2011 Research Report
National Student
Satisfaction and Priorities
15-Year Trend Report:
Community Colleges
Findings and observations from 1994-1995 to 2009-2010
For the past 15 years, higher education has faced signifi cant demographic, technological,
political, and economic changes. While the demand for college education has increased
steadily to record levels, campuses have had to meet the needs of this infl ux of students
while facing severe budgetary cuts brought on by economic downturns and rising costs.
These changes have triggered a negative view of the long-term stability and strength of
the American college system among some leaders. In a recent poll, one out of every three
college presidents in the United States believe that higher education is headed in the
wrong direction (Fischer, 2011). Many others, from parents to politicians, have expressed
concern for what they feel is a more expensive, less benefi cial educational experience.
But what of the students themselves? Amid this sea of changes and challenges, have
students become less satisfi ed with their college experiences? Have their priorities shifted
dramatically along with these dramatic socioeconomic shifts?
This report examines 15 years of data on student satisfaction and priorities at two-year
public colleges in the United States. It looks at overall student satisfaction, issues students
deemed most important, and the most signifi cant changes between the 1994-1995 and
2009-2010 academic years.
National Student Satisfaction and Priorities 15-Year
Trend Report: Community Colleges
Findings and observations from 1994-1995 to 2009-2010
Introduction and Overview
The shifting demographics
Between 1994-1995, when Noel-Levitz fi rst introduced the Student Satisfaction InventoryTM (SSI), and the
2009-2010 school year, the demographics of students taking the SSI have changed in some key variables.
Student Satisfaction Inventory demographic changes at community colleges, 1994-2010
Demographic Variables 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift
24 and younger 61% 55% 6% 25 and older 39% 45% -6% African American 10% 9% 1% Caucasian/White 65% 72% -7% Hispanic 9% 7% 2% Asian 6% 3% 3% Full-time enrollment 71% 64% 7% Part-time enrollment 29% 36% -7% Full-time employment 26% 33% -7% Part-time employment 39% 41% -2% Not employed 35% 26% 9%
In particular, several signifi cant changes stand out:
• A decrease in the number of Caucasian/White students along with a slight increase in African American and Hispanic students. Interestingly, these shifts were less than those seen by four-year public
campuses, which had an 11 percent decrease in Caucasian students and a 4 percent increase in both Hispanic and African American students.
• An increase in traditional-age students. As others (Dadshova, Hossler, and Shapiro, 2011) have noted, community colleges saw increases in traditional-age, fi rst-time students between 2007-2009 before a decline in 2010. Those authors posit that increases in this population during the economic recession may stem from students who choose two-year colleges over more expensive four-year options, as well as high school students who would normally enter the workforce directly deciding to attend a two-year college.
• A 7 percent increase in full-time enrollment, which may also be driven by more traditional students using community college as a more affordable path to a four-year degree.
• A 9 percent increase in students who are not employed, which may seem surprising given the nature of community colleges. Again, however, with the increase of traditional-age students, more students looking to acquire skills required to fi nd work, and a high unemployment rate in the American economy, this actually is not as surprising as it may fi rst appear.
The study
This study focuses on student responses to the community, junior, and technical college version of the Student Satisfaction Inventory™ (SSI) administered at two-year public institutions. The results are specifi c to the original Form A 70-item version of the SSI. (A 40-item Form B version was introduced in 2004.)
The SSI debuted in 1994 and during the following 15 years, the community college version Form A of the instrument has been administered at 600 two-year community, junior, and technical colleges and completed by more than one million students. (See the appendix for the full list of community, junior, and technical colleges which have administered the SSI at least once.)
This study will share data across the 15 years, with a special comparison of the results from the 1994-1995 academic year as compared with the 2009-2010 academic year.
Separate
reports are
available
for
four-year private
and public
institutions,
and career
and private
schools.
Number of participating institutions and students
Academic Year Institutions Students
1994-1995 46 19,315
2009-2010 102 69,798
The survey instrument
The Student Satisfaction Inventory™ (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 (see the appendix for more information), and
more than 2,400 four-year and two-year, public and private campuses have
administered it since its release in 1994. It has versions 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.
A 2009 study published by Noel-Levitz, Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention
by Dr. Laurie Schreiner, documented the link between student satisfaction
and the likelihood that students will be retained. This study found that while 75
percent of the variation is unknown, student satisfaction accounts for 17 percent
of the variation in retention. Student satisfaction is a contributing factor to
student success.
The data analysis
For the item-level analysis in this study, items were compared for community
colleges between the recent 2009-2010 academic year and the original 1994-1995
academic year.
Two types of analyses were done. 1) The fi rst view is a ranking comparison which
converts the average scores for each data set into a rank order of importance
or satisfaction. The range of 70 items remains consistent across the ranks, but
the shifts in position are interesting to note. Items that tie are refl ected with the
same rank number, and the remaining items shift down. 2) The second view is
with the shifts in the percentage of students indicating that they were satisfi ed or
very satisfi ed with the same item (responses of 6 or 7). This type of analysis is not
currently included in the individual campus SSI report.
The standard analysis of average importance and satisfaction scores, which
is how the SSI results are typically reported to campuses, is included in the
appendix section of the report. The average score for satisfaction allows for a
comparison of statistical signifi cance for satisfaction between the original year
and the recent year.
Observations:
We have made fi ve observations on the trends over the past 15 years:
1.
What is most important to students has stayed important.
2.
Satisfaction levels have risen overall at community colleges.
3.
The fi nancial aid factor has increased in importance in enrollment decisions.
4.
The importance ranking and satisfaction levels shifts in fi nancial items.
5.
The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts for campus climate items
.
The following items have shifted up in importance by seven ranking spots or more (listed in order of 2009-2010 importance): Top 15 most important items to students in 2009-2010 with the corresponding rank in 1994-1995
Item Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Classes are scheduled at times that are convenient for me. 1 2 The quality of instruction in most classes is excellent. 2 1 I am able to register for classes with few confl icts. 3 4 Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their fi elds. 4 (tie) 3 I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 4 (tie) 7 The campus is safe and secure for all students. 6 (tie) 8 There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus. 6 (tie) 5 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about my program
requirements. 8 6
Program requirements are clear and reasonable. 9 9 Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students. 10 10 Adequate fi nancial aid is available for most students. 11 22
My academic advisor is approachable. 12 13
This school does whatever it can to help me reach my educational
goals. 13 14
The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate. 14 (tie) 18 Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course. 14 (tie) 22 Faculty are usually available after class and during offi ce hours. 14 (tie) 11
Observation 1:
What is most important to students has stayed important.
The items of highest importance to students have remained consistent over the past 15 years. The majority of items appear in both the 2009-2010 and 1994-1995 lists of top 15 important items.
