Community, Junior, and Technical Colleges

12  Download (0)

Full text

(1)

2014 National Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report

Addendum Three

Community, Junior, and

Technical Colleges

This document is one of four addendums to the 2014 National Student Satisfaction and

Priorities Report. These addendums focus on the Student Satisfaction Inventory

TM

(SSI)

results for:

• Community

colleges

• Four-year private colleges and universities

• Four-year public colleges and universities

• Career and private schools

This addendum focuses on the results for the community, junior, and technical colleges

which administered the SSI between the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2014, including:

Strengths and challenges

Items with the highest and lowest indicators

Percentage scores for individual items within these categories:

— Instructional effectiveness

— Academic advising

Registration

— Admissions and fi nancial aid

— Campus climate

— Campus support services

— Safety and security

— Enrollment factors

(2)

A list of the

participating

institutions

is included

on pages 10

and 11.

The source of the data

The student population for the community, junior, and technical colleges includes 185,186

students from 208 institutions surveyed with the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory

Form A version between the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2014.

The survey instrument

The SSI measures the satisfaction and priorities of students on a wide range of issues related to

college life and learning. The results allow campuses to identify areas of strength, where students

report high satisfaction in areas of high priority, and campus challenges, where students indicate

low satisfaction in areas of high priority. The instrument has high reliability and validity, and more

than 2,750 campuses have administered it since its release in 1994. It has versions that are specifi c

to four-year colleges and universities, community colleges, and two-year career and private

schools to better capture the experiences of students at these types of institutions. The SSI is part

of the Satisfaction-Priorities Survey Suite, which includes surveys for campus personnel, adult

students, online learners, and parents of currently enrolled students.

Reviewing the data

Brief highlights regarding the data fi ndings are offered in this report. For a broader view of how

satisfi ed students are overall and how likely they are to re-enroll, see the full National Report.

The SSI asks students to respond with a level of how important the item is to them, on a Likert scale

of 1 to 7, with 7 being high. The students also respond to the same item to indicate how satisfi ed

they are on the Likert scale of 1 to 7, with 7 again being high. A performance gap is calculated by

subtracting the satisfaction score from the importance score.

Importance percentage: Students who indicate a response of 6 or 7 (important or very important)

Satisfaction

percentage:

Students who indicate a response of 6 or 7 (satisfi ed or very satisfi ed)

Performance gap: Importance score minus satisfaction score

The individual items on the survey are refl ected within the corresponding category, allowing items

on similar topics to be clustered together.

(3)

© 2014 Noel-Levitz, LLC. • www.noellevitz.com 3

Strengths are

areas of high

importance

and high

satisfaction.

Challenges

are areas

of high

importance

but low

satisfaction.

Strengths and challenges

Strengths

Individual items on the inventory were analyzed

to determine institutional strengths (high

importance and high satisfaction). Institutions

often incorporate their strengths into their

marketing activities, recruiting materials, internal

and external public relations opportunities, as

well as provide positive feedback for campus

personnel and students. Strengths are defi ned

as those items above the midpoint in importance

and in the top quartile of satisfaction.

The following strengths were identifi ed by

students at community, junior, and technical

colleges. Strengths are listed in descending order

of importance.

• The quality of instruction I receive in most of

my classes is excellent.

• I am able to experience intellectual growth

here.

• Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in

their fi elds.

• The campus is safe and secure for all students.

• There is a good variety of courses provided on

this campus.

• Program requirements are clear and

reasonable.

• Faculty are usually available after class and

during offi ce hours.

• Computer labs are adequate and accessible.

• On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.

• Students are made to feel welcome on this

campus.

• There are convenient ways of paying my school

bill.

• It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on

this campus.

• Library resources and services are adequate.

• Class change (drop/add) policies are

reasonable.

Challenges

Inventory items were also analyzed to determine

key challenges (high importance and low

satisfaction). Campuses that have surveyed

themselves often look at these crucial areas to

address and improve retention. In this study,

students had high expectations regarding

these areas, but institutions nationally were

failing to meet those expectations. Areas of

dissatisfaction were prioritized by importance

score, indicating those areas that mattered most

to students. Challenges are defi ned as being

above the midpoint in importance and in the

bottom quartile of satisfaction or the top quartile

of performance gaps.

Following, listed in descending order of

importance, are the top challenges identifi ed

by students at community, junior, and technical

colleges.

