nsse25-engagement-indicators

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators University of Houston-Downtown

Prepared 2025-07-25

IPEDS: 225432

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators About This Report

About Your Engagement Indicators Report Engagement Indicators (EIs) provide a useful summary of the detailed information contained in your students’ NSSE responses. By combining responses to related NSSE questions, each EI offers valuable information about a distinct aspect of student engagement. Ten indicators, based on three to eight survey questions each (a total of 47 survey questions), are organized into four broad themes as shown at right. The specific items within each EI are listed below, starting on page 5.

Report Sections

Theme

Engagement Indicator

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices

Campus Environment

Quality of Interactions Supportive Environment

Overview (p. 3)

Displays how average EI scores for your students compare with those of students at your comparison group institutions.

Theme Reports (pp. 4-13)

Detailed views of EI scores within the four themes for your students and those at comparison group institutions. Three views offer varied insights into your EI scores: Mean Comparisons Straightforward comparisons of average scores between your students and those at comparison group institutions, with tests of significance and effect sizes (see below).

Score Distributions Box-and-whisker charts show the variation in scores within your institution and comparison groups.

Performance on Indicator Items Responses to each item in a given EI are summarized for your institution and comparison groups.

Comparisons with HighPerforming Institutions (p. 15)

Comparisons of your students’ average scores on each EI with those of students at institutions whose average scores were in the top 50% and top 10% of all current- and prior-year institutions.

Detailed Statistics (pp. 16-End)

Detailed information about EI score means, distributions, and tests of statistical significance.

Interpreting Comparisons Mean comparisons report both statistical significance and effect size. Effect size indicates the practical importance of an observed difference. For EI comparisons, NSSE research has concluded that an effect size of about .1 may be considered small, .3 medium, and .5 large (Rocconi & Gonyea, 2018). Comparisons with an effect size of at least .3 in magnitude (before rounding) are highlighted in the Overview (p. 3).

EIs vary more among students within an institution than between institutions, like many experiences and outcomes in higher education. As a result, focusing attention on average scores alone amounts to examining the tip of the iceberg. It’s equally important to understand how student engagement varies within your institution. Score distributions indicate how EI scores vary among your students and those in your comparison groups. Your NSSE Tableau dashboards and Report Builder (released in the fall) offer valuable perspectives on internal variation and help you investigate your students’ engagement in depth.

How Engagement Indicators are Computed Each EI is scored on a 60-point scale. To produce an indicator score, the response set for each item is converted to a 60-point scale (e.g., Never = 0; Sometimes = 20; Often = 40; Very often = 60), and the rescaled items are averaged. Thus a score of zero means a student responded at the bottom of the scale for every item in the EI, while a score of 60 indicates responses at the top of the scale on every item.

For more information on EIs and their psychometric properties, refer to the NSSE website: nsse.indiana.edu Rocconi, L.M., & Gonyea, R.M. (2018). Contextualizing effect sizes in the National Survey of Student Engagement: An empirical analysis. Research & Practice in Assessment, 13 (Summer/Fall), pp. 22-38.

2 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Overview

University of Houston-Downtown Engagement Indicators: Overview Engagement Indicators are summary measures based on sets of NSSE questions examining key dimensions of student engagement. The ten indicators are organized within four broad themes: Academic Challenge, Learning with Peers, Experiences with Faculty, and Campus Environment. The tables below compare average scores for your students with those in your comparison groups. Use the following key: 5 ▲ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.

△ Your students’ average was significantly higher (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.

-- No significant difference.

2 ▽ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size less than .3 in magnitude.

1 ▼ Your students’ average was significantly lower (p < .05) with an effect size at least .3 in magnitude.

4 3

Note: It is important to interpret the direction of differences relative to your institutional context. You may not see all of these symbols in your report.

First-Year Students Theme

Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning Academic Challenge

Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction

Campus Environment

Quality of Interactions

Discussions with Diverse Others

Effective Teaching Practices

Supportive Environment

Seniors Theme

Engagement Indicator

Higher-Order Learning Academic Challenge

Reflective & Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction

Campus Environment

Quality of Interactions

Discussions with Diverse Others

Effective Teaching Practices

Supportive Environment

Your first-year students compared with

Your first-year students compared with

Your first-year students compared with

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

△ -△ △

---△

△ ----

△ --

△ △

Your seniors compared with

Your seniors compared with

Your seniors compared with

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

△ △ △ △

--△ --

△ -△ △

▽ --

▽ ▽

▽ --

---

△ △ △ △

---

-△

▲ △ -△

△ △ -△

---

△ △

---

△ △ NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 3

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Academic Challenge

University of Houston-Downtown Academic Challenge: First-year students Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning.

Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons Engagement Indicator

Mean

Your first-year students compared with Texas Universities Carnegie Class Effect Effect size size Mean Mean

Higher-Order Learning

40.0

37.9 **

.15

39.1

.06

38.4 *

.12

Reflective & Integrative Learning

36.1

34.8

.10

35.7

.03

35.8

.02

Learning Strategies

39.9

38.2 *

.12

40.3

-.03

38.6

.09

Quantitative Reasoning

31.3

29.3 *

.13

29.2 *

.13

29.7

.10

UHD

Public Effect size Mean

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

60

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Learning Strategies

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Quantitative Reasoning

60

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores.

The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

4 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Academic Challenge

University of Houston-Downtown Academic Challenge: First-year students (continued) Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.

Percentage point difference a between your FY students and

Higher-Order Learning

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…

%

4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

70

+2

4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts

73

+5

+2

+3

4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

74

+5

+2

+4

4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

73

+3

+0

+2

2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments

53

+2

+2

2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

54

+6

+0

+2

57

+9

+5

+4

65

+1

+0

+0

73

+3

+3

+2

2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

72

+5

+3

+3

2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

79

+3

+0

+1

9a. Identified key information from reading assignments

77

+5

-0

+3

9b. Reviewed your notes after class

70

+4

-1

+3

9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

68

+3

-3

+2

61

+5

+7

+5

51

+7

+6

+7

44

+1

+3

+0

-2

-1

Reflective & Integrative Learning Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

2c.

Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments

2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 2e.

Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from their perspective

-1

Learning Strategies Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Quantitative Reasoning Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)

Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, 6b. climate change, public health, etc.)

6a.

6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 5

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Academic Challenge

University of Houston-Downtown Academic Challenge: Seniors Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote student learning by challenging and supporting them to engage in various forms of deep learning. Four Engagement Indicators are part of this theme: Higher-Order Learning, Reflective & Integrative Learning, Learning Strategies, and Quantitative Reasoning.

Below and on the next page are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons UHD

Your seniors compared with Carnegie Class Effect size Mean

Engagement Indicator

Mean

Texas Universities Effect size Mean

Public Effect size Mean

Higher-Order Learning

42.5

40.9 ***

.11

41.8

.05

41.1 ***

.10

Reflective & Integrative Learning

39.2

37.8 ***

.11

39.0

.02

38.7

.04

Learning Strategies

43.4

40.4 ***

.21

41.1 ***

.16

40.1 ***

.23

Quantitative Reasoning

32.7

31.2 **

.09

31.7

.05

31.6 *

.06

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Higher-Order Learning

Reflective & Integrative Learning

60

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Learning Strategies

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Quantitative Reasoning

60

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores.

The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

6 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Academic Challenge

University of Houston-Downtown Academic Challenge: Seniors (continued) Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group.

Percentage point difference a between your seniors and

Higher-Order Learning

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much coursework emphasized…

%

4b. Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

80

+2

+0

+1

4c. Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts

79

+3

+1

+2

4d. Evaluating a point of view, decision, or information source

79

+7

+4

+7

4e. Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information

78

+3

+1

+3

Reflective & Integrative Learning Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

2a. Combined ideas from different courses when completing assignments

64

2b. Connected your learning to societal problems or issues

63

+4

-0

+2

55

+5

-1

+1

72

+6

+3

+5

76

+3

+3

+3

2f. Learned something that changed the way you understand an issue or concept

78

+6

+5

+5

2g. Connected ideas from your courses to your prior experiences and knowledge

83

+1

9a. Identified key information from reading assignments

84

+7

+4

+7

9b. Reviewed your notes after class

78

+8

+9

+11

9c. Summarized what you learned in class or from course materials

76

+6

+4

+7

60

+3

+1

+2

53

+5

+3

+4

49

+2

+1

+0

2c.

Included diverse perspectives (political, religious, racial/ethnic, gender, etc.) in course discussions or assignments

2d. Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your own views on a topic or issue 2e.

