assessing diversity inclusivity in college courses: Updates and trends
Nelson Laird, T. F., Hurtado, S. S., & Yuhas, B. K.
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.

Engaging international students through effective teaching strategies
Wang, R., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.

Faculty use of rubrics: An examination across multiple institutions
Thomas F. Nelson Laird, John Zilvinskis, & Polly A. Graham
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.

Patterns of effective teaching practice for general education and non-general education courses
BrckaLorenz, A., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
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.

Examining patterns of effective teaching practices across disciplinary areas
BrckaLorenz, A., & Nelson Laird, T. F.
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.

How often is often? Testing the meaning of vague quantifiers
Dumford, A. D., Chiang, Y.-C., Nelson Laird, T., & BrckaLorenz, A.
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.

Teaching development issues for diverse associate instructors
Kearns, K., BrckaLorenz, A., La Touche, R., & Lynton, J.
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.
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.

Are our writing assignments effective?
Cogswell, C.A., Howe, E.C., & Gonyea, R.M.
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking within FSSE Results
In A fresh look at student engagement—Annual results 2013
Full version

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

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

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

BCSSE and FSSE
In Assessment for improvement: Tracking student engagement over time—Annual results 2009
Full version

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

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

Reflective Learning
In Engaged learning: Fostering success for all students—Annual report 2006
Full version

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

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

How to FSSE: Everything you need to know
Allison BrckaLorenz & Kyle Fassett
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
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
Recording

This or That? Getting to Know Your Faculty
Kyle Fassett & Allison BrckaLorenz
Recording

Tableau, Psychometrics, and Content Summaries, Oh My! FSSE Tools and Resources
Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager
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
Recording

Examining Engagement for Small Populations
Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and Sarah Hurtado, NSSE Institute Project Associate
Recording

Using FSSE Demographic Data to Look Within Your Institution
Allison BrkcaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and Bridget Yuhas, FSSE Project Associate
Recording

Adding Context to NSSE with FSSE
Allison BrckaLorenz, FSSE Project Manager and Research Analyst, and Bridget Yuhas, FSSE Project Associate
Recording

FSSE Overview: Basics, Administration, Reporting, and Resources
Allison Brckalorenz and Bridget Yuhas
Recording

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

Using NSSE and FSSE to explore deep approaches to learning
Amy Ribera, NSSE Research Analyst
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
Recording

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

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

What to expect from participation in FSSE
Tom Nelson Laird
Recording

Using FSSE and NSSE data: An overview of existing tools and reports
Amy Garver and Mahauganee Shaw
Recording