The Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) is administered nationally by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and provides faculty insight on student academic experiences such as research, internships, and study abroad programs. In addition, the FSSE provides information about faculty roles such as teaching and mentoring. This is the second year WFU has participated in the FSSE, joining 54 US institutions in 2024.
The FSSE was administered electronically by the Office of Institutional Research in April 2024 to all non-medical faculty at Wake Forest University (N = 1,045). A total of 277 responses were submitted, representing a 27% response rate (estimated margin of error \(\pm\) 7.4%). The respondents were not representative of the faculty when comparing distributions across school of employment (e.g. Business School). For example, the responses submitted overrepresented the College faculty population at Wake Forest. To address some concerns around nonresponse bias, all analyses were performed with post-stratification weights by school. The majority of respondents were College (76%), Business (8%), and Graduate Arts & Sciences (5%) faculty. Other respondents were Law (4%), Library (3.6%), Divinity (1.8%), and Professional Studies (1.8%) faculty.
Faculty at Wake placed high emphasis on several FSSE Scales including Effective Teaching Practices, Reflective & Integrative Learning, and Higher-Order Learning. Across all High-Impact Practices, faculty highlighted internships or field experience and a culminating senior capstone course or project as most important for students. Roughly four in five respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable “being myself” at Wake, feel like they are part of the Wake community, and feel valued by Wake.
For each item below, a statistical test for the difference between groups (e.g. gender) is performed. If the difference between groups is found to be statistically significant, this analysis reports effect sizes to allow one to compare the magnitude of the difference. Each item that is found to have a difference between groups and indicates at least a small effect size is highlighted in the following colors. This report provides a summary of each section of the survey, followed by the comparison within WFU faculty by gender, race/ethnicity, tenure track (excluding adjunct faculty), adjunct status, and administration year (vs WFU’s respondents in 2022). Please note that all the preceding variables were self-reported in the survey and not confirmed using internal WFU data since individual WFU IDs were not collected. (See here for more on survey analysis methodology.)
| Size | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Large Effect | >= 0.80 |
| Medium Effect | >= 0.50 |
| Small Effect | >= 0.20 |
Complementing the Engagement Indicators developed for the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the FSSE groups information from a subset of items into ten scales to provide a more reliable, cumulative measure of areas of notable interest. Each FSSE scale is comprised of component items which are converted to a 60-point metric (e.g., Not important=0, Somewhat important=20, Important=40, Very Important=60) and averaged together to compute faculty-level scores.
Wake Forest University faculty scored highest on Effective Teaching Practices (46.8), Reflective & Integrative Learning (44.1), and Higher-Order Learning (41.4). Faculty scored lowest on Discussions with Diverse Others (23.8).
Faculty at WFU in 2024 scored similarly by gender across most scales, with the following exceptions. With a small effect size:
White and Underrepresented Minority (URM) faculty scored differently in the following categories, with at least a small effect size:
Faculty scored differently by tenure status in the following categories, with at least a small effect size:
Faculty scored differently by adjunct status in the following categories, with at least a small effect size:
Relative to 2022 respondents, WFU faculty in 2024 scored similarly across all scales.
For the full list of scale score comparisons, please see the FSSE Scales section.
Corresponding to the High-Impact Practices (HIPs) developed in the NSSE, faculty are asked about particular student academic experiences and how well their institution incorporates them. HIPs, which have been found to positively correlate with student learning and retention, “demand considerable time and effort, facilitate learning outside of the classroom, require meaningful interactions with faculty and students, encourage collaboration with diverse others, and provide frequent and substantive feedback.”
Faculty at WFU most commonly highlighted the importance of undergraduate participation in an internship or field experience (77%) and a culminating senior experience such as a capstone course (75%) prior to graduation.
Faculty at WFU responded similarly by gender and race/ethnicity across all High-Impact Practices.
Faculty responded differently by tenure status with a small effect size in the following:
Faculty responded differently by adjunct status with a medium effect size in the following:
Relative to 2022 respondents, WFU faculty in 2024 responded similarly across all High-Impact Practices.
For the full list of HIPs comparisons, please see the High-Impact Practices section.
The respondent profile presented faculty with questions about their backgrounds and goals. Among all WFU respondents,
For full details and comparisons, please see the Respondent Profile section.
Although often less statistically reliable than scales, which are derived from multiple items, individual questions may provide a closer look at specific issues and notable differences across groups. Some overall highlights from all WFU faculty responses to these individual items include:
By gender, faculty differed in response to a few items. For example, women reported spending a higher percentage of class time on small-group activities (25% vs 17%) and more frequently providing feedback to students on works in progress (73% vs 47%) than men. In contrast, men indicated spending a higher percentage of class time lecturing (40% vs 31%) and holding a formal leadership role in a student organization (36% vs 21%) than women.
White and URM faculty differed in response to several items. For example, URM faculty more frequently indicated structuring their courses to emphasize students’ development in solving complex real-world problems (82% vs 53%), developing/clarifying a personal code of ethics (65% vs 35%), and acquiring job-related knowledge and skills (68% vs 43%) than White faculty. White faculty estimated undergraduates spent more hours per week both preparing for class (8.5 vs 5.6) and participating in co-curricular activities (9.6 vs 6.8) than URM faculty.