• Classes are scheduled at times that are

convenient for me.

• I am able to register for classes I need with few

confl icts.

• My academic advisor is knowledgeable about

my program requirements.

• Adequate fi nancial aid is available for most

students.

• This school does whatever it can to help me

reach my educational goals.

• Faculty provide timely feedback about student

progress in a course.

• My academic advisor is knowledgeable about

the transfer requirements of other schools.

• Students are notifi ed early in the term if they

are doing poorly in a class.

• The amount of student parking space on

campus is adequate.

• My academic advisor is concerned about my

success as an individual.

• Financial aid awards are announced to

students in time to be helpful in college

planning.

• Financial aid counselors are helpful.

• The college shows concern for students as

(4)

One of the

largest

performance

gaps for

community

colleges was

for students

being notifi ed

early in the

term if they

were doing

poorly.

Items with the highest and lowest indicators for community, junior, and

technical colleges

As indicated earlier, this year’s report refl ects the importance and satisfaction percentages for

individual items on the SSI. Before the items are reported in their corresponding categories, the items

with the highest and lowest indicators are refl ected here to provide an idea of the range in the scores.

Highest importance items:

• 88%: Classes are scheduled at times that are convenient for me.

• 88%: The quality of instruction in most of my classes is excellent.

• 87%: I am able to register for classes with few confl icts.

Lowest importance items:

• 41%: Child care facilities are available on campus.

• 47%: Personnel in the Veteran’s Services programs are helpful.

• 53%: This campus provides effective support services for displaced homemakers.

Highest satisfaction items:

• 73%: On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.

• 70%: I am able to experience intellectual growth here.

• 69%: Nearly all faculty are knowledgeable in their fi elds.

Lowest satisfaction items:

• 30%: Child care facilities are available on campus.

• 34%: Personnel in the Veteran’s Services programs are helpful.

• 37%: This campus provides effective support services for displaced homemakers.

Largest performance gap items:

• 37%: The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate.

• 33%: Students are notifi ed early in the term if they are doing poorly in a class.

• 30%: Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning.

Smallest performance gap items:

• 7%: Most students feel a sense of belonging here.

• 9%: On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.

• 9%: Library staff are helpful and approachable.

(5)

© 2014 Noel-Levitz, LLC. • www.noellevitz.com 5

Percentage scores for individual items by category

The following tables refl ect the importance and satisfaction percentages, as well as the identifi ed

gap between the two scores for individual items on the SSI. The items are clustered by category.

Scores in

green

indicate that the item is a strength; scores in

red

indicate that the item is a

challenge (as listed earlier in this document).

Instructional Effectiveness—Community, junior, and technical colleges

Item

Importance

percent

Satisfaction

percent

Performance gap

percent

The quality of instruction I receive in most

of my classes is excellent.

88%

63%

25%

I am able to experience intellectual

growth here.

86%

70%

16%

Nearly all of the faculty are

knowledgeable in their fi eld.

86%

69%

17%

There is a good variety of courses

provided on this campus.

86%

67%

19%

Faculty are fair and unbiased in their

treatment of individual students.

84%

61%

23%

Faculty provide timely feedback about

student progress in a course.

83%

56%

27%

Faculty are usually available after class

and during offi ce hours.

82%

66%

16%

Faculty are understanding of students’

unique life circumstances.

81%

55%

26%

Students are notifi ed early in the term if

they are doing poorly in a class.

81%

48%

33%

Nearly all classes deal with practical

experiences and applications.

79%

59%

20%

Faculty take into consideration student

differences as they teach a course.

78%

53%

25%

The quality of instruction in the vocational/

technical programs is excellent.

78%

58%

20%

Faculty are interested in my academic

problems.

77%

53%

24%

(6)

Registration Effectiveness—Community, junior, and technical colleges

Item

Importance

percent

Satisfaction

percent

Performance gap

percent

Classes are scheduled at times that are

convenient for me.

88%

61%

27%

I am able to register for classes I need

with few confl icts.

87%

60%

27%

The personnel involved in registration are

helpful.

82%

59%

23%

Policies and procedures regarding registration and course selection are clear and well-publicized.

82%

60%

22%

There are convenient ways of paying my

school bill.

81%

64%

17%

Billing policies are reasonable.

79%

59%

20%

Class change (drop/add) policies are

reasonable.