Tried to better understand someone else's views by imagining how an issue looks from their perspective

-3

-5

-6

-2

-1

Learning Strategies Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Quantitative Reasoning Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

Reached conclusions based on your own analysis of numerical information (numbers, graphs, statistics, etc.)

Used numerical information to examine a real-world problem or issue (unemployment, 6b. climate change, public health, etc.)

6a.

6c. Evaluated what others have concluded from numerical information

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 7

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Learning with Peers

University of Houston-Downtown Learning with Peers: First-year students Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and interacting with peers from different backgrounds prepares students to deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons Engagement Indicator

Mean

Your first-year students compared with Texas Universities Carnegie Class Effect Effect size size Mean Mean

Collaborative Learning

29.4

29.9

-.03

23.4 ***

.35

30.0

-.04

Discussions with Diverse Others

37.6

37.5

.01

35.5 *

.12

38.7

-.07

UHD

Public Effect size Mean

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

60

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. a

Percentage point difference between your FY students and

Collaborative Learning

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

%

1b. Asked another student to help you understand course material

46

1c. Explained course material to one or more students

42

1d. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students

41

1e. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments

56

+1

+16

+3

+2

+1

+12 -5

+5

-0

+9

+0 -7 -1

Discussions with Diverse Others Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

8a. People of races or ethnicities other than your own

72

+4

+8

8b. People from economic backgrounds other than your own

69

+1

+5

-2

8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own

65

+2

+6

-1

8d. People with political views other than your own

60

+2

+5

-1

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

8 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Learning with Peers

University of Houston-Downtown Learning with Peers: Seniors Collaborating with others in mastering difficult material and interacting with peers from different backgrounds prepares students to deal with complex, unscripted problems they will encounter during and after college. Two Engagement Indicators make up this theme: Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons UHD

Your seniors compared with Carnegie Class Effect size Mean

Engagement Indicator

Mean

Texas Universities Effect size Mean

Public Effect size Mean

Collaborative Learning

30.6

30.7

-.01

26.9 ***

.21

31.1

-.04

Discussions with Diverse Others

40.0

39.5

.03

38.0 ***

.11

39.7

.02

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Collaborative Learning

Discussions with Diverse Others

60

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. a

Percentage point difference between your seniors and

Collaborative Learning

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

%

1b. Asked another student to help you understand course material

40

-2

+4

-3

1c. Explained course material to one or more students

48

-4

+4

-5

1d. Prepared for exams by discussing or working through course material with other students

41

+1

+6

-0

1e. Worked with other students on course projects or assignments

61

+1

+9

-1

Discussions with Diverse Others Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often" had discussions with…

8a. People of races or ethnicities other than your own

75

+4

+6

8b. People from economic backgrounds other than your own

72

+0

+2

8c. People with religious beliefs other than your own

68

+2

+5

8d. People with political views other than your own

62

-1

+4 -1 +1

+3

-1

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 9

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Experiences with Faculty

University of Houston-Downtown Experiences with Faculty: First-year students Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons

Your first-year students compared with

UHD Engagement Indicator

Mean

Texas Universities Effect size Mean

Carnegie Class Effect size Mean

Public Effect size Mean

Student-Faculty Interaction

24.4

22.0 **

.15

21.4 **

.19

22.1 *

.15

Effective Teaching Practices

41.0

39.1 *

.14

40.1

.06

39.0 *

.15

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Student-Faculty Interaction

60

Effective Teaching Practices

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. a

Percentage point difference between your FY students and

Student-Faculty Interaction

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

%

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member

39

+0

+2

+0

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)

29

+5

+8

+6

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class

32

+4

+5

+4

38

+7

+3

+7

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member

Effective Teaching Practices Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements

78

-1

-2

-1

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way

75

-0

-0

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points

70

-3

-4

5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress

74

+11

+8

+10

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments

70

+9

+4

+9

+0 -4

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

10 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Experiences with Faculty

University of Houston-Downtown Experiences with Faculty: Seniors Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside of instructional settings. As a result, faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for lifelong learning. In addition, effective teaching requires that faculty deliver course material and provide feedback in student-centered ways. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons

Your seniors compared with

UHD Engagement Indicator

Mean

Texas Universities Effect size Mean

Carnegie Class Effect size Mean

Public Effect size Mean

Student-Faculty Interaction

22.1

23.4 **

-.07

23.8 *** -.10

24.2 *** -.13

Effective Teaching Practices

40.2

40.7

-.03

41.6 *** -.10

40.9

-.05

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Student-Faculty Interaction

Effective Teaching Practices

60

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. a

Percentage point difference between your seniors and

Student-Faculty Interaction

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage of students who responded that they "Very often" or "Often"…

%

3a. Talked about career plans with a faculty member

39

-3

-5

-4

3b. Worked w/faculty on activities other than coursework (committees, student groups, etc.)