Tenured/tenure track faculty and non-tenure track faculty have differences–and frequently large effect sizes–mostly in areas that are expected given their differing job expectations in research and teaching loads. Faculty who are not on a tenure track more frequently agreed that they have the time they need to prepare for class (93% vs 76%) and that the environments (classrooms, online, etc.) they teach in are conducive to quality teaching (91% vs 72%) than tenured and tenure track faculty. Additionally, tenured and tenure track faculty reported more frequently emphasizing students’ development in writing clearly and effectively (62% vs 41%), whereas more non-tenure track faculty reported emphasizing students’ development in working effectively with others (77% vs 57%) and acquiring job-related knowledge and skills (59% vs 39%).
Adjunct faculty and non-adjunct faculty report similar time spent on grading, course administration, and different types of in-class activities (lectures, discussions, student presentations, etc.). However, non-adjunct faculty indicated spending nearly twice as many hours per week across all teaching activities (18.9 vs 10.3) and advising (4.1 vs 2.2) than adjunct faculty. Adjunct faculty more commonly placed importance on students’ ability to evaluate what others have concluded from numerical information (90% vs 49%) and helping students develop/clarify a personal code of ethics (69% vs 39%), while non-adjunct faculty more often reported an emphasis on helping students form new ideas or understanding from various pieces of information (80% vs 52%).
Relative to 2022 respondents, WFU faculty in 2024 reported a more positive perception (on a 1-7 scale) of students’ interactions with other students (5.0 vs 4.1), with student services staff (4.7 vs 3.8), and with faculty (5.1 vs 4.3). Respondents in 2024 also more commonly emphasized students’ development in speaking clearly and effectively (59% vs 47%) and acquiring job-related knowledge and skills (47% vs 36%) than in 2022.
For a full breakdown of responses for all survey questions, please see the Individual Items section.
Wake Forest included two Topical Modules with this year’s survey. The Civic Engagement (CIV) Module asks faculty to assess how effectively WFU as an institution demonstrates & fosters the development in students of conflict resolution skills, and how often students are encouraged to engage with local, state, national, or global issues. The Scholarship of Teaching & Learning (STL) Module covers faculty perceptions of institutional & faculty use of assessment tools (surveys, portfolios, etc.) to gather information on student experiences, and how effectively WFU shares these findings and incorporates them in the decision-making process.
Among all WFU faculty respondents,
By gender, faculty at WFU responded similarly to all items in the CIV Module.
By race/ethnicity, faculty respondents differed on a few items in the CIV Module. With a medium effect size, a larger proportion of URM faculty reported encouraging their students to address (37% vs 12%), raise awareness about (52% vs 25%), and discuss (55% vs 29%) campus or local issues than White faculty. Additionally, a larger proportion of URM faculty indicated that WFU as an institution emphasizes leading a group in which people from different backgrounds feel welcomed and included (66% vs 44%).
By tenure status, WFU faculty only responded differently for a single item. With a small effect size, a larger proportion of non-tenure track faculty said WFU emphasizes being an informed and active participant in campus, local, state, or national issues (62% vs 38%) than tenured and tenure track faculty.
Adjunct and non-adjunct faculty responded differently to many questions in the CIV Module. In all these cases, with at least a medium effect size, a larger proportion of adjunct faculty indicated that WFU as an institution promotes involvement with important issues, contributing to the well-being of one’s community, and fostering inclusivity. Most notably, with a large effect size, a larger proportion of adjunct faculty reported that WFU emphasizes recognizing and responding to conflicts that involve bias, discrimination, and prejudice (86% vs 48%).
Among all WFU faculty respondents,
By gender, faculty respondents answered similarly across all items on the STL Module, with one exception. With a small effect size, a larger proportion of women reported that they use institutional influences (including peer feedback, self-assessment, and collaboration with other faculty) to inform their decisions when making changes to their courses (56% vs 37%).
White and URM faculty also responded similarly to all STL Module items except one. With a small effect size, URM faculty rated WFU’s dissemination of its assessment findings higher than White faculty (3.4 vs 2.9, on a 5-point scale).
By tenure status, WFU faculty responded differently to a few STL Module questions. With at least a small effect size, a larger proportion of non-tenure track faculty reported being encouraged to publish on teaching and learning (31% vs 11%), publicly present about teaching and learning (39% vs 22%), and collaborate with colleagues on improving teaching and learning (51% vs 35%). Additionally, a larger proportion of non-tenure track faculty indicated that institutional assessment results are used to inform their department’s efforts to improve teaching and learning than tenured and tenure track faculty (48% vs 33%).
Adjunct and non-adjunct faculty responded differently to many items in the STL Module. A larger proportion of adjunct faculty reported that WFU encourages faculty to systematically collect information about the effectiveness of their teaching beyond end-of-term course evaluations (74% vs 31%), publish on teaching and learning (47% vs 17%), and use assessment findings to inform changes made to their courses (71% vs 44%) than non-adjunct faculty, with at least a medium effect size. Additionally, with a small effect size, a larger proportion of adjunct faculty used external influences (like accreditation standards) to help inform changes to their courses than non-adjunct faculty (64% vs 42%).
For a full breakdown of responses for both modules, please see the section Topical Modules.
The tables and charts below have built-in functionalities. See here to learn more about how to interact with these visuals.
Civic Engagement
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Civic Engagement
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Civic Engagement
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Civic Engagement
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Civic Engagement
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning