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
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.
© 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
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.
© 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 mostof 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 aboutstudent 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 practicalexperiences 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 academicproblems.
77%
53%
24%
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 arereasonable.
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 clearand reasonable.
85%
64%
21%
My academic advisor is approachable.
83%
61%
22%
This school does whatever it can to helpme 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
© 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” whenseeking information on this campus.
78%
52%
26%
Administrators are approachable tostudents.
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 aresupportive of each other.
76%
57%
19%
Channels for expressing student
complaints are readily available.
73%
46%
27%
New student orientation services helpstudents 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
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 adequatelymeet 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 providesstudents 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 inemergencies.
74%
47%
27%
© 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 toenroll.
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 decisionto 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 inStudent 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
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
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.