25

-3

-2

-4

3c. Discussed course topics, ideas, or concepts with a faculty member outside of class

28

-4

-3

-5

33

-0

-3

-1

5a. Clearly explained course goals and requirements

80

-2

-3

-2

5b. Taught course sessions in an organized way

75

-2

-4

-3

5c. Used examples or illustrations to explain difficult points

73

-4

-5

-5

5d. Provided feedback on a draft or work in progress

65

+2

-2

-0

5e. Provided prompt and detailed feedback on tests or completed assignments

64

+0

-5

-1

3d. Discussed your academic performance with a faculty member

Effective Teaching Practices Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much instructors have…

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 11

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators

wl

Campus Environment

University of Houston-Downtown Campus Environment: First-year students Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons

Your first-year students compared with

UHD Engagement Indicator

Mean

Texas Universities Effect Mean size

Carnegie Class Effect Mean size

Public Effect Mean size

Quality of Interactions

45.5

44.0 *

.13

45.0

.04

43.5 **

.18

Supportive Environment

38.3

35.7 **

.19

35.1 ***

.23

35.7 **

.19

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Quality of Interactions

60

Supportive Environment

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. a

Percentage point difference between your FY students and

Quality of Interactions

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…

%

13a. Students

59

+8

13b. Academic advisors

62

+4

13c. Faculty

61

+7

+1

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.)

61

+10

+7

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.)

55

+6

-0

+9

14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically

73

+1

-1

+0

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.)

74

+0

-0

14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)

65

+4

+3

+4

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially

74

+4

+7

+2

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)

73

+6

+5

+3

14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)

62

+16

+16

+19

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.)

61

14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues

63

+7

+8 -0

+6 +8 +13

Supportive Environment Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…

-4 +17

-0

+6 +20

-6 +17

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

12 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Campus Environment

University of Houston-Downtown Campus Environment: Seniors Students benefit and are more satisfied in supportive settings that cultivate positive relationships among students, faculty, and staff. Two Engagement Indicators investigate this theme: Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment. Below are three views of your results alongside those of your comparison groups.

Mean Comparisons

Your seniors compared with

UHD Engagement Indicator

Mean

Texas Universities Effect Mean size

Carnegie Class Effect Mean size

Public Effect Mean size

Quality of Interactions

44.3

43.7

.05

44.8

-.04

43.5 *

.06

Supportive Environment

36.1

33.6 ***

.16

32.3 ***

.25

33.1 ***

.21

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by pooled standard deviation; Symbols on the Overview page are based on effect size and p before rounding; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed).

Score Distributions Quality of Interactions

60

Supportive Environment

60

45

45

30

30

15

15

0

0 UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Notes: Each box-and-whiskers chart plots the 5th (bottom of lower bar), 25th (bottom of box), 50th (middle line), 75th (top of box), and 95th (top of upper bar) percentile scores. The dot represents the mean score. Refer to Detailed Statistics for your institution’s sample sizes.

Performance on Indicator Items The table below displays how your students responded to each EI item, and the difference, in percentage points, between your students and those of your comparison group. Blue bars indicate how much higher your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. Dark red bars indicate how much lower your institution's percentage is from that of the comparison group. a

Percentage point difference between your seniors and

Quality of Interactions

UHD

Texas Universities

Carnegie Class

Public

Percentage rating their interactions a 6 or 7 (on a scale from 1="Poor" to 7="Excellent") with…

%

13a. Students

64

+4

13b. Academic advisors

53

+1

13c. Faculty

58

13d. Student services staff (career services, student activities, housing, etc.)

55

+6

+3

+7

13e. Other administrative staff and offices (registrar, financial aid, etc.)