Item Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010 Adequate fi nancial aid is available for most students. 11 22 (tie) 11 Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course. 14 22 (tie) 8 The personnel involved in registration are helpful. 18 25 7 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about the transfer
requirements of other schools. 19 32 13
Admissions staff are knowledgeable. 21 28 7
It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 24 37 13 Faculty are understanding of students’ unique life circumstances. 27 34 7
Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable. 32 39 7
Financial aid counselors are helpful. 33 49 16
Financial aid awards are announced to students in time. 36 53 17
The campus staff are caring and helpful. 37 (tie) 46 9
Billing policies are reasonable. 37 (tie) 44 7
Library
resources
have shifted
down in
importance.
The following items have shifted down in importance by at least eight ranking spots (listed in order of importance for 2009-2010).
Observations on these importance shifts:
• Despite the many changes to the higher education environment and the socioeconomic characteristics of students, the top 10 items have remained consistent over the past 15 years, and 12 items remained in the top 15 between 1994-1995 and 2009-2010. The following three items jumped up in ranking importance since 1994-1995 by more than four ranking spots.
— Adequate fi nancial aid is available for most students (up 11 spots). — The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate (up 4 spots). — Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course (up 8 spots).
• Financial aid has clearly become a growing concern for community college students. The three items related to fi nancial aid have had three of the largest shifts up in importance. Despite the perceived affordability of community colleges, students have increased expectations for fi nancial assistance from these institutions. • The items with the largest decreases in importance are:
— The quality of instruction in the vocational/technical programs: This item, separate from the perceived quality of instruction in the academic programs, dropped by 25 rank spots. This could be due to fewer students being surveyed in those programs, affecting its overall ranking in the national group.
— Library resources and library staff: This decline in importance is likely a combination of schools investing in library resources over the last 15 years and students being able to access more information online. Both developments would make the issue less critical to students.
— Parking lots are well-lighted and secure: This likely points to improvements made by campuses in this area, as the increasing number of students attending community college, with most commuting by car, would not make the issue less pressing.
— The college shows concern for the individual/Faculty care about me as an individual: There is less emphasis on concern for the individual at the institution level and faculty caring about students as individuals, possibly because of larger institutions involved in the survey administration.
Item Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Rank 1994-1995 minus 2009-2010 The equipment in the lab facilities is kept up to date. 28 (tie) 20 -8 Library resources and services are adequate. 28 (tie) 12 -16
Parking lots are well-lighted and secure. 30 18 -12
The college shows concern for students as individuals. 33 22 -11 I seldom get the “run-around” when seeking information on this
campus. 40 (tie) 29 -11
The quality of instruction in the vocational/technical programs is
excellent. 40 (tie) 15 -25
This institution has a good reputation within the community. 44 35 -9 The business offi ce is open during hours which are convenient for
most students. 48 37 -11
Faculty care about me as an individual. 54 46 -8
Library staff are helpful and approachable. 55 43 -12
Internships or practical experiences are provided in my degree/
Observation 2:
Satisfaction levels have risen overall at community colleges.
In general, students in the 2009-2010 data set are more satisfi ed than the students in 1994-1995.• Statistically signifi cant improvements in satisfaction were identifi ed on 69 out of 70 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.23. All but two of these items were signifi cant at the highest level of confi dence of 0.001.
• For the percentage shifts, 66 items had an average of 6 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and three items declined in satisfaction percentage, with an average of 1 percent in decline.
The average scores (from 1 to 7) for each category for all items were as follows:
Academic Year Average
Satisfaction Average Satisfaction Percentage 1994-1995 4.74 38% 2009-2010 5.19 51%
At four-year private institutions, students in the 2009-2010 data set are more satisfi ed than the students in 1994-1995.
• Statistically signifi cant improvements in satisfaction were identifi ed on all 73 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.28. All items were signifi cant at the highest level of confi dence of 0.001.
• For the percentage shifts, 72 items had an average of 7 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and no items declined in satisfaction percentages.
At four-year public institutions: students in the 2009-2010 data set are more satisfi ed than the students in 1994-1995.
• Statistically signifi cant improvements in satisfaction were identifi ed on all 73 standard items on the survey, with an average increase of 0.45. All but one of the items was signifi cant at the highest level of confi dence of 0.001, with the remaining item at the 0.01 level.
• For the percentage shifts, 72 items had an average of 13 percent improvement in satisfaction, one item held steady in satisfaction percentages, and no items declined in satisfaction percentages.
40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Satisfaction % 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift Satisfaction percentage 58% 60% 2% 53% 58% 47% 57% 58% 60% 4-Year Private Institutions 4-Year Public Institutions Community Colleges 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1994-1995 2009-2010 Satisfaction % Comparing Satisfaction
Summary satisfaction scores:
One of the summary items, which appears at the end of the survey, asks students to indicate their overall level of satisfaction. The following graph refl ects the percentage of students indicating that they were satisfi ed (answer 6) or very satisfi ed (answer 7) to the summary item for each academic year between 1994-1995 and 2009-2010.
Satisfaction levels for the last 15 years have held steady, with only a slight 2 percent increase in overall satisfaction. The peak was 62 percent in satisfaction in 2007-2008. In comparison, four-year private and public institutions have seen larger increases in satisfaction percentages over the past 15 years. As illustrated in the bar graph below, students at community colleges report generally higher satisfaction than students at four-year private and public institutions, so there may be less room for growth for this segment.
It is important to note how many times the participating community colleges have administered the SSI:
The 1994-1995 academic year was the fi rst year that the SSI was available for campuses to administer, so all of these institutions had fi rst-time administrations. The overall percentage of campuses which have administered the SSI only once in 15 years is 34.2, but in the 2009-2010 data set, only 3.9 percent of campuses were fi rst-time administrations. Conversely, the percentage of community colleges in 2009-2010 which had administered the SSI 10 or more times over 15 years was 19.6.
With 86 percent of community colleges in 2009-2010 having administered the SSI at least three times, overall satisfaction may have increased because campuses that assess student satisfaction on a regular cycle tend to be more active in working to improve satisfaction levels.
