Texas Tech University

Description

Texas Tech University
Benchmark Comparisons
August 2007Interpreting the
Benchmark Comparisons Report
To focus discussions about the importance of student engagement and guide institutional improvement efforts, NSSE created five
clusters or "benchmarks" of effective educational practice: Level of Academic Challenge, Active and Collaborative Learning,
Student-Faculty Interaction, Enriching Educational Experiences, and Supportive Campus Environment. This Benchmark
Comparisons Report compares the performance of your institution with your selected peers or consortium. In addition, page 9
provides two other comparisons between your school and (a) above-average institutions with benchmarks in the top 50% of all
NSSE institutions and (b) high-performing institutions with benchmarks in the top 10% of all NSSE institutions. These displays
allow you to determine if the engagement of your typical student differs in a statistically significant, meaningful way from the
average student in these comparison groups. More detailed information about how benchmarks are created can be found on the
NSSE Web site at www.nsse.iub.edu/2007_Institutional_Report/.
Statistical Significance
Benchmarks with mean differences that are larger than would be expected by
chance alone are noted with one, two, or three asterisks, denoting one of three Class and Sample
significance levels (p<.05, p< .01, and p<.001). The smaller the significance Means are reported for
Effect Sizelevel, the smaller ...

Sujets

• Texas Tech Red Raiders
• Politique de la Corée du Nord
• Top 100 de l'American Film Institute
• Linternaute.com
• Lacsa
• Acleisanthes

Informations

• Publié par: Asla
• Nombre de lectures: 94
• Langue: English

Extrait

Texas Tech University

Benchmark Comparisons August 2007

Interpreting the Benchmark Comparisons Report

To focus discussions about the importance of student engagement and guide institutional improvement efforts, NSSE created five clusters or "benchmarks" of effective educational practice: Level of Academic Challenge, Active and Collaborative Learning, Student-Faculty Interaction, Enriching Educational Experiences, and Supportive Campus Environment. This Benchmark Comparisons Report compares the performance of your institution with your selected peers or consortium. In addition, page 9 provides two other comparisons between your school and (a) above-average institutions with benchmarks in the top 50% of all SSE institutions and (b) high-performing institutions with benchmarks in the top 10% of all NSSE institutions. These displays allow you to determine if the engagement of your typical student differs in a statistically significant, meaningful way from the average student in these comparison groups. More detailed information about how benchmarks are created can be found on the SSE Web site at www.nsse.iub.edu/2007_Institutional_Report/.

Class and Sample Means are reported for first-year students and seniors. Institution- reports class ranks are used. All randomly selected students are included in these analyses. Students in targeted or locally administered oversamples are not included.

Mean The mean is the weightedarithmetic average of student level benchmark scores.

Benchmark Description & Survey Items A description of the benchmark and the individual items used in its creation are summarized.

Statistical Significance Benchmarks with mean differences that are larger than would be expected by chance alone are noted with one, two, or three asterisks, denoting one of three significance levels (p<.05, p< .01, and p<.001). The smaller the significance level, the smaller the likelihood that the difference is due to chance. Please note that statistical significance does not guarantee that the result is substantive or important. Large sample sizes (as with the NSSE project) tend to produce more statistically significant results even though the magnitude of mean differences may be inconsequential. It is recommended to consult effect sizes to judge the practical meaning of the results.

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Benchmark Comparisons

Class First-Year Senior

100

75

50

25

0

52.3

NSSEville State

NSSEville State

a Mean 52.3 55.8

FirstYear

51.6

Selected Peers

50.4

Carnegie Peers

Selected Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 51.6 .05 55.9 -.01

51.8

NSSE 2007

100

75

50

25

0

NSSEville State compared with: Carnegie Peers Effect b c SigSize 50.4 * .14 55.6 .02

55.8

NSSEville State

Senior

55.9

Selected Peers

NSSE 2007 a b Mean Sig 51.8 55.8

55.6

Carnegie Peers

55.8

NSSE 2007

.04 .00

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Items Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance.

● Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, etc. related to academic program) ● Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings ● Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between 5 and 19 pages; and  number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages ● Coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory ● Coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations  and relationships ● Coursework emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods ● Coursework emphasizing application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations ● Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations ● Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work

Effect Size Effect size indicates the practical significanceof the mean difference. It is calculated by dividing the mean difference by the standard deviation of the group to which the institution is being compared. In ractice, an effect size of .2 is often considered small, .5 moderate, and .8 large. A positive sign indicates that your institution’s mean was greater, thus showing an affirmative result for the institution. A negative sign indicates the institution lags ehind the comparison group. Look for patterns of effect sizes that point to areas of student or institutional performance that warrant attention.

Bar Charts A visual display of first-year and senior mean benchmark scores for your institution and your selected peer or consortium groups.

Page 2

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Benchmark Comparisons

Class First-Year Senior

100

75

50

25

0

48.4

Texas Tech

Texas Tech

a Mean 48.4 53.8

FirstYear

49.4

Selected Peers

51.5

Carnegie Peers

Selected Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 49.4 -.08 54.2 -.03

51.8

NSSE 2007

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Items

100

75

50

25

0

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons Texas Tech University

Texas Tech compared with:

Carnegie Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 51.5 *** -.24 55.0 -.08

53.8

Texas Tech

Senior

54.2

Selected Peers

NSSE 2007

a Mean 51.8 55.6

55.0

Carnegie Peers

b Sig *** *

55.6

NSSE 2007

Effect c Size -.25 -.13

Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance.

● Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, etc. related to academic program) ● Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings ● Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between 5 and 19 pages; and  number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages ● Coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory ● Coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations  and relationships ● Coursework emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods ● Coursework emphasizing application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations ● Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations ● Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.

Page 3

Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) Benchmark Comparisons

Class First-Year Senior

100

75

50

25

0

38.1

Texas Tech

Texas Tech

a Mean 38.1 49.2

FirstYear

39.5

Selected Peers

40.4

Carnegie Peers

Selected Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 39.5 -.08 49.4 -.01

41.3

NSSE 2007

Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) Items

100

75

50

25

0

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons Texas Tech University

Texas Tech compared with:

Carnegie Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 40.4 -.14 49.5 -.02

49.2

Texas Tech

Senior

49.4

Selected Peers

NSSE 2007

a Mean 41.3 50.1

49.5

Carnegie Peers

b Sig **

50.1

NSSE 2007

Effect c Size -.20 -.05

Students learn more when they are intensely involved in their education and asked to think about what they are learning in different settings. Collaborating with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material prepares students for the messy, unscripted problems they will encounter daily during and after college.

● Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions ● Made a class presentation ● Worked with other students on projects during class ● Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments ● Tutored or taught other students ● Participated in a community-based project as part of a regular course ● Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.

Page 4

StudentFaculty Interaction (SFI) Benchmark Comparisons

Class First-Year Senior

100

75

50

25

0

31.8

Texas Tech

Texas Tech

a Mean 31.8 41.6

FirstYear

31.4

Selected Peers

32.0

Carnegie Peers

StudentFaculty Interaction (SFI) Items

Selected Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 31.4 .02 39.3 .11

32.8

NSSE 2007

100

75

50

25

0

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons Texas Tech University

Texas Tech compared with:

Carnegie Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 32.0 -.01 40.5 .06

41.6

Texas Tech

Senior

39.3

Selected Peers

NSSE 2007

a Mean 32.8 41.2

40.5

Carnegie Peers

b Sig

41.2

NSSE 2007

Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve practical problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside the classroom. As a result, their teachers become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, life-long learning. ● Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor ● Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor ● Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class ● Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student-life activities, etc.) ● Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance ● Worked with a faculty member on a research project outside of course or program requirements

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.

Page 5

Effect c Size -.06 .02

Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)

Benchmark Comparisons

Class First-Year Senior

100

75

50

25

0

26.9

Texas Tech

Texas Tech

a Mean 26.9 39.6

FirstYear

27.5

Selected Peers

27.3

Carnegie Peers

Selected Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 27.5 -.04 37.9 .09

27.1

NSSE 2007

Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE) Items

100

75

50

25

0

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons Texas Tech University

Texas Tech compared with:

Carnegie Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 27.3 -.03 39.9 -.02

39.6

Texas Tech

Senior

37.9

Selected Peers

NSSE 2007

a Mean 27.1 39.9

39.9

Carnegie Peers

b Sig

39.9

NSSE 2007

Effect c Size -.02 -.02

Complementary learning opportunities enhance academic programs. Diversity experiences teach students valuable things about themselves and others. Technology facilitates collaboration between peers and instructors. Internships, community service, and senior capstone courses provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge.