79%

64%

15%

The business offi ce is open during hours

which are convenient for most students.

77%

60%

17%

Academic Advising—Community, junior, and technical colleges

Item

Importance

percent

Satisfaction

percent

Performance gap

percent

My academic advisor is knowledgeable

about requirements in my major/program.

85%

61%

24%

Major/program requirements are clear

and reasonable.

85%

64%

21%

My academic advisor is approachable.

83%

61%

22%

This school does whatever it can to help

me reach my educational goals.

83%

55%

28%

My academic advisor is knowledgeable about the transfer requirements of other schools.

81%

53%

28%

My academic advisor is concerned about

my success as an individual.

80%

52%

28%

Counseling/advising staff care about

students as individuals.

78%

55%

23%

My academic advisor helps me set goals

(7)

© 2014 Noel-Levitz, LLC. • www.noellevitz.com 7

Campus Climate—Community, junior, and technical colleges

Item

Importance

percent

Satisfaction

percent

Performance gap

percent

The campus is safe and secure for all

students.

85%

68%

17%

This school does whatever it can to help

me reach my educational goals.

83%

55%

28%

Students are made to feel welcome on

this campus.

81%

65%

16%

It is an enjoyable experience to be a

student on this campus.

80%

63%

17%

This institution shows concern for

students as individuals.

79%

51%

28%

The campus staff are caring and helpful.

78%

61%

17%

I seldom get the “run-around” when

seeking information on this campus.

78%

52%

26%

Administrators are approachable to

students.

77%

57%

20%

This institution has a good reputation

within the community.

77%

66%

11%

Faculty care about me as an individual.

76%

58%

18%

People on this campus respect and are

supportive of each other.

76%

57%

19%

Channels for expressing student

complaints are readily available.

73%

46%

27%

New student orientation services help

students adjust to college.

71%

55%

16%

Most students feel a sense of belonging

here.

62%

55%

7%

I generally know what’s happening on

campus.

61%

48%

13%

Admissions and Financial Aid—Community, junior, and technical colleges

Item

Importance

percent

Satisfaction

percent

Performance gap

percent

Adequate fi nancial aid is available for

most students.

83%

58%

25%

Admissions staff are knowledgeable.

81%

60%

21%

Financial aid counselors are helpful.

80%

52%

28%

Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning.

79%

49%

30%

Admissions counselors respond to prospective students’ unique needs and requests.

76%

53%

23%

Admissions counselors accurately portray

(8)

Campus Support Services—Community, junior, and technical colleges

Item

Importance

percent

Satisfaction

percent

Performance gap

percent

Computer labs are adequate and

accessible.

81%

67%

14%

Library resources and services are

adequate.

79%

67%

12%

There are adequate services to help me

decide upon a career.

78%

53%

25%

Tutoring services are readily available.

77%

62%

15%

Academic support services adequately

meet the needs of students.

77%

56%

21%

Bookstore staff are helpful.

77%

65%

12%

There are a suffi cient number of study

areas on campus.

76%

63%

13%

Library staff are helpful and approachable.

74%

65%

9%

The career services offi ce provides

students with the help they need to get a job.

73%

46%

27%

New student orientation services help

students adjust to college.

71%

55%

16%

The student center is a comfortable place

for students to spend their leisure time.

66%

56%

10%

Safety and Security—Community, junior, and technical colleges

Item

Importance

percent

Satisfaction

percent

Performance gap

percent

The campus is safe and secure for all

students.

85%

68%

17%

The amount of student parking space on

campus is adequate.

81%

44%

37%

Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.

78%

56%

22%

Security staff respond quickly in

emergencies.

74%

47%

27%

(9)

© 2014 Noel-Levitz, LLC. • www.noellevitz.com 9 * The factors in the decision to enroll only ask students to indicate a level of importance.

What does this mean for your own campus?

We encourage you to survey your own students. Effective institutions survey their constituencies

regularly, compare their data to their past performance, and then actively respond to the challenges.

In addition:

• Be aware of national trends for a broader perspective;

• Review the other addendums of the national report to compare results with other institution types;

and

• Take action on your campus to improve the experience in the areas your students care most about.

Enrollment Factors—Community, junior, and technical colleges*

Item

Importance

percent

Cost as factor in decision to enroll.

84%

Financial aid as factor in decision to

enroll.

