Student Satisfaction @ Shoreline Community College

1. Student Satisfaction @ Shoreline Community College Results from the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)

2. Description First selected for administration in Fall, 2001 Focus on two critical elements: Importance and Satisfaction and the gap between the two Well-established reliability and validity Availability of regional and national comparison data

3. Description • Availability of companion employee survey (Institutional Priorities Survey--IPS) to compare student/employee perceptions • Included 10 locally developed questions in the same importance/satisfaction measurement format

5. Measures 12 Dimensions of Community College Education (In order of perceived importance at Shoreline—both years) • Instructional Effectiveness (quality of instruction, course variety, availability of faculty) • Academic Advising/Counseling (primarily advising) • Registration Effectiveness (helpfulness of personnel, bookstore staff, policies) • Safety and Security (parking, lighting, staff) • Concern for the Individual (fair treatment, concern for success)

6. Measures 12 Dimensions of Community College Education (In order of perceived importance at Shoreline—both years) • Academic Services (library, labs, tutoring) • Campus Climate (welcoming atmosphere, attention to individual needs, approachability of staff, community reputation) • Admissions and Financial Aid • Service Excellence (helpfulness of staff in various areas) • Student Centeredness (caring staff, quality of experience)

7. Measures 12 Dimensions of Community College Education (In order of perceived importance at Shoreline—both years) • Campus Support Services (career services, veterans services, orientation) • Responsiveness to Diverse Populations (satisfaction only)

8. History and Sampling • Administered in late Fall Quarter 2001 and 2003 • Sample of classes structured to assure proportionate representations of disciplines and times of day. • Sample for 2003 included 92 classes, 1785 students (unduplicated) • Administration by volunteer proctors

9. History and Sampling • 2003 return rate: 1268 (71%) – Similar to 2001 • Demographic comparisons of population and actual survey returns indicate sample was an accurate reflection of the campus at large • Continue administration on regular basis in future years to monitor satisfaction • Explore web-administration alternative to minimize impact on instructional time.

10. Dissemination of Results • 3 Formats • Electronic reports prepared by publisher available on intranet • Detailed summary prepared locally—available on intranet (http://intranet.shore.ctc.edu/intranetiear/Surveys/surveys.htm) • Hard copy (most detail) at Library reserve desk

11. Dissemination of Results • Presentations to full student services staff, Student Success Committee, and one academic division

12. Results • Scale review • Importance: 1=low; 7=high importance • Satisfaction: 1=low; 7=high satisfaction • Gap: publisher suggests that an importance-satisfaction gap of 1.5 scale points or greater should be a focus of concern (for high-importance areas). This was used in local analysis along with 1.25 as a marginal gap score

13. Overall Summary

14. Satisfaction Comparison: SCC & Western Region CC’s

15. Satisfaction Comparison: SCC Students and Employees

16. Highlights--Most Important Dimensions

17. Strengths • Instructional Effectiveness: • Instructional excellence • Course variety • Knowledge and availability of faculty • Opportunities for intellectual growth

18. Strengths • Registration Effectiveness: • Helpfulness of registration personnel • Clear and well-publicized policies and procedures • Helpfulness of bookstore staff*

19. Strengths • Academic Services: • Adequacy of library resources and services* • Adequacy and accessibility of computer labs • Helpfulness of library staff

20. Challenges • Safety and Security: • Perceived adequacy of parking spaces • Lighting and security of parking areas*

21. Challenges • Academic Advising (marginal gap): • Advisors’ knowledge of transfer requirements • Help with reaching educational goals • Concern with individual success

22. Challenges • Instructional Effectiveness • Timely feedback to students (marginal) • Early warnings to students doing poorly in class (marginal)*

23. Local Items--Students

25. Local Items--Employees