● Participating in co-curricular activities (organizations, publications, student government, sports, etc.) ● Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment ● Community service or volunteer work ● Foreign language coursework & study abroad ● Independent study or self-designed major ● Culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, etc.) ● Serious conversations with students of different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values ● Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity ● Using electronic technology to discuss or complete an assignment ● Campus environment encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds ● Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.

Page 6

Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) Benchmark Comparisons

Class First-Year Senior

100

75

50

25

0

58.7

Texas Tech

Texas Tech

a Mean 58.7 55.1

FirstYear

58.8

Selected Peers

58.9

Carnegie Peers

Selected Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 58.8 -.01 56.1 -.05

59.8

NSSE 2007

Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) Items

100

75

50

25

0

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons Texas Tech University

Texas Tech compared with:

Carnegie Peers Effect a b c Mean SigSize 58.9 -.01 56.2 -.06

55.1

Texas Tech

Senior

56.1

Selected Peers

NSSE 2007

a Mean 59.8 56.9

56.2

Carnegie Peers

b Sig

56.9

NSSE 2007

Effect c Size -.06 -.09

Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success and cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus.

● Campus environment provides the support you need to help you succeed academically ● Campus environment helps you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) ● Campus environment provides the support you need to thrive socially ● Quality of relationships with other students ● Quality of relationships with faculty members ● Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.

Page 7

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons With Highly Engaging Institutions

Interpreting the Top 10% and Top 50% Comparisons This section of the NSSE Benchmark Comparisons report allows you to estimate the performance of your average student in relation to the average student attending two different institutional peer groups identified by NSSE for their high levels o student engagement: (a) those with benchmark scores placing them in the top 50% of all NSSE schools in 2007 and (b) a those with benchmark scores in the top 10% for 2007. These comparisons allow an institution to determine if their engagement of their students differs in significant, meaningful ways from these high performing peer groups.

Example

LAC ACL SFI EEE SCE

NSSEville State Mean 57.1 50.3 37.3 21.8 60.9

NSSE 2007 Top 50% Mean Sig Effect size 55.8 * .10 45.8 *** .28 37.2 .01 30.0 *** -.63 64.7 *** -.21

Mean 60.5 50.7 42.0 34.4 69.7

NSSE 2007 Top 10% Sig Effect size *** -0.28 -0.02 *** -0.24 *** -0.98 *** -0.49

NSSEville State CAN conclude... Š The average score for NSSEville State first-year students is slightly above (i.e., small positive effect size)  that of the average student attending NSSE 2007 schools that scored in the top 50% on Level of Academic  Challenge (LAC). Š The average NSSEville State first-year student is as engaged (i.e., not significantly different) as the average  student attending NSSE 2007 schools that scored in the top 10% on Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL). Š It islikelythat NSSEville State is in the top 50% of all NSSE 2007 schools for first-year students on Level of a,b  Academic Challenge (LAC) and Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL).

a NSSEville State CANNOT conclude ... Š NSSEville State is in the top half of all schools on the Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) benchmark for first-year b  students. Š NSSEville State is a "top ten percent" institution on Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) for first-year b  students.

For additional information on how to understand and use the Top 50% and Top 10% section of the benchmark report, see www.nsse.iub.edu/2007_Institutional_Report/.

a Precision-weighted means (produced by Hierarchical Linear Modeling) were used to determine the top 50% and top  10% institutions for each benchmark, separately for first-year and senior students. Using this method, benchmark  scores of institutions with relatively large standard errors are adjusted substantially toward the grand mean of all  students, while those with smaller standard errors receive smaller corrections. Thus, schools with less stable data,  though they may have high scores, may not be identified among the top scorers.

b NSSE does not publish the names of the top 50% and top 10% institutions because of our commitment not to  release individual school results and because of issues raised in our policy against the ranking of institutions.

Page 8

Page 9

First-Year

Su

25

68.2

Senior

55.1

48.4

58.7

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons With Highly Engaging Institutions Texas Tech University

54.1

40.4

55.3

58.8

100

45.3

48.7

63.1

Level of Academic Challen e (LAC)

66.3

ortive Cam us Environmen (SCE)

63.1

Texas Tech compared with NSSE 2007 NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10% a c a c Mean Sig Effect size Mean Sig Effect size 55.3 *** -.55 57.8 *** -.74 45.3 *** -.45 48.7 *** -.62 37.1 *** -.28 40.4 *** -.44 29.5 ** -.20 32.4 *** -.41 65.2 *** -.36 68.2 *** -.52 58.8 *** -.36 63.1 *** -.69 54.3 *** -.30 57.8 *** -.49 47.4 *** -.27 54.1 *** -.58 45.6 *** -.34 50.3 *** -.61 63.1 *** -.43 66.3 *** -.60

Enrichin Educational Ex eriences (EEE)

Senior

Senior

32.4

29.5

39.6

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by comparison group standard deviation.

50

45.6

50.3

25

50

50

25

0

25

38.1

First-Year

25

50

26.9

0

75

75

100

First-Year

Senior

75

57.8

100

Active and Collaborative Learnin (ACL)

54.3

0

57.8

53.8

Senio

StudentFacult Interaction (SFI)

75

100

50

49.2

41.6

0

Senior

75

100

First-Year

First-Yea

LAC ACL SFI EEE SCE LAC ACL SFI EEE SCE

Legend Texas Tech Top 50% Top 10%

0

65.2

First-Year

47.4

Texas Tech a Mean 48.4 38.1 31.8 26.9 58.7 53.8 49.2 41.6 39.6 55.1

This display compares your students with those attending schools that scored in the top 50% and top 10% of all NSSE 2007 institutions on the benchmark.

37.1

31.8

c The 95% confidence interval for the population mean it is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. d A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level benchmark scores at or below which a given percentage of benchmark scores fall. e Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary for the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variance assumption.

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) Texas Tech (N = 229) 38.1 18.4

49.4 51.5 51.8 55.3 57.8

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) Texas Tech (N = 196) 26.9 14.6

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) Texas Tech (N = 190) 58.7

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

69

57

Distribution Statistics d Percentiles 25th 50th 75th 95th

3,254 5,287 28,367 9,951 2,468

71 73 74 76 78

71

48

39

f Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. g Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the comparison group.

STUDENTFACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) Texas Tech (N = 205) 31.8

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

b Standard Deviation is a measure of the average amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.

58 58 61 67 69

47 47 47 53 56

72 72 72 78 81

3,080 5,049 27,071 196 1,840

92 89 92 94 97

58.8 58.9 59.8 65.2 68.2

a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.

Page 10

24

33

18 18 18 20 23

26 26 26 29 32

72

58

47

50

227 217 207 8,611 1,791

67 67 67 72 78

40 43 43 47 49

49 51 52 55 58

.3 .3 .1 .2 .4

18.8 18.7 18.6 17.9 18.3

38 38 38 43 48

28

29 29 29 33 38

17

31.4 32.0 32.8 37.1 40.4

.2 .2 .1 .1 .3

13.2 13.1 13.3 12.7 12.7

1.2

72

71 67 71 75 81

44

.3 .2 .1 .1 .3

-.6 -.5 -.2 -2.7 -5.5

-1.4 -2.3 -3.2 -7.2 -10.6

.230 .064 .010 .000 .000

.565 .634 .819 .005 .000

.3 .2 .1 .2 .4

16.8 16.0 16.2 16.0 17.2

1.4

19.9

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

7

17

17 17 22 22 28

28 28 28 33 39

26

Effect g size

-.08 -.14 -.20 -.45 -.62

.02 -.01 -.06 -.28 -.44

-.04 -.03 -.02 -.20 -.41

-.08 -.24 -.25 -.55 -.74

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons a Detailed Statistics and Effect Sizes Texas Tech University

1.0

.3 .2 .1 .2 .5

92

51 50 50 52 55

3,154 5,169 27,656 14,024 2,746

Mean Statistics

27

.9

FirstYear Students

28 28 28 33 36

48 50 52 57 58

39.5 40.4 41.3 45.3 48.7

LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC) Texas Tech (N = 204) 48.4

13.5

36 35 35 37 41

8 8 8 11 12

25

20.5

1.5

Reference Group Comparison Statistics Deg. of Mean e Freedom Diff. Sig.