We can take a closer look at how satisfaction is improving for the items identifi ed earlier as areas of high importance/ high expectation to students. These are listed in descending order of importance to students in 2009-2010:
Number of times community colleges have administered the SSI:
Number of Administrations All Community Colleges Percentage of All Community Colleges Community Colleges Administering in 2009-2010 Percentage of 2009-2010 Community Colleges Once 205 34.2% 4 3.9% Twice 117 19.5% 11 10.8% 3 to 5 159 26.5% 42 41.2% 6 to 9 79 13.2% 25 24.5% 10 or more 40 6.7% 20 19.6% Total 600 100.0% 102 100.0%
Top items of importance Item Satisfaction Percentage 2009-2010 Satisfaction Percentage 1994-1995 Satisfaction Percentage Shift
Classes are scheduled at convenient times. 58.3% 56.6% 1.7%
The quality of instruction in most classes is excellent. 61.1% 62.9% -1.8% I am able to register for classes with few confl icts. 57.2% 54.9% 2.3% Faculty are knowledgeable in their fi elds. 65.6% 63.8% 1.8% I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 66.7% 61.6% 5.1% The campus is safe and secure for all students. 62.2% 52.8% 9.4% There is a good variety of courses provided on campus. 63.7% 58.9% 4.8% My academic advisor is knowledgeable about my program requirements. 57.1% 55.9% 1.2% Program requirements are clear and reasonable. 60.4% 57.2% 3.2% Faculty are fair and unbiased in treatment of students. 57.2% 50.0% 7.2% Financial aid is available for most students. 52.6% 44.8% 7.8%
My academic advisor is approachable. 57.6% 56.9% 0.7%
This school does whatever it can to help students reach educational goals. 50.0% 43.8% 6.2% The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate. 35.1% 36.1% -1.0% Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course. 52.2% 48.3% 3.9% Faculty are available after class and during offi ce hours. 62.7% 60.5% 2.2%
Items with greatest satisfaction shifts Item Satisfaction Percentage 2009-2010 Satisfaction Percentage 1994-1995 Satisfaction Percentage Shift Academic support services meet the needs of students. 50.4% 39.4% 11.0% Library resources and services are adequate. 63.1% 52.2% 10.9% There are a suffi cient number of study areas on campus. 56.4% 45.6% 10.8% Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. 39.5% 28.8% 10.7% People on this campus respect and are supportive of each other. 51.7% 41.9% 9.8% The campus is safe and secure for all students. 62.2% 52.8% 9.4% The equipment in the lab facilities is kept up to date. 57.7% 48.3% 9.4%
The campus staff are caring and helpful. 56.8% 47.5% 9.3%
There are convenient ways of paying my school bill. 59.5% 50.2% 9.3% Computer labs are adequate and accessible. 60.0% 50.9% 9.1% I generally know what’s happening on campus. 42.5% 33.4% 9.1% Administrators are approachable to students. 52.1% 43.2% 8.9% Financial aid awards are announced in time. 42.2% 33.3% 8.9%
Observations on these satisfaction shifts:
• Community college satisfaction levels are generally higher than four-year private and public institutions. This could be a refl ection of value perception by students—because students pay signifi cantly less than what it costs to attend a four-year institution, they may be more inclined to feel their education was worth it. These higher satisfaction levels have remained consistent over time.
• While the majority of items have increased in student satisfaction, there are a few important items that have seen slight decreases in satisfaction. These include the perception of the quality of instruction in most classes and the amount of available student parking. These last two items could be a refl ection of the number of students attending community colleges outpacing the resources campuses have for increasing the number of instructors or parking capacity.
• There is still room for additional improvement with high importance items where 50 percent or less of students indicated that they are satisfi ed or very satisfi ed, such as:
— This school does whatever it can to help students reach educational goals. — The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate.
— Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. — I generally know what’s happening on campus. — Financial aid awards are announced in time.
• The items that are at the bottom of satisfaction are also at the bottom of importance to students (see observations on page 11). These are items that are targeted for specifi c subpopulations, including veterans, displaced homemakers, and students requiring child care services.
Interesting observations on the satisfaction scores:
Highest satisfaction percentage: 69.4 percent Median percentage: 53.2 percent
Observation 3:
The fi nancial aid factor has increased in importance in enrollment
decisions.
The SSI assesses factors to enroll—the relative infl uence of different reasons why students chose to attend a college. Compared to students in 1994-1995, the students in 2009-2010 indicated higher importance for fi nancial aid as a factor in their decision to enroll at community colleges:
Shifts in factors to enroll Factors to enroll Importance Percentage 2009-2010 Importance Percentage 1994-1995 Importance Percentage Shift Cost 82.6% 79.6% 3.0% Financial aid 73.6% 64.9% 8.7% Academic reputation 67.4% 65.1% 2.3% Geographic setting 59.4% 55.2% 4.2%
Personalized attention prior to enrollment 54.8% 50.1% 4.7%
Campus appearance 50.1% 44.4% 5.7%
Size of institution 49.8% 44.7% 5.1%
Recommendations from family/friends 43.6% 35.8% 7.8%
Opportunity to play sports 23.4% 15.3% 8.1%
Sorted in order of importance for 2009-2010
Observations on the enrollment factors:
• All factors have increased in importance over the past 15 years. • Cost has held consistent as the highest factor.
• Financial aid had the largest increase in importance over the past 15 years. Combined with cost, these items show that affordability is still the primary motivation for most students who attend community colleges. • The increase in the importance of fi nancial aid as a factor in the decision to enroll was even more apparent
for four-year public institutions (15.1 percent) and less apparent at four-year private institutions (5.1 percent).
• Academic reputation remained the strongest non-economic factor by a signifi cant margin, despite having a small increase.
• Recommendations from family and friends, and the opportunity to play sports have also had large jumps in importance for community colleges.
Items with top three satisfaction percentages
The campus is well-maintained. 69.4%
I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 66.7%
Faculty are knowledgeable in their fi elds. 65.6%
Items with bottom three satisfaction percentages
This campus provides effective support services for
displaced homemakers. 31.4% Child care facilities are available on campus. 27.7%
Observation 4:
The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in fi nancial items.
As identifi ed in the previous observation, fi nancial aid played a greater role in the decisions of students to attend community colleges in 2009-2010 than it did in 1994-1995. The fi nancially related items on the SSI have also increased in importance ranking for students at community colleges, along with corresponding improvements in students’ satisfaction levels.Students
are more
satisfi ed
with the
convenient
ways to pay
a school bill
in
2009-2010.
Financial items Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Shift Percentage Satisfaction 2009-2010 Percentage Satisfaction 1994-1995 Percentage Satisfaction ShiftFinancial aid is available
for most students. 11 22 11 52.6% 44.8% 7.8% There are convenient
ways of paying school bill. 24 25 1 59.5% 50.2% 9.3% Financial aid counselors
are helpful. 33 49 16 46.2% 40.6% 5.6%
Billing policies are
reasonable. 36 53 17 54.6% 47.6% 7.0%
Financial aid awards are
announced in time. 37 44 7 42.2% 33.3% 8.9%
Observations on the financial items:
• The increasing importance of fi nancial aid refl ects a growing dilemma for community colleges. Between 1999 and 2010, tuition at two-year colleges outpaced the median family income in most states, and fi nancial aid did not keep pace with cost increases (National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2011).
• Satisfaction levels have shifted up along with the importance shifts—not to the same extent that we have seen in improvements at year public institutions, but greater than we have seen at four-year private institutions. For example, four-four-year public students indicate a 16.7 percent increase in satisfaction with adequate fi nancial aid being available, and satisfaction with fi nancial aid counselors being helpful increased 7.9 percent at four-year private institutions.
• Students are more satisfi ed with their interaction with fi nancial aid services. This may be infl uenced by technology improvements that make it easier to communicate with fi nancial aid counselors, submit paperwork, and track fi nancial aid awards.
• While satisfaction has improved on all of these items, it is interesting to note that student satisfaction levels are hovering just above or just below the 50 percent level for all items.
Observation 5:
The importance ranking and satisfaction level shifts in campus climate items.
As noted earlier, Noel-Levitz has documented the link between student satisfaction and retention, and in the 2009 study Linking Student Satisfaction and Retention, campus climate was identifi ed as a key predictor of studentsatisfaction. (Note: This study was focused on the four-year student experience, but may be applied to the experience of students at community colleges as well.) The following shifts in importance rankings and satisfaction scores have been observed at community colleges over the past 15 years.
Campus climate items
Importance Rank 2009-2010 Importance Rank 1994-1995 Importance Shift Percentage Satisfaction 2009-2010 Percentage Satisfaction 1994-1995 Percentage Satisfaction Shift
The campus is safe and
secure for all students. 6 8 2 62.2% 52.8% 9.4% This school does whatever
it can to help me reach my educational goals.
13 14 1 50.0% 43.8% 6.2%
Students are made to feel
welcome on campus. 24 29 5 61.6% 53.9% 7.7% It is an enjoyable
experience to be a student on this campus.
24 37 13 60.0% 53.4% 6.6%
The campus staff are
caring and helpful. 37 46 9 56.8% 47.5% 9.3% I seldom get the
“run-around” on this campus. 40 29 -11 49.0% 44.9% 4.1% Administrators are
approachable to students. 49 54 5 52.1% 43.2% 8.9% People on this campus
respect and are supportive of each other.
55 60 5 51.7% 41.9% 9.8%
Channels for expressing student complaints are available.
58 54 -4 40.9% 33.6% 7.3%
I generally know what’s
happening on campus. 66 54 -1 42.5% 33.4% 9.1%
Observations on the campus climate items:
• As indicated earlier, some of these items are among those with the biggest increases in satisfaction overall. Community colleges are making signifi cant improvements in the areas of campus staff being caring and helpful, people respecting and being supportive of one another, and providing information so students know what is happening on campus. Many of the customer service initiatives that have been implemented at community colleges may be having a positive impact here.
• Several of these items had the greatest shifts in importance, both positive and negative. Technology may be having some infl uence on decreasing the relative importance of items such as campus run-around or channels for expressing student complaints. Campuses may also have addressed many of these issues to the satisfaction of students, making the issues less important now.
Conclusions: What Do the Data Tell Us?
Perhaps the most surprising conclusion of these results is that the satisfaction and priorities have not changed dramatically in 15 years, despite many signifi cant changes to the higher education environment. However, there are a number of signifi cant points that community colleges should keep in mind:
• Instructional issues remain the top focus of students. Throughout the period of this study, the academic experience has remained the paramount concern and priority of students. Academic quality is therefore vital to student satisfaction and the overall success of the institution; if students feel they are receiving a quality education, they are more likely to feel positive about their
experiences. Consequently, community colleges need to be focused on academic quality and the relationships that are built between students and faculty, inside and outside of the classroom.
• There is a need for strong fi nancial aid services at community colleges. The increase in fi nancial aid as a factor in the decision to enroll indicates that community colleges need to be prepared to offer fi nancial aid to their students and to provide quality service in this area. While satisfaction has increased in the areas of fi nancial aid being announced in time to be helpful, the amount of available fi nancial aid, and fi nancial aid counselors being helpful, all of these items still have satisfaction scores near or less than 50 percent. Given the likelihood of cost increases in the foreseeable future, this issue will likely gain in importance.
• Performance gaps have shrunk in many areas. Campuses have a performance gap when they have low satisfaction on items that are a high priority. However, importance levels have stayed consistent over the last 15 years, while satisfaction levels have improved in core areas such as instruction, advising, campus climate, recruitment/fi nancial aid, registration effectiveness, and safety and security. These decreased gaps refl ect improved experiences for students as campuses actively work to make improvements.
• Students appear to feel safer on campus. With high profi le breaches of security on a few campuses, a hot topic in recent years has been the general safety on campuses. According to students’ satisfaction scores, though, students today feel safer than they did in the mid-1990s. It is possible that, after the severe breaches of security at campuses earlier in the 2000s, institutions are being more deliberate and visible about campus security, thereby reassuring students that campuses are safer.
• Students want an “enjoyable” campus experience. At two-year institutions, as well as four-year public and private campuses, students have expressed a desire for college to be enjoyable. This relates to how well they feel that they fi t on campus and how they feel about being a student; they want their campuses to provide a quality college experience, not just a quality education.
• Technology is likely driving some satisfaction improvements. Advances in information and communication technologies in the past 15 years have likely made changes in student satisfaction and priorities. Online access to information may be making issues such as library resources and campus run-around less important, as students can access so much information and perform many administrative tasks online. Likewise, faculty availability may be less of a priority due to e-mail access with faculty. Also along these lines, community colleges have seen nice increases in satisfaction with computer labs being adequate and the equipment in the lab facilities being kept up to date. The investments that two-year schools are making in technology are paying off with improved student perceptions.
• Community colleges have seen increases in customer service areas. The focus on quality improvement models among two-year institutions may be refl ected in the improved satisfaction of students with campus staff being caring and helpful, administrators being approachable, and
people on the campus being respectful and supportive of each other. This continued commitment may be important for two-year colleges to maintain because of their connection to the community and the opportunities for positive word-of-mouth, which is also refl ected in the increase of recommendations from family and friends as a factor in the decision to enroll.
• More campuses are taking a systematic approach to assessing student satisfaction. More than 44 percent of participating institutions in 2009-2010 had administered the Student Satisfaction Inventory six or more times, which is every two or three years, and more than 86 percent had administered the survey more than three times during the 15-year span.
• Systematic assessment has likely played a signifi cant role in increasing satisfaction. Committing to measure student satisfaction signals a commitment to improve student satisfaction. Satisfaction and priorities data provide these campuses with a way to prioritize resources and resolve the most pressing challenges for students. In addition, the emphasis of accrediting bodies on quality and outcomes may also be playing a role there as two-year institutions commit to improving the quality of the student experience and to being able to document those activities and improvements.
Taking action: How can campuses improve student satisfaction?
The results of campuses in this study illustrate several strategies that can help keep students satisfi ed, use resources more strategically, and take a signifi cant step toward strengthening student success and completion rates.
• Monitor trends on your campus. This can be accomplished by routine, regular satisfaction assessment. By essentially creating your own trend study, you can assess challenges and take the appropriate steps to address the most pressing concerns of students.
• Guide decisions with data. Satisfaction data can be used for strategic planning, satisfying accreditation requirements, identifying and removing roadblocks to student retention, and identifying campus strengths that can be communicated to current and prospective students. • Look back to move forward. Examining past challenges can prepare campuses for future issues.
Use past assessments to identify potential new challenges as well as ways to meet those challenges. • Benchmark your campus against similar institutions. By surveying students, you not only gain
insight into their opinions and priorities, but you also take a valuable step toward staying competitive with other campuses. You can gauge your strengths and challenges in keeping current students satisfi ed and fi nding benefi ts to attract new students. That benchmarking is only possible through regular assessment.
Sources:
Dadashova, A., Hossler, D., and Shapiro, D. (2011). National postsecondary enrollment trends: Before, during, and
after the Great Recession. Bloomington, IN: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
Retrieved from http://www.studentclearinghouse.info/signature/
Fischer, K. (2011, May 15). Crisis of confi dence threatens colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Higher-Education-in-America-a/127530/
National Center for Public Policy and Education. (2011, June). Affordability and transfer: Critical to increasing baccalaureate degree completion. Policy Alert. Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/pa_at/index.shtml Schreiner, L. (2009). Linking student satisfaction and retention. Coralville, IA: Noel-Levitz.
Appendix II: Community College Participation
The following table documents the number of institutions and student records for each of the 15 academic years included in this study. The date ranges are September 1 of the fi rst year through August 31 of the second year. These counts are specifi c to community colleges.
Academic Year Institutions Students
1994-1995 46 19,315 1995-1996 73 27,744 1996-1997 83 42,475 1997-1998 79 41,230 1998-1999 127 63,138 1999-2000 162 79,866 2000-2001 147 77,689 2001-2002 150 92,520 2002-2003 141 89,188 2003-2004 149 90,902 2004-2005 130 82,060 2005-2006 135 77,425 2006-2007 96 66,173 2007-2008 117 65,394 2008-2009 82 58,584 2009-2010 102 69,798
Appendix I: SSI Reliability and Validity
The Student Satisfaction Inventory is a very reliable instrument. Both the
two-year and four-two-year versions of the SSI show exceptionally high internal reliability.
Cronbach’s coeffi cient alpha is 0.97 for the set of importance scores and is 0.98
for the set of satisfaction scores. It also demonstrates good score reliability
over time; the three-week, test-retest reliability coeffi cient is 0.85 for importance
scores and 0.84 for satisfaction scores.
There is also evidence to support the validity of the SSI. Convergent validity
was assessed by correlating satisfaction scores from the SSI with satisfaction
scores from the College Student Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSSQ), another
statistically reliable satisfaction instrument. The Pearson correlation between
these two instruments (r = 0.71; p<0.00001) is high enough to indicate that the
SSI’s satisfaction scores measure the same satisfaction construct as the CSSQ’s
scores, and yet the correlation is low enough to indicate that there are distinct
differences between the two instruments.
Adirondack Community College, NY AIB College of Business, IA Aiken Technical College, SC Aims Community College, CO Alamance Community College, NC Alexandria Technical College, MN Allan Hancock College, CA Allen Community College, KS Altamaha Technical College, GA American Samoa Community
College, AQ Ancilla College, IN
Anne Arundel Community College, MD Antelope Valley College, CA Appalachian Technical College, GA Arkansas Northeastern College, AR Arkansas State University Beebe
Branch, AR
Arrowhead Community College Region, MN
Ashland Community College, KY Ashland Technical College, KY Athens Technical College, GA Augusta Technical College, GA Bakersfi eld College, CA
Baltimore City Community College, MD Barton County Community College, KS Bay Noc Community College, MI Bergen Community College, NJ Bismarck State College, ND Black Hawk College, IL
Blackhawk Technical College, WI Blinn College, TX
Blue River Community College-Metropolitan Community College, MO
Bowling Green Technical College, KY Brazosport College, TX
Brevard Community College, FL Bristol Community College, MA Brookdale Community College, NJ Brookhaven College, TX
Bucks County Community College, PA Bunker Hill Community College, MA Burdett School, MA
Burlington County College, NJ Butler Community College, KS Butler County Community College, PA Butte College, CA
Calhoun Community College, AL California Culinary Academy, CA Camden County College, NJ Canada College, CA
Cankdeska Cikana Community College, ND
Cape Cod Community College, MA Capital Community College, CT Carl Sandburg College, IL Carteret Community College, NC Cascadia Community College, WA
Catawba Valley Community College, NC Cedar Valley College, TX
Central Arizona College, AZ
Central Carolina Technical College, SC Central Community College, NE Central Florida Community College, FL Central Georgia Technical College, GA Central Kentucky Technical College, KY Central Lakes College, MN
Central Maine Community College, ME Central New Mexico Community
College, NM
Central Ohio Technical College, OH Central Texas College, TX
Central Virginia Community College, VA Central Wyoming College, WY Centralia College, WA Century College, MN Cerritos College, CA
Cerro Coso Community College, CA Chandler-Gilbert Community
College, AZ Chatfi eld College, OH
Chattahoochee Technical College, GA Chesterfi eld-Marlboro Technical
College, SC
Chipola Junior College, FL
Chippewa Valley Technical College, WI Cincinnati State Technical and
Community College, OH City University of New York
Kingsborough Community College, NY
Clark College, WA
Clark State Community College, OH Clatsop Community College, OR Cleveland State Community College, TN Clinton Community College, IA Cloud County Community College, KS Clovis Community College, NM Coahoma Community College, MS Coconino Community College, AZ Coffeyville Community College, KS Colby Community College, KS College of Aeronautics, NY College of DuPage, IL College of Eastern Utah, UT College of Lake County, IL College of San Mateo, CA College of Southern Nevada, NV College of the Desert, CA College of the Mainland, TX College of the Siskiyous, CA Collin County Community College
District, TX
Colorado Mountain College, CO Columbus State Community College, OH Community and Technical College of
Shepherd, WV
Community College of Allegheny County, Allegheny Campus, PA
Community College of Allegheny County, Boyce Campus, PA
Community College of Allegheny County, College Center-North, PA
Community College of Allegheny County, South Campus, PA
Community College of Denver, CO Community College of Philadelphia, PA Community College of Rhode Island, RI Community College of Vermont, VT Concorde Career Institute - Anaheim, CA Concorde Career Institute -
Composite, MO
Concorde Career Institute - Miami, FL County College of Morris, NJ Cowley County Community College, KS Coyne American Institute, IL Cuesta College, CA
Cumberland Valley Technical College, KY Cuyahoga Community College, OH Cypress College, CA
Dakota College at Bottineau, ND Danville Area Community College, IL Davidson County Community College, NC Daymar Institute - Nashville, TN De Anza College, CA
DeKalb Technical College, GA
Delaware County Community College, PA Delaware Technical and Community
College, Stanton-Wilmington Campus, DE
Delaware Technical and Community College, Terry Campus, DE Delgado Community College, LA Delta College, MI
Denmark Technical College, SC Dodge City Community College, KS Douglas College, BC
Dunwoody College of Technology, MN Dyersburg State Community College, TN East Central Technical College Eastern Arizona College, AZ
Eastern Gateway Community College, OH Eastern Idaho Technical College, ID Eastern Iowa Community College
District, IA
Eastern Maine Community College, ME Eastern New Mexico
University-Roswell, NM Eastfi eld College, TX Edison Community College, OH Edmonds Community College, WA El Camino College, CA
El Centro College, TX El Paso Community College, TX Elgin Community College, IL Elizabeth Technical College, KY
Appendix III: Community College List of Schools
The following campuses have administered the SSI at least once in the past 15 years. These schools are specifi c to the original Form A version. This list includes 600 institutions.
Elizabethtown Community and Technical College, KY Erie Community College North
Campus, NY
Essex County College, NJ Estrella Mountain Community
College, AZ
Evergreen Valley College, CA Feather River Community College
District, CA Fisher College, MA
Flathead Valley Community College, MT Flint Hills Technical College, KS Florence-Darlington Technical
College, SC Florida State College at
Jacksonville, FL Floyd College, GA
Forsyth Technical Community College, NC
Fort Belknap College, MT Fort Peck Community College, MT Fort Scott Community College, KS Fox Valley Technical College, WI Francis Tuttle Technology Center, OK Frederick Community College, MD Fresno City College, CA
Gadsden State Community College, AL Galveston College, TX
Garden City Community College, KS Gateway Community and Technical
College, KY
Gateway Community College, AZ Gateway Technical College, WI Georgia Military College, GA Georgia Northwestern Technical
College, GA
Glen Oaks Community College, MI Glendale Community College, AZ Gloucester County College, NJ Grand Rapids Community College Grande Prairie Regional College, AB Grayson County College, TX Great Basin College, NV Greenville Technical College, SC Griffi n Technical College, GA Guilford Technical Community
College, NC
Gwinnett Technical College, GA Halifax Community College, NC Harcum Junior College, PA Harford Community College, MD Hartnell College, CA
Hazard Community College, KY Hazard Technical College, KY Heart of Georgia Technical College, GA Heartland Community College, IL Henderson Community College, KY Hennepin Technical College, MN Henry Ford Community College, MI Hibbing Community College, MN Highland Community College, KS Highland Community College-Technical
Center, KS
Highline Community College, WA Hillsborough Community College, FL
Hinds Community College, MS Hocking College, OH
Hopkinsville Community College, KY Horry-Georgetown Technical
College, SC
Houston Community College, TX Hudson County Community College, NJ Hutchinson Community College, KS Illinois Central College, IL
Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, Olney Central College, IL Illinois Valley Community College, IL Independence Community College, KS Indian River Community College, FL Indiana Business College -
Anderson, IN
Indiana Business College - Columbus, IN
Indiana Business College - Evansville, IN
Indiana Business College - Indianapolis Medical, IN
Indiana Business College - Marion, IN Indiana Business College - Muncie, IN Indiana Business College - Terra
Haute, IN
Indiana Business College - Vincennes, IN Institute of Design and
Construction, NY
Inver Hills Community College, MN Iowa Western Community College, IA Irvine Valley College, CA
ITT Technical Institute - Arlington, TX ITT Technical Institute - Aurora, CO ITT Technical Institute - Austin, IN ITT Technical Institute - Buena
Park, CA
ITT Technical Institute - Garland, TX ITT Technical Institute - Houston
North, TX
ITT Technical Institute - Houston South, TX
ITT Technical Institute - Houston West, TX
ITT Technical Institute - San Antonio, TX
ITT Technical Institute - San Diego, CA J.F. Drake State Technical College, AL Jackson Community College, MI Jackson State Community College, TN Jefferson Community and Technical
College, KY
Jefferson Community College, NY Jefferson Davis Community College, AL Jefferson Technical College, KY Johnson County Community
College, KS
Kankakee Community College, IL Kansas City Kansas Area Technical
School, KS
Kansas City Kansas Community College, KS
Kansas State University - Salina, KS Kaskaskia College, IL
Katharine Gibbs School - Montclair, NJ
Katharine Gibbs School - Providence, RI Kaw Area Technical School, KS Kennebec Valley Community College, ME Kent State University - Regional
Campuses, OH
Kent State University, Ashtabula Campus, OH
Kent State University, East Liverpool Campus, OH
Kent State University, Geauga Campus, OH
Kent State University, Salem Campus, OH Kent State University, Trumbull
Campus, OH
Kent State University, Tuscarawas Campus, OH
Kentucky Advanced Technology Institute, KY
Kilian Community College, SD Kirtland Community College, MI Labette Community College, KS Lake Land College, IL Lake Region State College, ND Lake Superior College, MN Lakeland College - Canada, AB Lakeshore Technical College, WI Lamar State College - Orange, TX Lamar State College - Port Arthur, TX Lanier Technical College, GA Lansing Community College, MI Laramie County Community College, WY Laredo Community College, TX Las Positas College, CA
Latter-Day Saints Business College, UT Laurel Technical College, KY Lehigh County Community College, PA Lewis and Clark Community College, IL Lincoln College-Normal (Midwest College
of Cosmetology), IL
Lincoln Land Community College, IL Lincoln Technical Institute, IA Little Priest Tribal College, NE Long Beach City College, CA Lord Fairfax Community College, VA Los Angeles City College, CA Los Angeles Mission College, CA Los Angeles Valley College, CA Los Rios Community College, CA Louisiana State University at
Alexandria, LA
Louisiana Technical College Sullivan Campus, LA
Lower Columbia College, WA Luzerne County Community College, PA MacCormac College, IL
Macomb Community College, MI Macon Technical Institute, GA Madison Area Technical College, WI Madisonville Community College, KY Madisonville Technical College, KY Manatee Community College, FL Manhattan Area Technical College, KS Marion Technical College, OH MarTech College, AL Martin University, IN Mary Holmes College, MS
Massachusetts Bay Community College, MA
Mayo Technical College, KY Maysville Community College, KY Merritt College, CA
Mesa Community College, AZ Miami University Middletown, OH Michigan Community and Technical
Colleges, MI
Mid Michigan Community College, MI Middle Georgia College, GA Middlesex Community College, MA Midlands Technical College, SC Mid-South Community College, AR Mid-State College, ME
Mid-State Technical College, WI Miles Community College, MT Minneapolis Community and Technical
College, MN
Minnesota State Community and Technical College, MN Minnesota West Community and
Technical College, MN Mira Costa College, CA Mission College, CA
Mitchell Community College, NC Mitchell Technical Institute, SD Monroe County Community College, MI Montana State University - Billings,
College of Technology, MT Montana State University - Great Falls
College of Technology, MT Montana Tech of the University of
Montana - South, MT Montcalm Community College, MI Monterey Peninsula College, CA Montgomery College, MD Montgomery County Community
College, PA
Moraine Park Technical College, WI Moraine Valley Community College, IL Morton College, IL
Motlow State Community College, TN Moultrie Technical College, GA Mount Royal College, AB Mount Wachusett Community
College, MA
Mountain Empire Community College, VA
Mountain View College, TX Muscatine Community College, IA Muskegon Community College, MI Nassau Community College, NY Navarro College, TX
Neosho County Community College, KS New Castle School of Trades, PA New England Institute of
Technology, FL
New Hampshire Technical College at Berlin, NH
New Hampshire Technical College at Claremont, NH
New Hampshire Technical College at Laconia, NH
New Hampshire Technical College at Manchester, NH
New Hampshire Technical College at Nashua, NH
New Hampshire Technical College at Stratham, NH
New Hampshire Technical Institute, NH
New Mexico Junior College, NM New Mexico State University - Dona
Ana Branch Community College, NM New Mexico State University at
Alamogordo, NM
Newport Business Institute, PA North Central Missouri College, MO North Central Technical College, KS North Dakota State College of
Science, ND
North Georgia Technical College, GA North Hennepin Community
College, MN North Idaho College, ID North Lake College, TX
North Metro Technical College, GA North Shore Community College, MA Northeast Community College, NE Northeast Texas Community
College, TX
Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, WI
Northeastern Junior College, CO Northern Essex Community
College, MA
Northern Kentucky Technical College, KY
Northern Maine Community College, ME
Northern Marianas College, MP Northland Community and Technical
College, MN Northwest College, WY Northwest Kansas Technical
College, KS
Northwest Technical College, MN Northwestern Michigan College, MI Northwestern Technical College, GA Northwestern Technical Institute, GA Norwalk Community College, CT Ocean County College, NJ Odessa College, TX
Ogeechee Technical College, GA Okefenokee Technical College, GA Oklahoma City Community College, OK Oklahoma State University - Oklahoma
City, OK
Oklahoma State University - Okmulgee, OK
Onondaga Community College, NY Orange County Community College, NY Orangeburg-Calhoun Technical
College, SC
Ouachita Technical College, AR Owens Community College, OH Owensboro Community and Technical
College, KY
Owensboro Technical College, KY Palm Beach Community College, FL Palo Alto College, TX
Palo Verde College, CA Palomar College, CA
Paradise Valley Community College, AZ Patrick Henry Community College, VA Pearl River Community College, MS Peninsula College, WA
Pennsylvania Highlands Community College, PA
Pensacola State College, FL Phillips Community College of the
University of Arkansas, AR Phoenix College, AZ
Piedmont Community College, NC Piedmont Technical College, SC Piedmont Virginia Community
College, VA
Pierpont Community and Technical College, WV
Pierpont Community and Technical College of Fairmont State University, WV
Pikes Peak Community College, CO Pima County Community College
District, AZ
Pioneer Pacifi c College, OR Pitt Community College, NC Portland Community College, OR Potomac State College of West Virginia
University, WV Prairie State College, IL Pratt Community College, KS Prestonsburg Community College, KY Pulaski Technical College, AR Quinsigamond Community College, MA Reading Area Community College, PA Red Rocks Community College, CO Redlands Community College, OK Redwoods Community College
District, CA Rend Lake College, IL Richland College, TX
Richland Community College, IL Rio Hondo College, CA
Roane State Community College, TN Robeson Community College, NC Rochester Community and Technical
College, MN
Rockford Business College, IL Rockingham Community College, NC Rockland Community College, NY Rogue Community College, OR Rowan Technical College, KY Saddleback College, CA
Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, MI Saint Paul College, A Community &
Technical College, MN Salem Community College, NJ Salina Area Technical School, KS Salt Lake Community College, UT San Antonio College, TX San Bernardino Valley College, CA San Joaquin Valley College, CA San Jose City College, CA San Juan College, NM
Sandersville Technical College, GA Santa Fe Community College, FL
Santa Fe Community College, NM Sauk Valley Community College, IL Savannah Technical College, GA Schoolcraft College, MI Scott Community College, IA Scottsdale Community College, AZ Seattle Central Community College, WA Seminole State College, OK
Seminole State College of Florida, FL Seward County Community College, KS Shawnee Community College, IL Shoreline Community College, WA Sitting Bull College, ND
Skyline College, CA
Somerset Community College, KY Somerset Technical College, KY South Arkansas Community
College, AR
South Central College, MN South Mountain Community
College, AZ South Plains College, TX South Puget Sound Community
College, WA
South Suburban College of Cook County, IL
Southeast Area Technical School, KS Southeast College of Technology, TN Southeast Community College, NE Southeast Kentucky Community and
Technical College, KY Southeast Technical Institute, SD Southern Alberta Institute of
Technology, AB Southern Maine Community
College, ME
Southern State Community College, OH Southern University in Shreveport, LA Southwest Kansas Technical
School, KS
Southwest Tennessee Community College, TN
Southwestern College, CA
Southwestern Community College, NC Southwestern Illinois College, IL Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
Institute, NM
Spartanburg Community College, SC Spokane Community College, WA Spokane Falls Community College, WA St. Clair County Community College, MI St. Cloud Technical and Community
College, MN St. Luke’s College, MO
State Fair Community College, MO Sullivan County Community College, NY Surry Community College, NC Swainsboro Technical Institute, GA Tacoma Community College, WA Taft College, CA
Tarrant County College, TX Technical College of the
Lowcountry, SC
Terra Community College, OH Texas State Technical College
- Amarillo, TX
Texas State Technical College - Harlingen, TX
Texas State Technical College - West Texas, TX
Thaddeus Stevens State School of Technology, PA
The Christ College of Nursing and Health Sciences, OH The College of The Bahamas, BH The Community College of Baltimore
County-Catonsville Campus, MD The Community College of Baltimore
County-Dundalk Campus, MD The Community College of Baltimore
County-Essex Campus, MD The Ohio State University Agricultural
Technical Institute, OH The University of Montana - Helena
College of Technology, MT Three Rivers Community College, MO Treasure Valley Community College, OR Trenholm State Technical College, AL Tri-County Technical College, SC Trident Technical College, SC Trinidad State Junior College, CO Trocaire College, NY
Tulsa Community College, OK U.S. Coast Guard Institute, OK Universal Technology College of
Puerto Rico, PR
Universidad Jose Cecilio del Valle, HO University of Akron - Wayne
College, OH
University of Alaska - Bristol Bay, AK University of Alaska - Chukchi, AK University of Alaska - Interior/
Aleutians, AK
University of Alaska - Kenai Peninsula/ Kachemak Bay, AK
University of Alaska - Ketchikan, AK University of Alaska - Kodiak, AK University of Alaska - Kuskokwim, AK University of Alaska - Mat-Su, AK University of Alaska - Northwest, AK University of Alaska - Rural College, AK University of Alaska - Sitka, AK University of Alaska - Tanana
Valley, AK
University of Arkansas Community College at Hope, AR
University of Arkansas Community College at Morrilton, AR University of Cincinnati - Clermont
College, OH
University of Hawaii Kauai Community College, HI
University of Montana - Missoula College of Technology, MT Victor Valley College, CA
Vincennes University, IN Virginia Highlands Community
College, VA
Volunteer State Community College, TN Walla Walla Community College, WA Warren County Community College, NJ Washington County Community
College, ME
Washington State Community College, OH
Washtenaw Community College, MI Waubonsee Community College, IL Waukesha County Technical
College, WI
Wayne County Community College District, MI
West Georgia Technical College, GA West Kentucky Community and
Technical College, KY
West Kentucky Technical College, KY West Valley College, CA
West Virginia University at Parkersburg, WV
Western Dakota Technical Institute, SD Western Iowa Tech Community
College, IA
Western Nebraska Community College, NE
Western Nevada College, NV Western Technical College, WI Western Wyoming Community
College, WY
Westwood College of Aviation Technology, CA
Westwood College of Aviation Technology, CO
Westwood College of Aviation Technology, TX
White Earth Tribal and Community College, MN
Wichita Area Technical College, KS Williamsburg Technical College, SC Williamson Free School of Mechanical
Trades, PA
Williston State College, ND Wilson Technical Community
College, NC
Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College, WI
Wright State University - Lake Campus, OH
York County Community College, ME York County Technical College, ME York Technical College, SC York Technical Institute, PA
Appendix IV: Complete Community College Demographic Comparison
Demographic Variables 2009-2010 1994-1995 Shift
Female 58% 57% 1% Male 42% 43% -1% 24 and younger 61% 55% 6% 25 and older 39% 45% -6% African American 10% 9% 1% Caucasian/White 65% 72% -7% Hispanic 9% 7% 2% Asian 6% 3% 3% Day 79% 74% 5% Evening 21% 26% -5% Full-time 71% 64% 7% Part-time 29% 36% -7% First year 48% 54% -6% Second year 33% 30% 3% Third year 11% 10% 1% Fourth year 7% 6% 1% 3.5 GPA 29% 26% 3% 3.0-3.49 28% 27% 1% 2.5 - 2.99 19% 20% -1% 2.0 - 2.49 10% 10% 0% 1.99 or below 3% 3% 0% No credits 11% 14% -3% Full-time employment 26% 33% -7% Part-time employment 39% 41% -2% Not employed 35% 26% 9% Residence hall 4% 3% 1% Rent room/apartment 24% 26% -2% Parent’s home 41% 36% 5% Own house 24% 28% -4% In-state 95% 94% 1% Out-of-state 4% 4% 0% International 2% 2% 0% Yes–disability 8% 6% 2% No–disability 92% 94% -2% First choice 69% 69% 0% Second choice 22% 22% 0% Third choice 9% 9% 0%
Appendix V: Scale Scores Across All 15 Years
The 70 individual items on the SSI are clustered into 11 scales or categories on a statistical and
conceptual basis. This section of the study provides a trend analysis on the importance and satisfaction scores for six key scale areas across all 15 years of satisfaction data results. These are typically
important areas to students and ones that campuses should be focused on.
As noted in the charts below, importance scores have held relatively steady across the 15 years, with some variances in satisfaction scores. In recent years, satisfaction levels are generally improving in these areas, as campuses maintain regular assessment activities and work to improve the specifi c priority issues to students.
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Instructional Effectiveness 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Academic Advising
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Registration Effectiveness 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction Campus Climate
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction
Admissions and Financial Aid
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Importance Satisfaction
Appendix VI: Performance Gap Review
Another way to review the combination of importance and satisfaction data is with the performance gap. This score is simply the importance score minus the satisfaction score. As the previous charts illustrate, performance gaps exist between the level of importance students place in these categories and their perceived levels of satisfaction. The larger the performance gap, the greater the discrepancy between what students expect and their level of satisfaction. Across 15 years, the average performance gaps in these six categories are as follows:
Average performance gaps
Category Average Performance Gap
Instruction 0.84
Advising 0.99
Registration Effectiveness 0.81
Campus Climate 0.74
Admissions and Financial Aid 0.97
Safety and Security 1.12
The chart below refl ects the performance gaps for the six categories. The Safety and Security category consistently has the largest performance gaps (this scale also includes parking items). As the chart below illustrates, performance gaps in all six areas have consistently dropped in recent years, which matches the trend of improving satisfaction.
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Instruction Advising Campus Climate
Admissions and Financial Aid Safety and Security
Registration Effectiveness
Appendix VII: All Item Scores—Averages and Percentages for
Importance and Satisfaction
Item on the Community College Student Satisfaction Inventory, Form A Percentage Importance 2009-2010 Percentage Importance 1994-1995 Percentage Importance Shift Percentage Satisfaction 2009-2010 Percentage Satisfaction 1994-1995 Percentage Satisfaction Shift Average Importance 2009-2010 Average Importance 1994-1995 Average Importance Shift Average Satisfaction 2009-2010 Average Satisfaction 1994-1995 Average Satisfaction Shift 1. Students feel a sense of belonging. 57.3% 53.1% 4.2% 52.6% 47.8% 4.8% 5.47 5.32 0.15 5.29 5.12 0.17 2. Faculty care about me as an individual. 73.1% 73.5% -0.4% 55.6% 53.5% 2.1% 5.96 5.93 0.03 5.38 5.26 0.12 3. Instruction in vocational/ technical programs is excellent. 75.5% 79.3% -3.8% 54.8% 54.9% -0.1% 6.04 6.15 -0.11 5.39 5.32 0.07
4. Security staff are
helpful. 58.3% 53.5% 4.8% 42.8% 34.5% 8.3% 5.51 5.3 0.21 4.94 4.6 0.34
5. Registration
per-sonnel are helpful. 79.5% 77.6% 1.9% 56.3% 53.7% 2.6% 6.17 6.08 0.09 5.33 5.19 0.14 6. My academic
advisor is approachable.
80.7% 80.3% 0.4% 57.6% 56.9% 0.7% 6.22 6.18 0.04 5.37 5.31 0.06
7. Financial aid is available for most students. 80.5% 77.7% 2.8% 52.6% 44.8% 7.8% 6.23 6.09 0.14 5.19 4.86 0.33 8. Classes are scheduled at convenient times. 86.7% 88.0% -1.3% 58.3% 56.6% 1.7% 6.43 6.43 0 5.44 5.29 0.15 9. Internships/ practical experiences are provided. 70.0% 71.2% -1.2% 42.5% 43.0% -0.5% 5.9 5.91 -0.01 4.95 4.94 0.01 10. Child care facilities are avail-able on campus. 37.8% 40.0% -2.2% 27.7% 23.2% 4.5% 4.45 4.58 -0.13 4.45 4.25 0.2 11. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies 70.0% 65.5% 4.5% 39.5% 28.8% 10.7% 5.9 5.74 0.16 4.93 4.54 0.39 12. Academic advisor helps set goals to work toward.
72.9% 71.2% 1.7% 46.4% 41.9% 4.5% 5.99 5.92 0.07 4.99 4.83 0.16
13. Financial aid awards are announced in time. 75.6% 70.1% 5.5% 42.2% 33.3% 8.9% 6.06 5.86 0.2 4.88 4.54 0.34 14. Library resources and services are adequate. 77.5% 80.9% -3.4% 63.1% 52.2% 10.9% 6.12 6.19 -0.07 5.62 5.15 0.47 15. I am able to register for classes with few confl icts.
85.8% 85.7% 0.1% 57.2% 54.9% 2.3% 6.36 6.32 0.04 5.36 5.2 0.16
16. This institution shows concern for individual students.
