1 strategic planning workshops february 23, 2007
TRANSCRIPT
1
Strategic Planning Workshops
February 23, 2007
2
Noel Levitz
About the Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)
•SSI examines a broad range of 73 items that comprise the college experience
•Utilizes a unique dual measurement system that assist institutions with prioritizing campus improvements
•Students indicate the level of priority they assign to an item•Students assess how satisfied they are with an item
•The inventory provides participating campuses with national benchmark comparison gap scores by institution type to help put the findings in context.
•The SSI has been administered by more than 1,700 colleges and universities since its inception in 1994•More than 280,000 students at 400 private 4-year institutions participated in the study between Fall 2003 & Spring 2006
3
Noel Levitz
Student Satisfaction Inventory @ Philadelphia University
•Survey administered online to a random sample of 50% of all enrolled students (1,750) between 11/29 and 12/18
•475 total responses for a 27% response rate•Slightly over-representative of day FT students•Respondents had slightly higher HS GPAs (one tenth)
•Representative based on gender, race and school
•Institutional Priorities Survey also administered to 788 faculty and staff to examine differences in perceptions of faculty and staff when compared to students and to validate student responses.
•308 total responses for a 39% response rate•Responses heavily over-representative of full-time faculty & staff
4
Noel LevitzNoel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2006 - Importance vs. Satisfaction
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
<-- Lower - Satisfaction - Higher -->
<--
Low
er
-
Im
port
ance
-
H
igher
-->
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
StrengthsChallenges Possible Challenges
5
Strengths
•The content of the courses within my major is valuable.
•The instruction in my major field is excellent.
•Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
•The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent.
•My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major.
•Major requirements are clear and reasonable.
•My academic advisor is approachable.*
•I am able to experience intellectual growth here.
•There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus.
•Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.
•The PhilaU website is a useful tool for current students (CI3)
•On the whole, the campus is well-maintained.**
•Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.
•Library resources and services are adequate.*Satisfaction with this item is statistically lower than other private 4-year institutions.**Satisfaction with this item is statistically higher than other private 4-year institutions.
6
Challenges
*Satisfaction with this item is statistically no different than other private 4-year institutions.
•I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts.
•Security staff respond quickly in emergencies.
•The campus is safe and secure for all students.
•Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.*
•The level of service I receive is acceptable given the cost of attending PhilaU (CI4)
•Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.)
•There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.
•Adequate financial aid is available for most students.
•There is adequate studio/design space available on campus (CI5)
•The institution proactively helps me resolve issues with financing my education and paying my bill (CI7)
•On-campus housing is available to those who want it (CI10)
•Computer labs are adequate and accessible.
7
Challenges
*Satisfaction with this item is statistically no different than all other private 4-year institutions.
•Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning.*
•The bookstore maintains the art/design supplies I need for class work (CI2)
•The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable.
•I seldom get the "run-around" when seeking information on this campus.
•Financial aid counselors are helpful.
9
Persistence RatesFfreshman to Sophomore Retention & Graduation Rates of Entering Cohorts
First-time, Full-Time Degree-Seeking Freshmen73%
72%
68% 70%
70%
71%
69%
69%
68% 71%
72% 74%
73%
50% 52%
52%
50% 5
4%
54%
49%51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1993n=414
1994n=444
1995n=520
1996n=554
1997n=525
1998n=607
1999n=614
2000n=619
2001n=640
2002n=619
2003n=606
2004n=666
2005n=683
Rete
nti
on o
r G
raduati
on R
ate
Freshman to Sophomore Year Retention Rate
6-Year Graduation Rate
10
Strategic Themes
Upon analyzing the Noel Levitz data in conjunction with other research data available (e.g. NSSE, EBI, etc.), there were four strategic themes that were apparent:
•Instructional Effectiveness•Academic Advising/Registration Effectiveness•Student Centeredness/Concern for the Individual•Campus Life/Residence Hall Facilities
11
Instructional Effectiveness
Quality of instruction is of foremost importance to students according to the 2006 National Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report. Noel Levitz combines the following 14 items into it’s overall measure of instructional effectiveness.
•Faculty care about me as an individual.•The content of the courses within my major is valuable.•The instruction in my major field is excellent.•Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.•I am able to experience intellectual growth here.•There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus.•Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course.•Faculty take into consideration student differences as they teach a course.•The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent.•Adjunct faculty are competent as classroom instructors.•Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.•Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.•There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus.•Graduate teaching assistants are competent as classroom instructors.
12
Instructional Effectiveness
Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2006 - Importance vs. Satisfaction
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
<-- Lower - Satisfaction - Higher -->
<--
Low
er
-
Im
port
ance
-
H
igher
-->
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
StrengthsChallenges
Red = Instructional Effectiveness itemsBlue = All other items
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
13
Instructional Effectiveness
Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2006 - Importance vs. Satisfaction
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
<-- Lower - Satisfaction - Higher -->
<--
Low
er
-
Im
port
ance
-
H
igher
-->
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
StrengthsChallenges
Faculty care about me as an individual
There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus
Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.
14
Instructional Effectiveness
Chart 4 - Enriching Educational Experiences
(Mean Score)
25.6
41.2
26.7
39.9
0
25
50
75
100
First-Year Senior
PhilaUNSSE
Chart 2 - Active and Collaborative Learning (Mean Score)
45.553.1
41.350.4
0
25
50
75
100
First-Year Senior
PhilaUNSSE
Chart 1 - Level of Academic Challenge (Mean Score)
54.3 56.051.8
55.8
0
25
50
75
100
First-Year Senior
PhilaU
NSSE
Chart 3 - Student-Faculty Interaction
(Mean Score)
31.3
40.432.1
41.3
0
25
50
75
100
First-Year Senior
PhilaU
NSSE
Noel Levitz SSI data mirrors NSSE Data
•Most items in covering instructional effectiveness were on par with or slightly better than other NSSE institutions.
•Level of academic challenge (mean score) for first-year students is significantly higher than other NSSE institutions.
•Engagement in “active & collaborative learning” significantly higher for first-year students.
•NSSE summary online at http://www.philau.edu/ir
17
Academic Advising
“Next to the quality of instruction, academic advising is
consistently the next-most-important area of the college
experience to students in our studies of student
satisfaction, ahead of registration, campus safety, and
support services, to name just a few…
Research has shown that specific elements of a quality
advising system improve student retention rates, such as
the establishment of a student’s relationship with a faculty
or staff member and helping students to clarify academic
and career goals.” 1
1 National Research Report: FIVE-YEAR TREND STUDY: National Student Satisfaction Report, 2005-06 Noel-Levitz, Inc.
18
Academic Advising
Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2006 - Importance vs. Satisfaction
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
<-- Lower - Satisfaction - Higher -->
<--
Low
er
-
Im
port
ance
-
H
igher
-->
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
StrengthsChallenges
My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual.
Campus Item 6 - My academic advisor is available when I need to see him/her
My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward.
My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements
My academic advisor is approachable.
Major requirements are clear and reasonable.
19
Academic Advising
Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2006 - Importance vs. Satisfaction
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
<-- Lower - Satisfaction - Higher -->
<--
Low
er
-
Im
port
ance
-
H
igher
-->
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
StrengthsChallenges My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual.
My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward.
My academic advisor is approachable.
Blue = PhilaUGreen = All 4-year Privates
21
“Specifically, our findings show that students are
significantly more satisfied that they can register for the
classes they need with few conflicts and that registration
staff are helpful.
Based on these findings, it appears that addressing course
scheduling conflicts has become a higher priority on
campuses. This is crucial, because course scheduling
conflicts are one of the single biggest causes of extended
time to complete a degree, as in cases where students take
five or six years to complete a degree instead of four as
national data has clearly demonstrated.” 2
2 National Research Report: FIVE-YEAR TREND STUDY: National Student Satisfaction Report, 2005-06 Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Registration Effectiveness
22
Registration Effectiveness
Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2006 - Importance vs. Satisfaction
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
<-- Lower - Satisfaction - Higher -->
<--
Low
er
-
Im
port
ance
-
H
igher
-->
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
StrengthsChallenges
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts
The personnel involved in registration are helpful
There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus
Blue = PhilaUGreen = All 4-year Privates
23
Student Centeredness
Items focused on student centeredness, concern for the individual and campus climate generally fell in a second “tier” of importance. However, many of these items were at the top of the list when analyzing the gap between PhilaU satisfaction scores and those of other 4-year privates.
•Five of the top 10 largest satisfaction gaps were in these areas•The personnel involved in registration are helpful•Financial aid counselors are helpful•The business office is open during hours which are convenient for most students•Most students feel a sense of belonging here•My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual
24
Student Centeredness
Philadelphia University
Four-Year Private Institutions
Item number
s Text for the items
Number of responses
to the item Import Satis Import Satis
Mean Differenc
e
27 The personnel involved in registration are helpful
428 6.23 4.65 6.14 5.20 -0.55 ***
5 Financial aid counselors are helpful 374 6.25 4.46 6.18 4.89 -0.43 ***
20 The business office is open during hours which are convenient for most students
392 5.96 4.65 5.92 5.02 -0.37 ***
1 Most students feel a sense of belonging here 465 5.90 4.76 5.81 5.11 -0.35 ***
14 My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual
450 6.28 4.88 6.22 5.21 -0.33 ***
57 I seldom get the "run-around" when seeking information on this campus
410 6.26 4.25 6.13 4.56 -0.31 ***
10 Administrators are approachable to students 435 5.92 4.75 5.89 5.03 -0.28 ***
59 This institution shows concern for students as individuals
443 6.37 4.89 6.28 5.16 -0.27 ***
71 Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available
376 6.16 4.34 5.99 4.59 -0.25 **
2 The campus staff are caring and helpful 466 6.30 5.13 6.29 5.37 -0.24 ***
6 My academic advisor is approachable 449 6.50 5.24 6.34 5.48 -0.24 **
25
Student Centeredness
Philadelphia University
Four-Year Private Institutions
Item number
s Text for the items
Number of responses to
the item Import Satis Import Satis
Mean Differenc
e
29 It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus.
451 6.50 5.03 6.35 5.26 -0.23 **
13 Library staff are helpful and approachable. 441 5.67 5.19 5.70 5.40 -0.21 **
3 Faculty care about me as an individual. 468 6.36 5.16 6.18 5.31 -0.15 *
45 Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.
444 6.29 5.26 6.23 5.37 -0.11
30 Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual.
327 5.84 4.74 5.64 4.82 -0.08
65 Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours.
421 6.34 5.57 6.28 5.49 0.08
54 Bookstore staff are helpful. 432 5.76 5.33 5.80 5.31 0.02
26
Student Centeredness
This mirrors the results seen in the NSSE
•PhilaU seniors were less likely to report being satisfied with “the quality of your relationships with administrative personnel and offices.” This is the only item behind the difference in the NSSE “supportive campus environment” benchmark score.
•The NSSE also showed that PhilaU freshmen and seniors were statistically less likely to say they would choose PhilaU if they could start over, when compared to their counterparts at other
Chart 1 - Supportive Campus Environment (Mean Score)
58.953.5
59.1 56.6
0
25
50
75
100
First-Year Senior
PhilaU
NSSE
schools. Nearly one fourth of freshmen (23%) and seniors (24%) would “probably” or “definitely” not choose PhilaU again. This, despite statistically similar levels of satisfaction with their entire educational experience.
This mirrors the results seen in the NSSE
•PhilaU seniors were less likely to report being satisfied with “the quality of your relationships with administrative personnel and offices.” This is the only item behind the difference in the NSSE “supportive campus environment” benchmark score.
•The NSSE also showed that PhilaU freshmen and seniors were statistically less likely to say they would choose PhilaU if they could start over, when compared to their counterparts at otherschools. Nearly one fourth of freshmen (23%) and seniors (24%) would “probably” or “definitely” not choose PhilaU again. This, despite statistically similar levels of satisfaction with their entire educational experience.
27
Campus Life
Noel Levitz combines the 15 items into its scale measure of campus life. Items focused on campus life were generally of lowest importance to students. Interestingly, this is the one scale area where PhilaU students were more satisfied, on the whole, than were students at other institutions.
Top items in this area include:•The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time.•There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students.•The intercollegiate athletic programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit.•There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria.
28
Philadelphia University
Four-Year Private Institutions
Item number
s Text for the items
Number of responses
to the item Import Satis Import Satis
Mean Differenc
e
52 The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time.
416 6.12 5.83 5.78 4.82 1.01 ***
42 There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students.
363 5.66 4.83 5.32 4.34 0.49 ***
24 The intercollegiate athletic programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit.
361 5.29 4.66 5.11 4.32 0.34 ***
38 There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria.
410 6.18 4.41 5.90 4.07 0.34 ***
73 Student activities fees are put to good use. 357 5.95 4.71 6.01 4.49 0.22 *
31 Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics.
291 5.62 5.32 5.41 5.14 0.18 *
9 A variety of intramural activities are offered. 374 4.80 4.88 4.88 4.73 0.15
67 Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 391 6.20 5.20 6.12 5.07 0.13
40 Residence hall regulations are reasonable. 328 6.04 4.66 5.76 4.56 0.10
46 I can easily get involved in campus organizations.
397 5.99 5.19 5.73 5.15 0.04
Campus Life
29
Philadelphia University
Four-Year Private Institutions
Item number
s Text for the items
Number of responses
to the item Import Satis Import Satis
Mean Differenc
e
64 New student orientation services help students adjust to college.
376 6.00 5.07 5.88 5.04 0.03
56 The student handbook provides helpful information about campus life.
380 5.73 5.06 5.63 5.09 -0.03
63 Student disciplinary procedures are fair. 336 6.10 4.91 5.99 4.97 -0.06
30 Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual.
327 5.84 4.74 5.64 4.82 -0.08
23 Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.)
352 6.48 4.08 6.00 4.50 -0.42 ***
Campus Life
30
Residence Halls
Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 2006 - Importance vs. Satisfaction
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
<-- Lower - Satisfaction - Higher -->
<--
Low
er
-
Im
port
ance
-
H
igher
-->
75th Percentile Satisfaction
5.24
25th Percentile Satisfaction
4.66
Median Importance
6.25
StrengthsChallenges Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.)
On-campus housing is available to those who want it (CI10)
Blue = PhilaUGreen = All 4-year Privates
31
Residence Halls
Institutional Priorities Survey revealed disconnect in priorities•Students placed Hall conditions 13th most important (out of 60)•Faculty & Staff placed Hall conditions 51st
Data from the EBI Resident Study confirms this
•Two of the four Top Priorities in the EBI study were:•Floor or Hall Facilities•Personal Space or Room in the Hall
•Floor or Hall Facilities had the second lowest mean performance score, and was the 2nd highest predictor of students overall rating of the residence program effectiveness.•Of the 104 institutions in our Carnegie classification, participating in the EBI study last year, we ranked 104th on Floor or Hall Facilities.
32
The full interactive report is available on the web at:
http://www.philau.edu/ir