.780 .904 .470 .000 .000

3,611 242 231 237 1,900

14

28 30 30 34 37

59 60 61 64 67

48

11

14 17 19 24 24

18.2 17.7 17.8 18.5 19.4

36

39 40 44 50 53

13.6 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.3

6 11 11 11 11

27.5 27.3 27.1 29.5 32.4

.4 -.2 -1.0 -5.3 -8.6

Mean

SD

c SEM

5th

-.01 -.01 -.06 -.36 -.52

-1.0 -3.1 -3.4 -6.9 -9.4

.284 .001 .000 .000 .000

-.2 -.3 -1.2 -6.5 -9.5

.911 .851 .383 .000 .000

1.6 -.3 -.3 -6.0 -10.7

.100 .752 .735 .000 .000

21.6

1.2

a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b Standard Deviation is a measure of the average amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. c The 95% confidence interval for the population mean it is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. d A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level benchmark scores at or below which a given percentage of benchmark scores fall. e Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary for the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variance assumption. f Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. g Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the comparison group.

-.2 -.3 -.8 -5.1 -8.5

.858 .775 .362 .000 .000

.9

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) Texas Tech (N = 329) 39.6 16.4

86

14

27

40

5,056 7,494 36,964 9,871 2,697

89 89 89 94 94

Page 11

Effect g size

.09 -.02 -.02 -.34 -.61

-.03 -.08 -.13 -.36 -.69

-.01 -.02 -.05 -.30 -.49

56.1 56.2 56.9 63.1 66.3

.11 .06 .02 -.27 -.58

68

.3 .2 .1 .2 .4

19.5 18.9 19.1 18.5 18.6

NSSE 2007 Benchmark Comparisons a Detailed Statistics and Effect Sizes Texas Tech University

83

33

48

25

67

42

53

22

38 38 38 43 48

48 48 48 52 57

39

56

.2 .2 .1 .1 .3

.9

76

46

55

Distribution Statistics d Percentiles 25th 50th 75th 95th

SD

Mean

2.3 1.1 .4 -5.8 -12.5

-.05 -.06 -.09 -.43 -.60

c SEM

-1.0 -1.1 -1.8 -8.0 -11.1

.381 .303 .092 .000 .000

.648 .135 .019 .000 .000

-.4 -1.2 -1.8 -5.0 -9.3

78 78 80 83 94

81 81 81 86 90

62 62 62 67 71

51

50 56 56 61 72

39 39 39 44 56

22 28 28 33 39

37.9 39.9 39.9 45.6 50.3

.3 .2 .1 .2 .6

24 24 24 29 29

11 11 11 17 22

11

18.0 17.2 17.3 16.9 17.5

.3 .2 .1 .2 .4

20.3 20.4 20.7 21.2 21.7

39.3 40.5 41.2 47.4 54.1

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

14.3 14.0 14.2 13.8 13.4

64 65 65 69 73

62

31 32 32 36 40

24

45 46 46 50 54

54 55 56 59 64

5,245 7,708 38,201 11,256 1,927

5,553 8,139 40,280 12,094 2,802

.058 .316 .721 .000 .000

380 7,790 38,597 9,442 1,472

5,142 7,602 334 14,911 3,238

50 52 52 58 63

68 70 71 75 79

36 39 39 46 51

25 27 26 33 39

11 12 11 17 21

1.0

18.6

17.5 17.5 17.8 17.5 17.5

.3 .2 .1 .1 .3

.8

29

5th

Mean Statistics

13.8

LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC) Texas Tech (N = 332) 53.8

Reference Group Comparison Statistics Deg. of Mean e Freedom Diff. Sig.

Seniors

49.4 49.5 50.1 54.3 57.8

STUDENTFACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) Texas Tech (N = 339) 41.6

74

62

78 78 79 81 84

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

42 44 44 50 53

25 25 25 31 33

69 69 69 75 81

56 56 58 64 67

54.2 55.0 55.6 58.8 63.1

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) Texas Tech (N = 358) 49.2 16.7

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) Texas Tech (N = 321) 55.1

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%

Selected Peers Carnegie Peers NSSE 2007 Top 50% Top 10%