|
Description/Definition:
This indicator reports the proportion of a sample of currently enrolled and former students who indicate that the quality of institutional programs and services meets or exceeds their expectations.
Methodology and Data Sources:
Core questions were developed by the work group and piloted in a written survey. If a college has already planned to do a more comprehensive survey of students, the core questions could be included by colleges in their surveys and adapted to other formats, such as telephone surveys. The survey and/or telephone instrument will be conducted with a sample of all currently enrolled and former students at the end of Fall semester.
Reporting Periods/Timelines:
The recommended annual reporting period is 2nd quarter for the preceding academic term.
Special Conditions/Issues:
Issues related to sample size, timing and frequency of the survey must be addressed in the reporting system development. An alternative approach could be a single annual state-wide survey, versus twenty-eight locally-defined surveys conducted by individual colleges.
Work Group Members:
Mary Jane Bond, Wayne County (Group Leader)
Dick Bazile, Grand Rapids
Rhonda Burke, MI Dept. of Education
Greg Cutler, Bay de Noc
Katherine Grosser, Kirtland
Dr. James Homan, Henry Ford
Marty Orlowski, Oakland
Roger Palay, Washtenaw
Charles Shreve, Northwestern Michigan
Richard Wedemeyer, Glen Oaks
Pilot Project Colleges:
Henry Ford (written survey results analyzed from a Fall ’97 student satisfaction survey)
Oakland (telephone survey of current and former students)
Wayne County (designed and tested a survey in post card format)
Sample Format
Design of reporting format is underway.
History
The proportion of credit and non-credit courses offered after 5 PM on weekdays and during the day on weekends was proposed by the Michigan DMB as one potential measure of this indicator.
Background
The work group met to develop a draft of the proposed survey instrument. A draft of the key areas to be surveyed and a suggested format for that form was submitted to the task force. Additional suggestions for enhancements were made and two short form draft instruments were developed to be pilot tested during the Spring 1998.
Using the proposed student satisfaction survey, a paper and pencil survey was adapted and reviewed by one pilot college. A second set of questions was developed and refined for use in a telephone survey format by a second pilot. Finally, a third pilot college developed and tested a post card survey (see Appendix).
Colleges may wish to collect more detailed information regarding issues of student satisfaction for their own individual internal uses recognizing that neither short form survey will provide in-depth analysis of all aspects of community college services. However, each survey highlights the key areas that seem to encompass the major service and instructional areas of each college and will provide ample indicators of basic issues of overall student satisfaction.
Research Summary
Twenty-two of twenty-six community colleges surveyed indicated that they could report on this indicator with current resources and from existing data. Many colleges indicate potential difficulty in tracking down former students.
Definitions
Former students are those who were enrolled in the previous Fall session, but who are not enrolled in the current Winter session (assuming the survey is conducted during the Winter term).
Estimated Cost of Pilot
Costs associated with conducting the telephone survey of 400 students, including data collection, data processing and basic data analysis, were approximately $2000. Costs associated with conducting the written post card survey were incidental as they were distributed on campus to current students so no mailing charges were incurred.
Conclusions
Indications from the pilot surveys suggest that a telephone methodology would be best for conducting this survey. In addition, to ensure consistency of the methodology across Michigan community colleges, one research organization should be contracted to perform the survey for all the colleges. Colleges will have the discretion to develop more detailed surveys to suit their individual needs by contracting with the research group individually.
Recommendations for Performance Indicator:
The task force recommends use of student satisfaction as a Michigan Community College Core Performance Indicator in conjunction with other satisfaction indicators and that standardized surveys be performed through a central agency.
|