53

+5

+0

+6

14b. Providing support to help students succeed academically

72

+2

14c. Using learning support services (tutoring services, writing center, etc.)

67

+5

+5 -5

-2

-0

-6

-1

Supportive Environment Percentage responding "Very much" or "Quite a bit" about how much the institution emphasized…

+1 -1

+2 -0

+0

14d. Encouraging contact among students from diff. backgrounds (soc., racial/eth., relig., etc.)

64

+6

14e. Providing opportunities to be involved socially

69

+1

+7

+3

14f. Providing support for your overall well-being (recreation, health care, counseling, etc.)

63

+0

+3

+1

14g. Helping you manage your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)

49

+11

+12

+15

14h. Attending campus activities and events (performing arts, athletic events, etc.)

57

14i. Attending events that address important social, economic, or political issues

55

-2 +15

+8

+8

+9 +17

-1 +15

Notes: Refer to your Frequencies and Statistical Comparisons report for full distributions and significance tests. Item numbering corresponds to the survey facsimile available on the NSSE website. a. Percentage point difference = Institution percentage – Comparison group percentage. Because results are rounded to whole numbers, differences of less than 1 point may or may not display a bar. Small, but nonzero differences may be represented as +0 or -0.

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 13

This page intentionally left blank.

14 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Comparisons with High-Performing Institutions

University of Houston-Downtown Comparisons with Top 50% and Top 10% Institutions While NSSE’s policy is not to rank institutions (see go.iu.edu/NSSE-PnP), the results below are designed to compare the engagement of your students with those attending two groups of institutions identified by NSSE a for their high average levels of student engagement: (a) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 50% of all 2024 and 2025 NSSE institutions, and (b) institutions with average scores placing them in the top 10% of all 2024 and 2025 NSSE institutions.

While the average scores for most institutions are below the mean for the top 50% or top 10%, your institution may show areas of distinction where your average student was as engaged as (or even more engaged than) the typical student at high-performing institutions. A check mark (✓) signifies those comparisons where your average score was at least comparableb to that of the high-performing group. However, the presence of a check mark does not necessarily mean that your institution was a member of that group.

It should be noted that most of the variability in student engagement is within, not between, institutions. Even "high-performing" institutions have students with engagement levels below the average for all institutions.

First-Year Students

Your first-year students compared with

Theme

Engagement Indicator

UHD Mean

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning Reflective and Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning

40.0 36.1 39.9 31.3

40.3 37.6 * 40.9 31.2

-.02 -.13 -.07 .01

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others

29.4 37.6

33.0 *** 40.9 ***

-.26 -.22

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices

24.4 41.0

25.7 41.7

-.09 -.05

45.5 38.3

46.5 38.0

-.08 .02

Campus Quality of Interactions Environment Supportive Environment

NSSE Top 50% Mean Effect size

Seniors

NSSE Top 10% Mean Effect size 42.9 *** -.23

✓

40.0 *** 43.8 *** 33.6 **

-.33 -.27 -.14

36.2 *** 43.7 ***

-.50 -.44

29.6 *** 44.4 ***

-.34 -.24

49.1 *** 40.6 **

-.29 -.18

✓ ✓

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

✓

Your seniors compared with Engagement Indicator

UHD Mean

NSSE Top 50% Mean Effect size

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning Reflective and Integrative Learning Learning Strategies Quantitative Reasoning

42.5 39.2 43.4 32.7

42.9 40.9 *** 42.1 ** 33.6 *

-.03 -.14 .09 -.06

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning Discussions with Diverse Others

30.6 40.0

34.9 *** 41.8 ***

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction Effective Teaching Practices

22.1 40.2 44.3 36.1

Theme

✓

Campus Quality of Interactions Environment Supportive Environment

✓

NSSE Top 10% Mean Effect size 45.5 *** -.24

✓

43.8 *** 44.6 ** 36.9 ***

-.37 -.09 -.27

-.30 -.12

38.5 *** 44.8 ***

-.58 -.32

30.7 *** 43.4 ***

-.53 -.23

34.8 *** 46.2 ***

-.77 -.45

46.4 *** 35.9

-.17 .01

49.1 *** 39.4 ***

-.39 -.24

✓

✓

✓

Notes: Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institution size for comparison groups); Effect size: Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (2-tailed). a. Precision-weighted means were used to determine the top 50% and top 10% institutions for each Engagement Indicator from all current- and prior-year institutions, separately by class.