78%

Academic reputation as factor in decision

to enroll.

71%

Geographic setting as factor in decision

to enroll.

63%

Personalized attention prior to enrollment

as factor in decision to enroll.

59%

Campus appearance as factor in decision

to enroll.

53%

Size of institution as factor in decision to

enroll.

52%

Recommendations from family/friends as

factor in decision to enroll.

47%

Opportunity to play sports as factor in

(10)

Student Satisfaction Inventory list of participating institutions, 2011-2014 Community, Junior, and Technical Colleges, Form A Allen Community College, KS Anne Arundel Community College, MD Anoka-Ramsey Community

College, MN

Anoka Technical College, MN Asheville-Buncombe Technical

Community College, NC Atlanta Technical College, GA Augusta Technical College, GA Aultman College of Nursing and Health

Sciences, OH

Bay de Noc Community College, MI Belmont College, OH

Bevill State Community College, AL Bismarck State College, ND Blackhawk Technical College, WI Brazosport College, TX

Bristol Community College, MA Brookdale Community College, NJ Brookhaven College, TX

Bucks County Community College, PA Burlington County College, NJ Butler Community College, KS Butler County Community College, PA Cape Cod Community College, MA Carl Sandburg College, IL Cascadia Community College, WA Central New Mexico Community

College, NM Centralia College, WA Chandler-Gilbert Community

College, AZ Chatfi eld College, OH

Chattahoochee Technical College, GA Cincinnati State Technical and

Community College, OH Clark College, WA Clinton College, SC

Cloud County Community College, KS Coffeyville Community College, KS College of Central Florida, FL College of DuPage, IL

College of Southern Nevada, NV College of the Albemarle, NC College of the Mainland, TX College of the Redwoods Community

College District, CA

Collin County Community College District, TX

Columbus Technical College, GA Community College of Allegheny

County, PA Crowder College, MO CUNY Borough of Manhattan

Community College, NY CUNY Bronx Community College, NY CUNY Hostos Community College, NY CUNY Kingsborough Community

College, NY

Cuyahoga Community College, OH Cypress College, CA

Danville Area Community College, IL Dawson Community College, MT Daytona State College, FL Delgado Community College, LA Dodge City Community College, KS Eastern Arizona College, AZ

Eastern Gateway Community College, OH Eastern Idaho Technical College, ID Eastern Maine Community College, ME Eastern New Mexico

University-Roswell, NM Edison State College, FL

Edison State Community College, OH Elgin Community College, IL Essex County College, NJ

Estrella Mountain Community College, AZ Flathead Valley Community College, MT Flint Hills Technical College, KS Fox Valley Technical College, WI Galveston College, TX

Gateway Community and Technical College, KY

Gateway Community College, AZ Gateway Technical College, WI Georgia Military College, GA Glendale Community College, AZ Gloucester County College, NJ Grand Rapids Community College, MI Great Basin College, NV

Greenville Technical College, SC Gwinnett Technical College, GA Heartland Community College, IL Highland Community College, IL Highland Community College, KS Highlands College of Montana Tech, MT Hinds Community College, MS Illinois Central College, IL

Illinois Valley Community College, IL Independence Community College, KS Inver Hills Community College, MN Iowa Lakes Community College, IA Iowa Western Community College, IA J.F. Drake State Technical College, AL Jackson College, MI

Johnson County Community College, KS Kalamazoo Valley Community College, MI Kankakee Community College, IL Kaskaskia College, IL

Kennebec Valley Community College, ME Kilian Community College, SD

Lake Land College, IL Lake Superior College, MN Lakeland College-Canada, AB Lakeshore Technical College, WI Lanier Technical College, GA Laredo Community College, TX Lassen Community College, CA LDS Business College, UT Lincoln College-MCC, IL

Lincoln Land Community College, IL Little Priest Tribal College, NE Luzerne County Community College, PA

Metropolitan Community College- Kansas City Administration Center, MO

Mid-State Technical College, WI Mid Michigan Community College, MI Midland College, TX

Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical, MN

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College, MS

Mitchell Technical Institute, SD Montcalm Community College, MI Montgomery County Community

College, PA

Murray State College, OK Muskegon Community College, MI Navarro College, TX

New Mexico Junior College, NM New Mexico State University at

Alamogordo, NM

New Mexico State University at Carlsbad, NM

North Arkansas College, AR North Dakota State College of

Science, ND

North Hennepin Community College, MN

Northeast Community College, NE Northeast Lakeview College, TX Northeast Mississippi Community