Using this method, Engagement Indicator scores of institutions with relatively large standard errors were adjusted toward the mean of all students, while those with smaller standard errors received smaller corrections. As a result, schools with less stable data—even those with high average scores—may not be among the top scorers. NSSE does not publish the names of the top 50% and top 10% institutions because of our commitment not to release institutional results and our policy against ranking institutions. b. Check marks are assigned to comparisons that are either positive or non-significant with an effect size > -.10.

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 15

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statisticsa

University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students Percentiled scores

Mean statistics

Comparison results Deg. of

Effect

5th

25th

50th

75th

95th

freedom

e

Mean diff.

Sig.

.79 .10 .05 .03 .04 .09

20 15 20 20 20 20

30 30 30 30 30 35

40 40 40 40 40 40

50 45 50 45 50 55

60 60 60 60 60 60

319 313 311 311 319

2.1 .9 1.6 -.3 -2.9

.009 .266 .047 .705 .000

.152 .065 .119 -.023 -.228

12.3 12.5 12.7 12.2 12.0 12.1

.67 .08 .05 .03 .03 .10

17 14 14 17 20 20

29 26 26 29 29 31

37 34 37 37 37 40

43 43 43 43 46 49

60 57 57 57 60 60

343 336 334 334 346

1.3 .4 .3 -1.6 -4.0

.066 .603 .653 .020 .000

.101 .028 .025 -.131 -.326

39.9 38.2 40.3 38.6 40.9 43.8

13.4 14.2 14.2 13.8 13.9 14.2

.78 .11 .06 .04 .04 .08

20 13 20 20 20 20

27 27 33 27 33 33

40 40 40 40 40 40

53 47 53 47 53 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

303 296 294 294 299

1.7 -.4 1.3 -1.0 -3.9

.034 .615 .101 .195 .000

.118 -.028 .093 -.073 -.272

31.3 29.3 29.2 29.7 31.2 33.6

14.7 15.7 16.2 15.5 15.5 15.6

.85 .11 .07 .04 .04 .10

7 7 0 7 7 7

20 20 20 20 20 20

33 27 27 27 33 33

40 40 40 40 40 40

60 60 60 60 60 60

314 307 304 304 311

2.0 2.1 1.6 .1 -2.2

.021 .014 .061 .883 .009

.126 .129 .103 .008 -.144

29.4 29.9 23.4 30.0 33.0 36.2

14.5 14.3 16.9 14.5 13.9 13.6

.79 .09 .06 .03 .04 .09

5 5 0 5 10 15

20 20 10 20 25 25

30 30 25 30 30 35

40 40 35 40 40 45

60 60 55 60 60 60

348 343 340 340 347

-.5 6.0 -.5 -3.6 -6.8

.549 .000 .495 .000 .000

-.033 .354 -.037 -.259 -.502

37.6 37.5 35.5 38.7 40.9 43.7

16.4 16.7 18.0 15.8 14.9 13.9

.95 .12 .08 .04 .04 .12

10 5 0 10 20 20

25 25 20 25 30 35

40 40 40 40 40 45

52 50 50 50 55 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

302 296 294 294 302

.1 2.1 -1.1 -3.3 -6.2

.929 .028 .264 .001 .000

.005 .118 -.068 -.221 -.443

b

Mean

SD

40.0 37.9 39.1 38.4 40.3 42.9

14.0 13.8 13.7 13.3 13.2 12.7

36.1 34.8 35.7 35.8 37.6 40.0

SE

c

f

size

g

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning UHD (N = 311) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Reflective & Integrative Learning UHD (N = 333) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Learning Strategies UHD (N = 293) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Quantitative Reasoning UHD (N = 304) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning UHD (N = 340) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Discussions with Diverse Others UHD (N = 294) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

16 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statisticsa

University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: First-Year Students Percentiled scores

Mean statistics

Comparison results Deg. of

Effect

5th

25th

50th

75th

95th

freedom

e

Mean diff.

Sig.

.90 .11 .06 .04 .05 .14

0 0 0 0 5 5

10 10 10 10 15 20

20 20 20 20 25 25

35 30 30 30 35 40

60 55 55 55 60 60

328 322 320 321 336

2.3 2.9 2.3 -1.3 -5.3

.010 .001 .010 .134 .000

.149 .192 .151 -.088 -.339

13.9 13.8 14.2 13.3 13.3 14.2

.79 .10 .06 .03 .04 .10

20 16 16 20 20 20

32 28 32 32 32 36

40 40 40 40 40 45

54 48 52 48 52 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

322 315 313 314 322

1.9 .9 2.0 -.7 -3.4

.018 .250 .012 .384 .000

.136 .064 .149 -.052 -.241

45.5 44.0 45.0 43.5 46.5 49.1

12.9 12.0 12.3 11.5 11.5 12.0

.77 .09 .06 .03 .04 .08

18 22 22 22 25 26

40 38 38 38 40 43

48 46 46 44 48 52

56 52 55 52 56 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

284 279 277 277 282

1.5 .5 2.1 -1.0 -3.5

.049 .505 .008 .220 .000

.129 .042 .179 -.083 -.295

38.3 35.7 35.1 35.7 38.0 40.6

14.5 13.9 14.3 13.5 13.1 12.5

.86 .11 .06 .04 .05 .11

14 13 10 13 18 20

28 25 25 26 30 33

40 38 35 37 40 40

48 45 45 45 48 50

60 60 60 60 60 60

294 288 286 287 295

2.6 3.2 2.6 .3 -2.3

.003 .000 .003 .763 .009

.185 .226 .190 .020 -.182

b

Mean

SD

24.4 22.0 21.4 22.1 25.7 29.6

16.0 15.7 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.6

41.0 39.1 40.1 39.0 41.7 44.4

SE

c

f

size

g

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction UHD (N = 320) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Effective Teaching Practices UHD (N = 313) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Campus Environment

Quality of Interactions UHD (N = 277) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Supportive Environment UHD (N = 286) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups). b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI (equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 x SE) is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean. d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall. e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed. f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.

IPEDS: 225432

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 17

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statisticsa

University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: Seniors Percentiled scores

Mean statistics

Comparison results Deg. of

Effect

5th

25th

50th

75th

95th

freedom

e

Mean diff.

Sig.

.38 .08 .05 .03 .04 .11

20 20 20 20 20 20

35 30 35 30 35 40

40 40 40 40 40 45

55 55 55 55 55 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,501 1,412 1,383 1,391 1,593

1.5 .7 1.4 -.4 -3.1

.000 .075 .000 .264 .000

.107 .050 .102 -.032 -.237

13.2 13.1 13.1 12.9 12.4 12.0

.35 .08 .05 .03 .04 .11

17 17 17 17 20 23

31 29 30 29 31 34

40 37 40 40 40 43

49 49 49 49 51 54

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,580 1,492 1,460 1,472 1,737

1.5 .2 .6 -1.7 -4.5

.000 .540 .101 .000 .000

.114 .016 .044 -.137 -.372

43.4 40.4 41.1 40.1 42.1 44.6

13.8 14.6 14.5 14.5 14.4 14.1

.38 .09 .05 .03 .04 .09

20 13 20 20 20 20

33 33 33 27 33 33

40 40 40 40 40 47

60 53 53 53 53 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,455 1,362 1,328 1,335 1,457

3.0 2.3 3.3 1.2 -1.3

.000 .000 .000 .001 .001

.206 .157 .229 .086 -.090

32.7 31.2 31.7 31.6 33.6 36.9

17.1 16.9 16.9 16.6 16.5 16.1

.47 .10 .06 .04 .04 .12

7 0 0 0 7 7

20 20 20 20 20 27

33 33 33 33 33 40

45 40 40 40 47 47

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,455 1,374 1,343 1,349 1,490

1.5 .9 1.0 -.9 -4.3

.002 .052 .032 .049 .000

.089 .055 .061 -.056 -.265

30.6 30.7 26.9 31.1 34.9 38.5

14.9 15.8 17.4 15.7 14.4 13.6

.39 .09 .06 .03 .04 .09

5 5 0 5 10 15

20 20 15 20 25 30

30 30 25 30 35 40

40 40 40 40 45 50

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,631 1,547 1,498 1,507 1,659

-.1 3.6 -.6 -4.4 -7.9

.838 .000 .148 .000 .000

-.005 .210 -.036 -.303 -.578

40.0 39.5 38.0 39.7 41.8 44.8

17.8 17.1 17.6 16.4 15.5 14.5

.49 .10 .07 .04 .04 .14

5 5 0 10 15 20

25 25 25 30 30 35

40 40 40 40 40 45

60 60 55 55 60 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,447 1,372 1,338 1,343 1,546

.4 1.9 .3 -1.9 -4.8

.382 .000 .556 .000 .000

.025 .108 .018 -.120 -.325

b

Mean

SD

42.5 40.9 41.8 41.1 42.9 45.5

14.2 14.2 13.8 13.8 13.6 12.7

39.2 37.8 39.0 38.7 40.9 43.8

SE

c

f

size

g

Academic Challenge

Higher-Order Learning UHD (N = 1367) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Reflective & Integrative Learning UHD (N = 1443) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Learning Strategies UHD (N = 1310) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Quantitative Reasoning UHD (N = 1327) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Learning with Peers

Collaborative Learning UHD (N = 1479) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Discussions with Diverse Others UHD (N = 1324) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

18 • NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS

NSSE 2025 Engagement Indicators Detailed Statisticsa

University of Houston-Downtown Detailed Statistics: Seniors Percentiled scores

Mean statistics

Comparison results Deg. of

Effect

5th

25th

50th

75th

95th

freedom

e

Mean diff.

Sig.

.47 .10 .06 .04 .06 .18

0 0 0 0 5 10

10 10 10 10 20 20

20 20 20 20 30 35

35 35 35 35 40 50

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,526 1,444 1,415 1,453 1,819

-1.3 -1.7 -2.1 -8.6 -12.7

.008 .000 .000 .000 .000

-.075 -.101 -.126 -.526 -.772

15.1 14.3 14.3 14.0 13.6 13.2

.41 .09 .05 .03 .04 .11

12 16 16 16 20 20

28 32 32 32 36 40

40 40 40 40 44 48

56 52 56 52 56 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,499 1,421 1,392 1,407 1,565

-.5 -1.4 -.7 -3.2 -6.0

.261 .001 .088 .000 .000

-.033 -.097 -.050 -.234 -.448

44.3 43.7 44.8 43.5 46.4 49.1

13.4 12.7 12.5 12.2 12.0 12.1

.39 .08 .05 .03 .04 .08

18 20 20 20 24 24

36 36 38 36 40 43

48 45 46 45 48 52

55 54 55 53 56 60

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,309 1,241 1,214 1,222 1,296

.6 -.5 .8 -2.1 -4.8

.107 .211 .041 .000 .000

.050 -.039 .065 -.172 -.394

36.1 33.6 32.3 33.1 35.9 39.4

15.7 14.9 14.9 14.5 14.2 13.5

.44 .09 .06 .03 .05 .15

10 8 8 10 13 18

23 23 20 23 25 30

38 35 33 33 38 40

48 43 43 43 45 50

60 60 60 60 60 60

1,402 1,331 1,301 1,316 1,587

2.4 3.8 3.0 .2 -3.3

.000 .000 .000 .641 .000

.163 .251 .207 .014 -.238

b

Mean

SD

22.1 23.4 23.8 24.2 30.7 34.8

17.5 16.9 16.7 16.7 16.3 16.3

40.2 40.7 41.6 40.9 43.4 46.2

SE

c

f

size

g

Experiences with Faculty

Student-Faculty Interaction UHD (N = 1400) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Effective Teaching Practices UHD (N = 1377) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Campus Environment

Quality of Interactions UHD (N = 1201) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

Supportive Environment UHD (N = 1288) Texas Universities Carnegie Class Public Top 50% Top 10%

a. Results weighted by institution-reported sex and enrollment status (and institutional size for comparison groups). b. Standard deviation is a measure of the amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. c. Standard error of the mean, used to compute a confidence interval (CI) around the sample mean. For example, the 95% CI (equal to the sample mean +/- 1.96 x SE) is the range that is 95% likely to contain the true population mean. d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level EI scores at or below which a given percentage of EI scores fall. e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary from the total Ns due to weighting and whether equal variances were assumed. f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. g. Effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation.

IPEDS: 225432

NSSE 2025 ENGAGEMENT INDICATORS • 19