College, MS

Northeastern Junior College, CO Northern Maine Community

College, ME

Northern Marianas College, MP Northern Wyoming Community College

District, WY

NorthWest Arkansas Community College, AR

Northwest Florida State College, FL Northwest Iowa Community College, IA Northwest Technical College, MN Oklahoma City Community College, OK Ozarks Technical Community

College, MO Palo Alto College, TX

Paradise Valley Community College, AZ Passaic County Community College, NJ Pensacola State College, FL

Phoenix College, AZ

Piedmont Technical College, SC Pitt Community College, NC Pratt Community College, KS Pulaski Technical College, AR Red Rocks Community College, CO Richland College, TX

Richland Community College, IL Rochester Community and Technical

College, MN

Rockingham Community College, NC Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, MI San Antonio College, TX

Santa Fe Community College, NM Sauk Valley Community College, IL

(11)

South Central College, MN

South Mountain Community College, AZ South Piedmont Community College, NC Southeast Community College, NE Southern Crescent Technical

College, GA

Southern Maine Community College, ME

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, NM

Spartanburg Community College, SC Spokane Falls Community College, WA St. Clair County Community College, MI St. Luke’s College, MO

St. Philip’s College, TX State College of Florida,

Manatee-Sarasota, FL Surry Community College, NC Tacoma Community College, WA Texas State Technical College-

Harlingen, TX

Texas State Technical College- West Texas, TX

Texas State Technical College Waco, TX The New Community College at City

University of New York, NY The Ohio State University Agricultural

Technical Institute, OH Tri-County Technical College, SC Trident Technical College, SC University of Cincinnati-Blue Ash

College, OH

University of Akron-Wayne College, OH University of Cincinnati-Clermont

College, OH

University of Hawaii Kauai Community College, HI

Virginia Highlands Community College, VA Volunteer State Community College, TN Washington County Community

College, ME

Washtenaw Community College, MI Western Dakota Technical Institute, SD Western Technical College, WI Western Wyoming Community

College, WY

Wichita Area Technical College, KS Wilkes Community College, NC Wisconsin Indianhead Technical

College, WI Yavapai College, AZ

York County Community College, ME

(12)

Questions about this report?

We hope you have found this report to be helpful and informative. If you have questions or would like more

information about the fi ndings, please contact Noel-Levitz at 1-800-876-1117 or ContactUs@noellevitz.com.

About Noel-Levitz

A trusted partner to higher education, Noel-Levitz helps systems and campuses reach and exceed

their goals for enrollment, marketing, and student success. Over the past three decades, the higher

education professionals at Noel-Levitz have consulted directly with more than 3,000 colleges and

universities nationwide in the areas of:

Noel-Levitz has developed an array of proven tools and software programs; diagnostic tools

and instruments; and customized consultations, workshops, and national conferences. With the

Satisfaction-Priorities Surveys (including the Student Satisfaction Inventory), the fi rm brings together

its many years of research and campus-based experience to enable you to get to the heart of your

campus agenda.

For more information, contact:

Noel-Levitz, LLC.

2350 Oakdale Boulevard

Coralville, Iowa 52241-9702

Phone: 800-876-1117

Fax: 319-626-8388

Email: ContactUs@noellevitz.com

2014 Satisfaction-Priorities Reports

Noel-Levitz has released the following reports detailing satisfaction-priorities trends:

· Traditional college students at all four institution types

(four-year private, four-year public, community colleges, and two-year career schools)

· Adult students

· Online learners

• Student retention

• Staff and advisor development

• Student success

• Marketing and recruitment

• Financial aid services

• Research and communications

• Institutional effectiveness

How to cite this report

Noel-Levitz. (2014). 2014 National student satisfaction and priorities report, addendum three: Community, junior, and technical colleges. Coralville, IA: Noel-Levitz.

Except where cited otherwise, all material in this document is copyright © by Noel-Levitz, LLC. Permission is required to redistribute information from Noel-Levitz, LLC., either in print or electronically. Please contact us at ContactUs@ noellevitz.com about reusing material from this document . ©Student photo courtesy of Bigstock. All rights reserved.

Figure

Updating...

References