Report on the University of Michigan-Flint Student Satisfaction

Report on the University of Michigan-Flint Student Satisfaction Inventory Results

May 2012

Submitted By:

Mark J. Perry, Professor of Finance and Business Economics Mary Jo Sekelsky, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

Fawn Skarsten, Director, Office of Institutional Analysis

ii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ iv

REPORT ON THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT ............................................................. 1

STUDENT SATISFACTION INVENTORY RESULTS ................................................................. 1

METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 1

Survey Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Survey Instrument .................................................................................................................................... 1

Strengths of the SSI ................................................................................................................................. 2

Limitation of the SSI ................................................................................................................................. 3

Scale Interpretation .................................................................................................................................. 3

The Twelve Composite Scales ................................................................................................................. 3

SSI RESULTS FOR 2011 ........................................................................................................... 4

Sample Demographics ............................................................................................................................. 4

Overall Composite Scores ........................................................................................................................ 6

Overall Composite Scores for 2011 SSI, UM-Flint vs. National Averages.......................................... 6

Overall Measure of Student Satisfaction .................................................................................................. 7

Importance Ratings .................................................................................................................................. 8

What is Important to UM-Flint Students and How Does That Compare to National Means? ............. 8

What is Least Important to UM-Flint Students and How Does That Compare to National Means? ... 9

Satisfaction Ratings .................................................................................................................................. 9

What Are UM-Flint Students Most Satisfied With? .............................................................................. 9

What Are UM-Flint Students Least Satisfied With?............................................................................. 10

Performance Gap: The Difference Between Importance and Satisfaction Scores .................................. 11

What are UM-Flint Students Most Satisfied With, Based on Performance Gaps? ............................. 11

What are UM-Flint Students Least Satisfied With, Based on Performance Gaps? ............................ 12

TREND ANALYSES - HOW DO 2011 SSI RESULTS COMPARE TO 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, AND 2008? ....................................................................................................................... 13

Overall Satisfaction Trends: Has Satisfaction Changed Over Time at UM-Flint? .................................... 14

Comparison of the 12 Composite Scales, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 ........................ 16

Changes in Performance Gap Scores, 2008 to 2011 .............................................................................. 19

Areas of Greatest Improvement, 2008 to 2011 ................................................................................... 19

Areas of Least Improvement, 2008 to 2011 ........................................................................................ 20

SPECIAL POPULATIONS ANALYSIS, HOUSING STUDENTS ................................................. 21

Overall Composite Scores for 2011 SSI, Residential Students vs. Non-Residential ............................... 21

What is Important to Residential Students? ............................................................................................. 23

What Are Residential Students Most Satisfied With? .............................................................................. 24

What Are Residential Students Least Satisfied With? ............................................................................. 25

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION #116: DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES ........................................... 26

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DECISION TO ATTEND UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT 26

MATRIX FOR PRIORITIZING ACTION ...................................................................................... 27

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................... 30

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................. 30

Strengths .................................................................................................................................................. 31

Challenges................................................................................................................................................ 31

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX A: STUDENT SATISFACTION INVENTORY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................... 33

APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS ......................................................................... 37

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF MEAN SCORES FOR UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT SSI ITEMS 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, AND 2011 ................................................................ 38

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF MEAN SCORES FOR RESIDENCE HALL ................................ 46

APPENDIX E: FALL 2011 ADMINISTRATION ITEMIZED EXPENSES ..................................... 50

iii

Figures

Figure 1 Mean Difference in Satisfaction, UM-Flint vs. National Comparison Group, 2011 ........................... 7 Figure 2 Overall Student Satisfaction, UM-Flint vs. National Average, 2011 ................................................. 8 Figure 3 UM-Flint Overall Student Satisfaction ............................................................................................. 14 Figure 4 College Experience meets Expectations, 1996–2011 .................................................................... 15 Figure 5 Would you enroll here again, 1996-2011? ...................................................................................... 15 Figure 6 Difference in Mean Satisfaction at UM-Flint by Scale, 1996–2011 ............................................... 17 Figure 7 Mean Difference in Satisfaction for Composite Scales, Residence Hall Students vs.

Non-Residence Hall Students, 2011 .............................................................................................. 22 Figure 8 Factors Influencing the Decision to Attend ..................................................................................... 27 Figure 9 Matrix for Prioritizing Action 2011 ................................................................................................... 28 Figure 10 Matrix for Prioritizing Action 2011 Residential vs. Non-residential ............................................... 29

Tables

Table 1 Demographic Comparison of the UM-Flint Student Body and the SSI Sample Group ...................... 5 Table 2 Composite Scores for the 12 Scales, UM-Flint vs. National, 2011 SSI ............................................. 6 Table 3 Top Ten Most Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Students, 2011 ........................................................ 8 Table 4 Top Ten Least Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Students, 2011 ....................................................... 9 Table 5 Top Ten SSI Satisfaction Items for UM-Flint Students, 2011 .......................................................... 10 Table 6 Top Ten Items UM-Flint Students Are Least Satisfied With, By Satisfaction Mean ........................ 11 Table 7 Top Ten Items Students Are Most Satisfied With, Based on Gap Scores ....................................... 12 Table 8 Top Ten Items Students are Dissatisfied With, Based on Gap Scores ........................................... 13 Table 9 UM-Flint Overall Student Satisfaction, 1996-2011 ........................................................................... 14 Table 10 College Experience meets Expectations, 1996–2011 ................................................................... 15 Table 11 Would you enroll here again, 1996-2011? ..................................................................................... 15 Table 12 Difference in Satisfaction Means by Scale, 1996-2011 ................................................................. 17 Table 13 Academic Advising Scale Items, UM-Flint SSI 2008 vs. 2011 ....................................................... 18 Table 14 Safety & Security Scale Items, UM-Flint SSI 2008-2011 ............................................................... 19 Table 15 Top Ten Improvements from 2008-2011, Ranked by the Largest Decrease in ............................. 20 Table 16 Top Ten Least Improved Areas, Ranked by Increase in Performance Gap .................................. 21 Table 17 Composite Scores for the 12 SSI Scales, Residence Hall Students vs. Non-Residence Hall

Students, 2011 .............................................................................................................................. 22 Table 18 Top Ten Most Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Residence Hall Students ..................................... 23 Table 19 Top Ten Least Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Residence Hall Students .................................... 23 Table 20 Top Ten SSI Satisfaction Items for UM-Flint Residential Students, Based on Mean Satisfaction 24 Table 21 Top Ten Items Residential Students Are Most Satisfied With, Based on Gap Scores .................. 24 Table 22 Top Ten Items Residential Students Are Least Satisfied With, by Satisfaction Mean ................... 25 Table 23 Top Ten Items Residential Students Are Least Satisfied With, Based on Gap Scores ................. 25 Table 24 Downtown Businesses ................................................................................................................... 26 Table 25 Factors Influencing the Decision to Attend .................................................................................... 27

iv

Executive Summary University of Michigan-Flint

Student Satisfaction Inventory Results

The Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), conducted in fall 2011, consisted of a sample of 1,432 students participating in the study of student satisfaction. Each UM-Flint student responded to approximately 200 separate items in the written survey instrument, giving us a total of approximately 286,400 individual pieces of information on our students, including their expectations of the campus experience at UM-Flint on nearly 100 individual items on a 7-point scale; their level of satisfaction with the campus experience at UM-Flint on almost 100 individual items on a 7-point scale; and detailed demographic information on approximately 12 items. We are confident our sample size and sample composition exceed the necessary thresholds to make valid generalizations from our sample about the UM-Flint student body. We can therefore make valid statistical inferences from our sample about the UM-Flint student body at the 95 percent level of confidence with an acceptable and small margin of error. We summarize the main findings from the 2011 SSI survey below:

o When individual items are grouped in composite scales, UM-Flint is above the national average on all but one of the 12 scales, at the highest reported level of statistical significance, 0.001 (***). Campus Life was above national average at the 0.01 (**) significance level.

o The Academic Advising scale had the greatest improvement in satisfaction between 2008 and 2011. The scale mean satisfaction in 2008 was 5.50 increasing to 5.59 in 2011, significant at the 0.05 (*) level.

o The largest change was seen in supplemental question #78 “I am currently advised

in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met.” This item showed a satisfaction mean of 5.49 in 2008 and 5.70 in 2011, a difference of 0.21 that is significant at the 0.01 level. Also increasing were satisfaction means for “knowledgeable advisors” and “approachable advisors.”

o When compared to 2008 results, UM-Flint student satisfaction was significantly

higher in 2011 on roughly 3/5th of the items, suggesting continuing and significant improvements in the quality of the educational services we are providing.

o UM-Flint students continue to express concern they cannot always easily get the

classes they need to graduate on time.

Strengths

Strengths of UM-Flint are its excellent instruction, faculty who are knowledgeable and accessible, and quality of instruction. Academic advisors are approachable and knowledgeable about requirements of majors, and students are seeing the requirements as reasonable and clear. Course variety and the commitment to academic excellence are reflected in students’ satisfaction with their ability to experience intellectual growth. These items all have significantly higher satisfaction than the national four-year public norms. Other items of strength are: variety of courses, campus staff are caring and helpful,

v

computer labs, academic departmental advising, campus well maintained, welcoming campus, reputation and drop/add policies. Challenges

Major challenges as indicated by survey results continue to be students’ ability to get the classes they need to complete degree programs. Campus safety is a challenge do to the City of Flint’s reputation; this is a primary concern for those living in the residence hall. Continued vigilance is needed for items: courses in my major are valuable; instruction in my major is excellent; faculty is fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students; and timely feedback on course progress. While these are strengths, they are also of high importance to students. “Tuition as a worthwhile investment” has increased in its importance do to the bleak job environment.

Matrix for Prioritizing Action

In the Matrix for Prioritizing Action above, 2011 SSI results show a strong relationship between “High Importance” and “High Satisfaction” for all 12 composite scales indicating that UM-Flint is generally meeting students’ expectations in all areas (see the cluster of symbols above). That is, UM-Flint students place a high level of importance on each of the 12 composite scales, and they also express a high level of satisfaction for each of the 12 scales. The inset above reveals students feel that Academic Advising, Campus Safety and Security, and Instructional Effectiveness are most important; students are satisfied most with Academic Advising, Campus Support Services, and Instructional Effectiveness.

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7

Saftey & Security Academic Advising Instructional Effectiveness

Registration Effectiveness Recuritment & Financial Aid Campus Climate

Student Centeredness Concern for the Individual Campus Support Services

Service Excellence Campus Life

Very Important

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Very Umimportant

vi

Strategic Plan Implications The University’s Strategic Plan charts the institutional course for the five-year period from 2011 to 2016. Rooted in the campus vision, “Engaging Minds, Preparing Leaders,” the plan articulates the campus mission:

The University of Michigan-Flint is a comprehensive urban university of diverse learners and scholars committed to advancing our local and global communities. In the University of Michigan tradition, we value excellence in teaching, learning, and scholarship; student centeredness; and engaged citizenship. Through personal attention and dedicated faculty and staff, our students become leaders and best in their fields, professions, and communities.

The University of Michigan-Flint campus implements its vision and mission in a wider context of growth and change. The strategic plan seeks to foster growth in enrollment and initiatives that support academic excellence and student success. The plan focuses on eleven strategic priorities that emerge from our mission:

Priority #1 - Enhance the quality and breadth of academic programs, and be a school of first choice; Priority #2 - Foster a culture in which faculty are supported in pursuing disciplinary and

interdisciplinary teaching, scholarship, and creative activity, and expand faculty professional development;

Priority #3 - Expand staff professional development; Priority #4 - Expand participation in civic engagement, experiential learning, and service learning; Priority #5 - Fulfill our student-centered mission as we serve a growing and increasingly diverse

student population; Priority #6 - Cultivate a campus climate that embraces diverse social identities and perspectives. Priority #7 - Increase enrollment, student retention and degree completion to achieve planned

growth; Priority #8 - Diversify revenues in keeping with the university’s mission; Priority #9 - Create a more integrated and systematic accounting of institutional data; use technology

to provide a competitive advantage in recruitment and retention; Priority #10 - Use and develop space that is responsive to a growing university;

Priority #11 - Enhance Alumni relations to create a culture of university pride. The plan places maximum opportunity for initiative in these strategic directions with operational units. Vision and mission will guide the activities and inform the culture of each unit.

1

Report on the University of Michigan-Flint

Student Satisfaction Inventory Results The USA GROUP NOEL-LEVITZ, INC., a leading educational consulting firm and nationally recognized leader in the field of student surveys, produces the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI). The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is an instrument used at thousands of institutions around the country to measure the level of student satisfaction with services and programs. Students at the University of Michigan-Flint (UM-Flint) have participated in the SSI survey six times to date, in the fall of 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008 and most recently in the fall of 2011.

Methods Survey Procedure The Division of Student Affairs carried out the task of SSI survey distribution. In order to achieve a representative sample, specific courses were targeted. With faculty consent, Student Affairs staff members scheduled classroom visits to explain the purpose of the SSI, and solicit student participation in the survey process. SSI surveys were distributed to 3,041 UM-Flint students between November 7 and December 9, 2011. To achieve a statistically valid sample size based on a student population of 8,262; our goal was to reach a target response of between 900 and 1,300 surveys. To maximize participant responses, incentives of coupons for food vendors or the campus bookstore were given to those students returning surveys. Surveys were distributed in a variety of UM-Flint classes along with detailed instructions, and students were asked to return completed surveys to class the following week. By targeting classes that had students from different levels and programs, we attempted to seek a representative sample of the UM-Flint student body. We are confident that our sample was a statistically valid sample both in terms of size and in terms of various demographic groups. See Table 1 on page 5 for a demographic comparison between students in the sample and the entire UM-Flint student body. Incentives proved successful, as the goal of collecting 1,300 completed surveys was surpassed by more than 10%. There were 1,432 students who returned surveys in 2011 (47% response) compared to 1,261 in 2008, 1,110 in 2005, 1,013 in 2002, 482 students in 1999 and 349 students in 1996. Survey Instrument The SSI Survey collects student feedback on nearly 200 items, including:

73 specific items of importance/expectation

10 supplemental importance items generated by the SSI committee

73 specific items of student satisfaction

6 items that assess the institution’s commitment to specific populations

2

3 summary items that assess overall satisfaction with the institution

10 items that assess pre-enrollment factors

13 items that identify demographic characteristics of respondents

2 optional items that further identify the demographic characteristics of respondents

The SSI uses a 7-point Likert scale with responses that range from “Very important“ (7) to “Not important at all” (1) for expectation items, and “Very satisfied” (7) to “Not satisfied at all” (1) for satisfaction items. See Appendix A on page 33 for a copy of the survey instrument. Strengths of the SSI

We can cost-effectively survey a statistically valid sample of UM-Flint students (N=1000) using a standardized survey instrument (SSI), from a nationally recognized leader (Noel-Levitz) in the field of student assessment. The SSI survey generates approximately 286,400 individual pieces of information on UM-Flint students' expectations and satisfaction, along with detailed student demographic information.

Using the SSI results from Noel-Levitz, we can conduct various statistical analyses and determine exact levels of statistical significance.

We can compare student expectations, satisfaction scores, and performance gaps at UM-Flint to a national peer group of students at other four-year public universities for benchmarking and program assessment purposes, and determine whether there are any statistically significant differences.

We can conduct detailed trend analyses to identify specific areas where statistically significant improvements have been achieved over time, and identify specific areas where university resources might be redirected in the future to bring about desired improvements in student satisfaction.

We can compare various sub-group populations at UM-Flint to determine if there are any statistically significant differences in student satisfaction between various groups, e.g., female vs. male students; non-minority vs. minority students; lower vs. upper level students, undergraduate vs. graduate students.

We can construct a composite, quantitative index measure of overall Student Satisfaction for the purposes of benchmarking student satisfaction at UM-Flint and conducting trend analyses.

3

Limitation of the SSI

A certain richness of response is lost in any survey instrument like the SSI that does not: a) allow for individualized answers to the questions; and b) involve direct face-to-face contact with respondents through personal interviews. While we recognize that the overwhelming strengths of the SSI outlined previously make it the "instrument of choice" for assessing student satisfaction at UM-Flint, we also acknowledge the SSI could be effectively supplemented with direct student contact in the form of campus conversations, fireside chats, focus groups, personal or group interviews, or other forums that would elicit direct student feedback on campus experiences at UM-Flint. Supplemental methods involving alternative means of obtaining student feedback such as the Faculty Student Concerns Committee Annual Student Open Forum have been put in place in the periods between SSI surveys. Scale Interpretation

The three most important areas of measurement reported by Noel-Levitz for the SSI are: 1) Importance, 2) Student Satisfaction, and 3) Performance Gaps. Performance gaps are the difference between importance scores and student satisfaction scores. Analyzing all three measurement areas gives us the most dynamic information about UM-Flint student satisfaction, and allows us to pinpoint areas where resources may be redirected. Further, Noel-Levitz provides composite scores from students at four-year public institutions across the country as a national benchmark to compare UM-Flint students’ levels of importance, student satisfaction and the performance gaps between importance and satisfaction. SSI results for 2011 are broken into three main analyses:

Overall 2011 Summary and Comparison to National Means

Trend Analysis comparing 2011UM-Flint SSI results to 2008, 2005, 2002,1999, and 1996 SSI results

Special Populations Analysis at UM-Flint for 2011 Student Housing population The Twelve Composite Scales For the four-year public university version of the SSI, Noel-Levitz takes the items of expectation and student satisfaction, and classifies the responses according to the following 12 composite scales:

Academic Advising Effectiveness (also called Academic Advising and Counseling Effectiveness) assesses the academic advising program, evaluating advisors' and counselors' knowledge, competence, approachability, and personal concern for students. (5 items)

Campus Climate evaluates how the institution promotes a sense of campus pride and belonging. (17 items)

Campus Support Services assesses the quality of support programs and services. (7 items)

4

Concern for the Individual assesses the commitment to treating each student as an individual. Included in this assessment are groups who deal personally with students (e.g., faculty, advisors, counselors, and staff). (6 items)

Instructional Effectiveness measures students' academic experiences, the curriculum, and the campus’ commitment to academic excellence. (14 items)

Admissions and Financial Aid Effectiveness measures the competence of admissions counselors, along with students' perceptions of financial aid programs. (14 items)

Registration Effectiveness assesses registration and billing, and whether the registration process is smooth and effective. (5 items)

Responsiveness to Diverse Populations assesses the institution's commitment to specific groups of students enrolled at the institution (e.g., under-represented populations, students with disabilities, commuters, part-time students, and adult learners). (6 items)

Safety and Security measures campus responsiveness to students' personal safety and security. (4 items)

Service Excellence measures quality of service and personal concern for students in various areas of campus. (8 items)

Student Centeredness measures the institution's attitude toward students and the extent to which they feel welcome and valued. (6 items)

Campus Life assesses the effectiveness of student life programs offered by the institution, ranging from athletics to residence life. This scale also assesses campus policies and procedures to determine students' perceptions of their rights and responsibilities. (15 items)

(Note: 17 items appear in more than one scale.)

SSI Results for 2011 Sample Demographics A total of 1,432 students responded to the 2011 SSI, which is a statistically valid sample size for a student population of 8,262. Of the sample respondents, 63% were female and 37% male, consistent with our current student population of 62% female and 38% male. Minorities represented 23% of the sample respondents, higher than the 21% minority population in our overall student body. Class load, class level and age were self-identified by respondents, and vary slightly from our student body demographics. Detailed comparative data is included in Table 1. Overall, we are confident the size and composition of our respondent sample in 2011 constitutes a statistically valid and representative sample, and allows us to make valid generalizations about the entire UM-Flint student body. Increasing the sample size to 2,000 or 3,000 students would not have significantly changed the overall results and would not have been cost effective.

5

Table 1 Demographic Comparison of the UM-Flint Student Body and the SSI Sample Group

General UM-Flint Student Body SSI Respondents

Demographic Information Fall 2011 Demographic Information Fall 2011

Gender Count Percent Gender Count Percent

No Answer No Answer 33

Male 3,169 38.36% Male 520 37.17%

Female 5,093 61.64% Female 879 62.83%

Total 8,262 Total 1,399

Age Group Count Percent Age Group Count Percent

18 and Under 783 9.48% 18 and under 167 11.95%

19 to 24 3,665 44.36% 19 to 24 803 57.48%

25 to 34 2,210 26.75% 25 to 34 261 18.68%

35 to 44 962 11.64% 35 to 44 87 6.23%

45 and over 642 7.77% 45 and over 79 5.65%


No Answer 35

Ethnicity Count Percent Ethnicity Count Percent

No Answer 352 4.26% No Answer 41

Non-Resident Alien 254 3.07% Non-Resident Alien

African-American 1,017 12.31% African-American 214 15.38%

Native American 61 0.74% American Indian 15 1.08%

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 7 0.08% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Asian 127 1.54% Asian 56 4.03%

White 5,944 71.94% White 935 67.22%

Hispanic/Latino 300 3.63% Hispanic 40 2.88%

Two or more 200 2.42% Other race 64 4.60% Total 8,262 Race - Prefer not to

respond 67 4.82%

Total 1,391

Full/Part Time Count Percent Full/Part Time Count Percent

No Answer 39

Part-time 3,401 41.16% Part-time 224 16.08%

Full-time 4,861 58.84% Full-time 1,169 83.92%


Class Count Percent Class Count Percent

No Answer 33

Freshman 1,225 14.83% Freshman 187 13.37%

Sophomore 1,387 16.79% Sophomore 218 15.58%

Junior 1,548 18.74% Junior 321 22.94%

Senior 2,799 33.88% Senior 457 32.67%

Special student 1 0.07%

Graduate 1,303 15.77% Graduate 196 14.01%

Other class level 19 1.36%


We note the difference between the “official” composition of full vs. part time students (59% full-time vs. 41% part-time) and the self-reported breakdown (84% vs.16%). We attribute this to the fact that students’ concept of full vs. part-time status is not necessarily consistent with the Registrar’s Office official definition (12 credits) and are confident we have a statistically valid and representative sample.

6

Overall Composite Scores Overall Composite Scores for 2011 SSI, UM-Flint vs. National Averages

Composite scores are reported for each of the 12 scales in Table 2 below. Group means are reported for importance and satisfaction scores for students at both UM-Flint and national four-year public universities. Performance gaps are the difference between the mean importance ratings and the mean satisfaction ratings, and are reported for each of the 12 scales. The last column shows the difference between UM-Flint student satisfaction means and national group satisfaction means. The difference in these scores is positive for each scale, indicating that UM-Flint students are more satisfied than students in our national comparison group. The difference in means between student satisfaction at UM-Flint and the national means for the 12 scales are displayed in Figure 1, ranked from highest to lowest.

Table 2 Composite Scores for the 12 Scales, UM-Flint vs. National, 2011 SSI

University of Michigan–Flint

Means and Gaps National Means and Gaps

Four-year Public

Mean Difference

Satisfaction

Composite Scale Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Performance

Gap Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Performance

Gap

UM-Flint Mean vs. National

Academic Advising 6.35 5.59 0.76 6.38 5.36 1.02 0.23 ***

Campus Climate 6.12 5.44 0.68 6.16 5.20 0.96 0.24 ***

Campus Life 5.53 5.12 0.41 5.78 5.03 0.75 0.09 **

Campus Support Services

6.04 5.54 0.50 6.10 5.41 0.69 0.13 ***

Concern For The Individual

6.11 5.34 0.77 6.17 5.11 1.06 0.23 ***

Instructional Effectiveness

6.36 5.54 0.82 6.37 5.36 1.01 0.18 ***

Recruitment and Financial Aid

6.17 5.20 0.97 6.21 4.97 1.24 0.23 ***

Registration Effectiveness

6.19 5.41 0.78 6.25 5.11 1.14 0.30 ***

Responsiveness to Diverse Populations

Not Collected

5.50 Not Collected Not

Collected 5.24 Not Collected 0.26 ***

Safety and Security

6.41 5.10 1.31 6.32 4.69 1.63 0.41 ***

Service Excellence 5.98 5.32 0.66 6.08 5.06 1.02 0.26 ***

Student Centeredness

6.12 5.50 0.62 6.14 5.21 0.93 0.29 ***

*** (**)(*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the 0.001 (0.01) (0.05) level.

7

Figure 1 Mean Difference in Satisfaction, UM-Flint vs. National Comparison Group, 2011

The results displayed in Table 2 and Figure 1 indicates several important findings:

o Student satisfaction at UM-Flint is higher than the national average for all

twelve scales. o The difference between student satisfaction at UM-Flint and student

satisfaction nationally is statistically significant for all 12 scales. A significance level of 0.001 indicates that differences in means would occur completely by chance only 1 out of 1000 times, and we are therefore 99.9% confident that UM-Flint students actually are more satisfied than students elsewhere.

o Performance gaps at UM-Flint are lower than the national performance gaps

for all twelve scales, which is another indication that students at UM-Flint are more satisfied with their overall campus experience than students at other four-year public universities.

Overall Measure of Student Satisfaction The group mean at UM-Flint for responses to the overall student satisfaction question was 5.49 (out of 7) compared to a group mean of 5.25 for students nationally, and that difference is statistically significant at the 0.001 level. (See Figure 2)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Safe

ty a

nd S

ecu

rity

Re

gis

tration

Eff

ectiven

ess

Co

ncern

For

Th

e In

div

idua

l

Serv

ice E

xcelle

nce

Instr

uctiona

l E

ffe

ctivene

ss

Ca

mpu

s C

limate

Stu

de

nt C

ente

redn

ess

Re

sp

onsiv

en

ess t

o D

ivers

eP

opu

lation

s

Re

cru

itm

ent a

nd F

ina

ncia

lA

id

Aca

dem

ic A

dvis

ing

Ca

mpu

s S

up

port

Serv

ices

Ca

mpu

s L

ife

Diffe

rence o

f M

eans

***

*** ***

***

*** *** *** *** ***

***

**

***

*** Difference is significant at the 0.001 level.

**Difference is significant at the 0.01 level.

8

Figure 2 Overall Student Satisfaction, UM-Flint vs. National Average, 2011

Note: Numbers above the bars are the group means for responses to the overall satisfaction question

Therefore, we can conclude that students are more satisfied with their overall campus experience at UM-Flint than students at other four-year public universities, and that difference is statistically significant. Importance Ratings What is Important to UM-Flint Students and How Does That Compare to National Means? The top ten most important individual survey items to UM-Flint students on the 2011 SSI are summarized in Table 3 below. As one would expect, UM-Flint students placed a high level of importance on the academic quality of UM-Flint faculty, the content of the courses within their major, campus safety, and academic advising. Scales represented in the top ten most important items are: Academic Advising, Instructional Effectiveness, Registration Effectiveness, and Safety and Security.

Table 3 Top Ten Most Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Students, 2011

Top Ten Most Important Items To UM-Flint Students, Ranked by Importance Mean (highest to lowest)

Fall 2011 National

Comparison

Rank Item Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap

Score Importance

Mean

1 The classes I need to complete my degree program are available

6.74 5.29 1.45 Supplemental

Question

2/3 The campus is safe and secure for all students 6.58 5.32 1.26 6.47

2/3 The content of the courses within my major is valuable

6.58 5.57 1.01 6.57

4 The instruction in my major field is excellent 6.57 5.58 0.99 6.55

5 Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field

6.56 5.87 0.69 6.52

6/7 The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent

6.51 5.61 0.90 6.50

6/7 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major

6.51 5.76 0.75 6.54

8 I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts

6.50 5.42 1.08 6.55

9 Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment 6.47 5.20 1.27 6.47

10 Major requirements are clear and reasonable 6.44 5.60 0.84 6.45

5.49 5.25

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

University of Michigan – Flint National Group Mean

9

What is Least Important to UM-Flint Students and How Does That Compare to National Means? The top ten least important individual survey items for UM-Flint students from the 2011 SSI are summarized below in Table 4. Of least importance to UM-Flint students are intramural sports and weekend activities. These results reflect the nature of our campus and its commuter status. All items on the Top Ten Least Important list were part of the “Campus Life” composite scale, and 9 of the 15 items (60%) in that scale were unimportant to students.

Table 4 Top Ten Least Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Students, 2011

Top Ten Least Important Items to UM-Flint Students, Ranked by Importance Mean (lowest to highest)

Fall 2011 National

Comparison


Mean Satisfaction

Mean

Gap Score

Importance Mean

1 A variety of intramural activities are offered

4.85 5.13 -0.28 5.02

2 The intercollegiate athletic programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit

4.91 4.59 0.32 5.37

3

The university values my health and well-being and offers opportunities that are both educational and supportive to achieve healthy lifestyles


Question

4 There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students

5.05 4.73 0.32 5.46

5 Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual

5.10 4.75 0.35 5.62

6 Residence hall regulations are reasonable

5.19 4.84 0.35 5.76

7 Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable

5.23 4.92 0.31 5.95

8 Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate activities

5.44 5.21 0.23 5.65

9 The student handbook provides helpful information about campus life

5.59 5.22 0.37 5.79

10 I generally know what's happening on campus

5.63 5.24 0.39 5.83

Satisfaction Ratings What Are UM-Flint Students Most Satisfied With?

Table 5 summarizes the top ten highest mean satisfaction scores reported by UM-Flint students in 2011. UM-Flint students report significantly high satisfaction levels for the quality of UM-Flint faculty and academic instruction, the reputation of the University of Michigan-Flint, the bookstore staff, computer labs and advising. All of the top ten questions had higher mean responses than the national means at a statistically significant level of 0.001. Composite scales represented in the top ten most satisfied items: Academic Advising, Campus Climate, Campus Support Services, Student Centeredness, and Instructional Effectiveness. Five of the top ten items students were satisfied with are contained in the Instructional Effectiveness composite scale.

10

Table 5 Top Ten SSI Satisfaction Items for UM-Flint Students, 2011

Top Ten Items Students Are Satisfied With Ranked by Satisfaction Means (highest to lowest)

Fall 2011 National

Comparison


Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap

Score

Satisfaction Mean

1 Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field

6.56 5.87 0.69 5.72 ***

2 This institution has a good reputation within the community

6.24 5.86 0.38 5.56 ***

3 On the whole, the campus is well-maintained

6.31 5.81 0.50 5.65 ***

4/5 Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours

6.35 5.79 0.56 5.62 ***

4/5 I am able to experience intellectual growth here

6.38 5.79 0.59 5.58 ***

6/7 Computer labs are adequate and accessible 6.34 5.77 0.57 5.49 ***

6/7 My academic advisor is approachable 6.42 5.77 0.65 5.49 ***

8 My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major

6.51 5.76 0.75 5.56 ***

9 Library resources and services are adequate 6.12 5.71 0.41 5.58 ***

10 There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus

6.36 5.70 0.66 5.38 ***

10 I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met


Question


What Are UM-Flint Students Least Satisfied With?

Table 6 summarizes the individual survey items with the ten lowest mean satisfaction scores reported by UM-Flint students. The greatest dissatisfaction was expressed for the item “The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate” although the mean group response of 4.43 is still significantly (at the 0.001 level) above the national mean of 3.37. We conclude that even though UM-Flint students express a low level of satisfaction with campus parking compared to other SSI items, it should not necessarily be considered a serious problem when compared to the national mean. The second highest ranking of low student satisfaction was for the item “Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete degree requirements and graduate in a timely manner.” This item had a mean satisfaction score of 4.52; however since it is a supplemental question, it has no national comparison. Other items on the UM-Flint top ten list of low satisfaction are the items: “Student activity fees are put to good use,” “A variety of intramural activities are offered,” and “There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria.” Composite scales represented by the items in Table 6 are Campus Life, Recruitment and Financial Aid, and Safety & Security. Three of the top ten items students are least satisfied with were supplemental questions with no national comparisons.

11

Table 6 Top Ten Items UM-Flint Students Are Least Satisfied With, By Satisfaction Mean

Top Ten Items Students Are Dissatisfied With Ranked by Satisfaction Mean (lowest to highest)

Fall 2011 Satisfaction

Mean Difference

Rank Item Importance Mean

Satisfaction Mean

Gap Score

UM-Flint Mean

vs. National

1 The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate

6.27 4.43 1.84 1.06 ***

2 Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete degree requirements and graduate in a timely manner


Question

3 I know where to go if I need help resolving a conflict with one of my instructors


Question

4 The intercollegiate athletic programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit

4.91 4.59 0.32 -0.26 ***

5 There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students

5.05 4.73 0.32 0.17 ***

6

The university values my health and well-being and offers opportunities that are both educational and supportive to achieve healthy lifestyles.


Question

7 Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual

5.1 4.75 0.35 -0.04

8 Residence hall regulations are reasonable 5.19 4.84 0.35 -0.03

9 There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria

5.82 4.85 0.97 0.27 ***

10/11 Student activities fees are put to good use 6.06 4.87 1.19 0.25 ***

10/11 Adequate financial aid is available for most students

6.38 4.87 1.51 0.02

*** (**)(*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the 0.001 0(.01) (0.05) level.

Performance Gap: The Difference Between Importance and Satisfaction Scores The difference between importance and satisfaction scores is called a “Performance Gap” score. Performance gap scores show how well UM-Flint is meeting student expectations. A large performance gap score for an item (e.g., 1.5 or higher) indicates the institution is not meeting student expectations very well, whereas a small or zero gap score (e.g., 0.5 or lower) indicates we are meeting student expectations, and a negative gap score (e.g.,-0.25) indicates we are exceeding student expectations. What are UM-Flint Students Most Satisfied With, Based on Performance Gaps? Table 7 displays the top ten items UM-Flint students are most satisfied with based on the lowest (or negative) Performance Gap scores. UM-Flint is exceeding student expectations in the area of intramural activities, and is meeting student expectations in the areas of diversity, the student center being comfortable, and the ease of becoming involved with campus organizations. Composite scales represented in the top ten satisfied items are: Campus Climate, Campus Life, Campus Support Services, Concern for the Individual, Service Excellence, and Student Centeredness. Low gap scores in these areas also reflect the following:

12

o Intramural activities are not important to UM-Flint students (importance mean of 4.85).

o Items with low performance gaps accompanied by significantly higher satisfaction means compared to national means are noted below in bold, indicating strengths in the areas of getting involved on campus, bookstore staff being helpful, residence halls are comfortable, and satisfaction with the Student Center.

Table 7 Top Ten Items Students Are Most Satisfied With, Based on Gap Scores

Top Ten Items UM-Flint Students Are Most Satisfied With, Ranked by Gap Scores (lowest to highest)


Mean Difference


Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap

Score UM-Flint Mean

vs. National

1 A variety of intramural activities are offered 4.85 5.13 -0.28 0.00

2 Diversity (e.g. race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion) enriches the educational experience


Question

3/4 I can easily get involved in campus organizations

5.67 5.46 0.21 0.19 ***

3/4 Library staff are helpful and approachable 5.82 5.61 0.21 0.04

5 Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate activities.

5.44 5.21 0.23 -0.18 (***)

6 Bookstore staff are helpful 5.88 5.64 0.24 0.11 **

7 The University Center (UCEN) serves as a place to hang-out and unwind between classes.


Question

8



Question

9/10 Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable

5.23 4.92 0.31 0.31 ***

9/10 The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time

5.75 5.44 0.31 0.13 ***


What are UM-Flint Students Least Satisfied With, Based on Performance Gaps? Large performance gap scores for an item indicate that the institution may not be meeting students’ expectations. The Noel Levitz organization specifically uses a benchmark performance gap score of 1.5 to indicate an item of student dissatisfaction that may require attention. Table 8 reports the top ten items from the 2011 SSI at UM-Flint with the largest performance gaps. Of the top ten items in Table 8, only the first four had gap scores of more than 1.5, and in two of those cases the level of UM-Flint student satisfaction was significantly higher than the national satisfaction mean. For example, student parking had the largest gap score of 1.84, but UM-Flint students are significantly more satisfied (at the .001 level) with parking than at the average campus nationally. Further, we document later in the report that significant progress has been made in student satisfaction with parking since the 1999 SSI. In addition to parking students at UM-Flint indicate a low level of satisfaction in the areas of: course scheduling problems interfered with ability to complete degree requirements (item ranks #2); students knowing where to get help resolving a conflict with instructors (ranked #3); Financial aid availability was ranked #4; classes I need to complete degree program being available (item ranks #5) and; being able to register for classes with few conflicts (item ranks #12).

13

It should be noted that even in 5 out of the 10 SSI items that had large performance gaps (Items #2, 3 & 5 were supplemental questions), student satisfaction means at UM-Flint were significantly higher than national means. Composite scales represented in the top ten items of dissatisfaction based on gap scores are: Recruitment and Financial Aid, Registration Effectiveness, and Safety and Security.

Table 8 Top Ten Items Students are Dissatisfied With, Based on Gap Scores

Top Ten Items Students are Dissatisfied With, Ranked by Gap Scores (highest to lowest)


Mean Difference


Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap

Score UM-Flint Mean

vs. National


6.27 4.43 1.84 1.06 ***

2

Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete degree requirements and graduate in a timely manner


Question



Question

4 Adequate financial aid is available for most students

6.38 4.87 1.51 -0.02

5 The classes I need to complete my degree program are available


Question

6 Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment 6.47 5.2 1.27 0.00

7 The campus is safe and secure for all students

6.58 5.32 1.26 -0.11 **

8 Student activities fees are put to good use 6.06 4.87 1.19 0.25 ***

9 Parking lots are well-lighted and secure 6.42 5.27 1.15 0.34 ***

10 Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course

6.38 5.27 1.11 0.18 ***

*** (**) (*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the .001 (0.01) (0.05) level.

Trend Analyses - How Do 2011 SSI Results Compare to 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, and 2008? Students at UM-Flint have participated in the SSI survey six times to date with the following number of respondents: Fall 1996 (349 respondents), Fall 1999 (482 respondents), Fall 2002 (1,013 respondents), Fall 2005 (1,110 respondents), Fall 2008 (1,261 respondents), and Fall 2011(1,432). At a standard 95 percent confidence level, the sample size of 349 in 1996 was reliable at approximately the ± 5 percent level, the sample size of 482 in 1999 was reliable at the ± 4.5 percent level, the sample size of 1,013 in 2002 was reliable at the ± 3 percent level and the sample size of 1,110 in 2005 was reliable at the ± 3 percent level, which is the standard level of reliability for most polling purposes. The 2008 sample size of 1,261 was reliable at the ± 3 percent level. The 2011 sample size of 1,432 is reliable at the ± 3 percent level. Therefore, achieving sample size of 1,432 elevates the reliability of the 2011 SSI results to the commonly accepted minimum standard of statistical reliability (± 3 percent margin of error), and should be the target sample size in future years. At our request, Noel Levitz performed a custom analyses that compared the 2011 SSI results at UM-Flint to the SSI results in 2008, to assess whether there have been any significant trends over time in student satisfaction, student expectation/importance,

14

and/or performance gaps. We also performed our own trend analysis using the raw data provided by Noel-Levitz. Overall Satisfaction Trends: Has Satisfaction Changed Over Time at UM-Flint?

Overall student satisfaction at UM-Flint, measured by the mean for the overall student satisfaction item, for each of the SSI surveys in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 is displayed in Table 9 and Figure 3 below. There was a slight increase in mean student satisfaction at UM-Flint from 1996 (mean = 5.13) to 1999 (mean = 5.19), however, the difference in means was not statistically significant, indicating student satisfaction was statistically equivalent in both years and student satisfaction remained relatively unchanged from 1996 to 1999. From 1999 to 2002, overall student satisfaction at UM-Flint increased from 5.19 to 5.27, and from 2002 to 2005, the overall measure of student satisfaction at UM-Flint increased from 5.27 to 5.42. Between 2005 and 2008 overall satisfaction ratings have leveled off at 5.43 compared to 5.42 in 2005. Between 2008 and the most recent survey overall satisfaction ratings increased to 5.49 compared to 5.43. Since 1999, the University of Michigan-Flint overall student satisfaction means have been significantly higher than national student satisfaction means for four-year public institutions. Table 9 UM-Flint Overall Student Satisfaction,

1996-2011

Rate your overall satisfaction with your

experience here thus far.

Year

University of

Michigan–Flint

Means

National Group Means

4-yr Public

Satisfaction Mean

Difference UM-Flint vs.

National

1996 5.13 4.99 0.14

1999 5.19 5.06 0.13 *

2002 5.27 5.10 0.17 ***

2005 5.42 5.17 0.25 ***

2008 5.43 5.21 0.22 ***

2011 5.49 5.25 0.24 *** *** (**) (*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the .001 (0.01) (0.05) level.

Figure 3 UM-Flint Overall Student Satisfaction

Satisfaction scores for meeting student expectations of the college experience for each of the SSI surveys in 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008 and 2011 are displayed in Table 10 and Figure 4. Mean satisfaction scores for meeting students’ expectations have increased since 1999. Mean satisfaction has been above national means since 2002, and statistically significant when compared to national norms for four-year public institutions since 2005.

4.70

4.90

5.10

5.30

5.50

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Ratin

g o

n 1

-7 s

cale

Year

Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far.


15

4.00

4.50

5.00

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Rati

ng

on

1-7

sc

ale

Year

So far, how has your college experience met your expectations?

University of Michigan – Flint

National Group Mean

Figure 4 College Experience meets Expectations, 1996–2011

Table 10 College Experience meets Expectations, 1996–2011

*** indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant

at the 0.001

Over time UM-Flint students have consistently, at significantly higher levels than other four-year public colleges, responded that “if they had to do it over, they would enroll at UM-Flint again.”

Table 11 Would you enroll here again, 1996-2011?

Figure 5 Would you enroll here again, 1996-2011?

All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll here again?

Year

University of Michigan–

Flint Means


4-yr Public

Satisfaction Mean

Difference UM-Flint vs.

National

1996 5.37 5.09 0.28 **

1999 5.36 5.16 0.20 *

2002 5.44 5.17 0.27 ***

2005 5.50 5.24 0.26 ***

2008 5.63 5.29 0.34 ***

2011 5.57 5.34 0.23 *** *** (**) (*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the 0.001 (0.01) (0.05) level.

Therefore, we can conclude that while overall student satisfaction at UM-Flint remained constant from 1996 to 1999, there was a statistically significant improvement in overall student satisfaction between 1999 and 2002 and again between 2002 and 2005, and student satisfaction has stabilized at a significantly higher level than other four-year public institutions since 2005. We can document further evidence of improvement in UM-Flint student satisfaction between 1999 and 2011 by looking at the range between the minimum mean and maximum mean for student responses to the 89 items of student satisfaction. In 1999, the satisfaction scores ranged from a low of 2.99 for the question “The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate” to a high of 5.69 for question “Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field.” Therefore, the range for satisfaction means in 1999 was 2.70 (5.69 - 2.99 = 2.70) and the standard deviation of satisfaction responses (another measure of dispersion) was 1.54.

So far, how has your college experience met your expectations?

Year

University of Michigan–

Flint Means


4-yr Public

Satisfaction Mean

Difference UM-Flint vs. National

1996 4.43 4.33 0.10

1999 4.35 4.37 -0.02

2002 4.46 4.40 0.06

2005 4.58 4.45 0.13 ***

2008 4.71 4.49 0.22 ***

2011 4.77 4.55 0.22 ***

for that item is statistically significant at the .001 level.

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Ratin

g o

n 1

-7 s

ca

le

Year

All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll here again?


16

In 2002, the minimum satisfaction mean was 4.04 for the same parking item and the maximum satisfaction mean was 5.79 for the same item about faculty being knowledgeable in their fields. Therefore, the range in 2002 from the minimum to maximum satisfaction mean was only 1.75 (compared to 2.70 in 1999), and the standard deviation of satisfaction response was only 1.44 (compared to 1.54 in 1999). The reduction in the dispersion of satisfaction means, measured by both the range and standard deviation of mean satisfaction scores, indicates that not only are UM-Flint students more satisfied on average than before, but students are consistently more satisfied, with less variation than in the past. In 2005, the minimum satisfaction mean was 4.39 for a different question “There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students” and the maximum satisfaction mean was 5.85 for the same item about faculty being knowledgeable in their fields. Therefore, the range in 2005 from minimum to maximum satisfaction mean was only 1.46 (compared to 1.75 in 2002 and 2.70 in 1999), and the standard deviation of satisfaction responses was only 1.43 (compared to 1.44 in 2002 and 1.54 in 1999). The reduction in the dispersion of satisfaction responses, measured by both the range and standard deviation of mean satisfaction scores, indicates that not only are UM-Flint students more satisfied on average than before, but students are consistently more satisfied, with less variation than in the past. In 2008, the satisfaction mean scores ranged from 4.11 for the parking item and the maximum satisfaction mean was 5.86 for the item about faculty being knowledgeable in their fields. Therefore, the range in 2008 from minimum to maximum satisfaction mean was only 1.75, compared to a range of 2.70 in 1999. In 2011, the minimum satisfaction mean was 4.43 for the parking item and the maximum satisfaction mean was 5.87 for the same item about faculty being knowledgeable in their fields. The range for 2011 from minimum to maximum satisfaction mean was only 1.44, compared to the range of 2.70 in 1999. In addition, there was a similar pattern of a reduction in the range of the performance gap scores from 1999 to 2011. Performance gap scores in 1999 ranged from a minimum of -0.10 for the item “A variety of intramural activities are offered” to a maximum gap of 3.57 for parking. In 2002, gap scores ranged from -0.04 for the same intramural item to a maximum of 2.40 for parking. In 2005, gap scores ranged from -0.18 for the same intramural item to a maximum gap of 1.82 for the parking item. The 2008 gap scores ranged from a minimum of -0.10 for the same intramural item to a maximum gap score of 2.23 for parking. The 2011 gap scores ranged from -0.28 for the same intramural item to a maximum gap of 1.84 for the parking item. Therefore, the range (Maximum – Minimum) of performance gap scores decreased from 3.67 in 1999, to 2.44 in 2002, and to 1.64 in 2005, then rose to 2.13 in 2008 and in 2011 decreased to 2.12. Comparison of the 12 Composite Scales, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011 The differences in satisfaction means from 1996 to 2011 for the twelve composite scales are displayed in Figure 6, ranked from highest to lowest difference. The greatest gains were in the area of Campus Life. Additionally Student Centeredness, Service Excellence, Campus Support Services, Academic Advising, Campus Climate, and Recruitment & Financial Aid had significant improvements. All differences in satisfaction

17

means since 1999 are positive with the exception of slight drops in three of the scales in 2011; indicating overall continued improvement for all twelve-scale areas. Student satisfaction at UM-Flint is significantly above the national satisfaction mean for all of these scales.

Figure 6 Difference in Mean Satisfaction at UM-Flint by Scale, 1996–2011

Table 12 Difference in Satisfaction Means by Scale, 1996-2011

SCALE 96 vs. 99 99 vs. 02 02 vs. 05 05 vs. 08 08 vs. 11

Academic Advising 0.13 0.06 0.24 0.13 0.09

Safety and Security -0.04 0.50 0.13 -0.10 0.08


-0.05 0.25 0.15 0.08 0.07


0.36 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.06


-0.03 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.06


0.02 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.03

Service Excellence -0.01 0.18 0.21 0.14 0.02

Student Centeredness -0.04 0.20 0.14 0.18 0.01

Campus Climate -0.04 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.00

Concern for the Individual

0.03 0.22 0.18 0.12 -0.01


-0.03 0.17 0.11 0.08 -0.01

Campus Life 0.04 0.01 0.10 0.22 -0.01

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

96 vs 99 99 vs 02 02 vs 05 05 vs 08 08 vs 11

DIf

fere

nce

in m

ean

s

Service Excellence

Safety and Security




Academic Advising





Campus Life

Campus Climate

18

The Academic Advising scale had the greatest improvement in satisfaction between 2008 and 2011 as shown in Table 13 below. The scale mean satisfaction in 2008 was 5.50 increasing to 5.59 in 2011, significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 13 Academic Advising Scale Items, UM-Flint SSI 2008 vs. 2011

Academic Advising Scale

University of Michigan–Flint Means 2008


Satisfaction Mean

Difference

Importance Mean

Satisfaction Mean

Gap Score

Importance Mean

Satisfaction Mean

Gap Score

2008 vs. 2011

6.31 5.50 0.81 6.35 5.59 0.76 0.09 *

My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major

6.46 5.62 0.84 6.51 5.76 0.75 0.14 *

Major requirements are clear and reasonable

6.42 5.53 0.89 6.44 5.60 0.84 0.07

My academic advisor is approachable

6.40 5.66 0.74 6.42 5.77 0.65 0.11 *

My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual

6.22 5.42 0.80 6.26 5.50 0.79 0.08

My academic advisor helps me set goals to work towards

6.04 5.24 0.80 6.08 5.30 0.78 0.06

Supplemental Questions

I am currently advised in the Academic Advising and Career Center and my course advising needs are being met

5.89 5.05 0.84 5.92 5.11 0.81 0.06

I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met

6.23 5.49 0.74 6.33 5.70 0.63 0.21 **

Career services available in the Academic Advising & Career Center offer me the opportunity to prepare for my job search or for graduate school

6.06 4.96 1.1 6.09 5.07 1.02 0.11

*** (**) (*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the 0.001 (0.01) (0.05) level.

The largest change was seen in supplemental question #78 “I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met.” This item showed a satisfaction mean of 5.49 in 2008 and 5.70 in 2011, a difference of 0.21 that is significant at the 0.01 level. Also increasing were satisfaction means for “knowledgeable advisors” and “approachable advisors.” As evidenced in Table 14, the Safety and Security scale showed a slight increase in satisfaction between 2008 and 2011. This scale had the greatest improvements in satisfaction between 1999 and 2002, continued to show improvement in 2005, leveled off in 2008 with a slight decrease in satisfaction, followed by a slight increase in 2011. The most notable change is the increase in satisfaction centering on adequate parking.

19

Table 14 Safety & Security Scale Items, UM-Flint SSI 2008-2011

Safety & Security Scale



Satisfaction Mean

Difference Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap

Score Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap

Score 08 vs. 11

6.41 5.02 1.39 6.41 5.10 1.31 0.08

The campus is safe and secure for all students

6.56 5.49 1.07 6.58 5.32 1.26 -0.17 (**)

Parking lots are well-lighted and secure

6.38 5.24 1.14 6.42 5.27 1.15 0.03

The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate

6.34 4.11 2.23 6.27 4.43 1.84 0.32 ***

Security staff respond quickly in emergencies

6.38 5.31 1.07 6.38 5.45 0.93 0.14 *


Campus Safety Reports also show a positive trend in campus safety; see the Department of Public Safety web page http://www.umflint.edu/safety/statistics.htm for detailed information. Satisfaction levels for the amount of adequate student parking increased by 0.32 and the gap score decreased by 0.39, this change is significant at the .001 level. Another positive change has been increased satisfaction with response of security staff, increasing 0.14 from 2008 (significant at the 0.05 level). The importance of campus being safe and secure increased 0.02, as did the importance of well-lit parking lots, up 0.04. Satisfaction with parking lot lighting and security increased 0.03, however, the satisfaction with campus being safe and secure decreased 0.17, significant at the 0.01 level. The resulting gap score increased from 1.07 to 1.26. Changes in Performance Gap Scores, 2008 to 2011 Areas of Greatest Improvement, 2008 to 2011 We also examined specific areas of improvement from 2008 to 2011 by analyzing the top ten largest reductions in performance gap scores during that period. These results are displayed in Table 15. The greatest improvement area based on the change of gap score, with a drop of 0.39, was for adequate parking space. The second highest level of improvement was for the question “Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning,” as the gap dropped 0.21 between 2008 and 2011. Ranked third and fourth are “Financial aid counselors are helpful” and “A variety of intramural activities are offered” and gap scores dropped by 0.19 and 0.18 for each item. The “Freedom of expression” item went from the Top Ten Least Improved list in 2005 to the Top Ten Most Improved list in 2008, and continued with improvement of 0.15 in 2011.

http://www.umflint.edu/safety/statistics.htm

20

All but two of the top ten areas of improvement in performance gap scores also had statistically significant increases in the 2011 mean satisfaction scores compared to 2008. Of the items on this 2011 improved list, only one was on the list in 2008, showing continued improvement in students feeling satisfied that their freedom of expression is protected on campus. It must also be noted that all items on the least improved list in 2008 are now on the most improved list in 2011, reflecting the change and attention given to items on the 2008 list. Scales represented in the top ten improvements: Academic Advising, Campus Climate, Campus Life, Campus Support Services, Concern for the Individual, Instructional Effectiveness, Registration Effectiveness, and Service Excellence.

Table 15 Top Ten Improvements from 2008-2011, Ranked by the Largest Decrease in Performance Gap

Rank Item Change in Gap Score

2008 vs. 2011

Satisfaction Mean Difference

2008 vs. 2011


-0.39 0.32 ***

2 Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning

-0.21 0.19 **

3 Financial aid counselors are helpful -0.19 0.13 *

4 A variety of intramural activities are offered -0.18 0.19 ***

5/6 There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus

-0.15 0.11 *

5/6 Freedom of expression is protected on campus -0.15 0.05

7 Security staff respond quickly in emergencies -0.14 0.14 *

8 The business office is open during hours which are convenient for most students

-0.13 0.06

9/10/11 I can easily get involved in campus organizations -0.11 0.13 *

9/10/11 I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met

-0.11 0.21 **

9/10/11 Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable -0.11 0.15 ** *** (**) (*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the 0.001 (0.01) (0.05) level.

Areas of Least Improvement, 2008 to 2011

Table 16 shows the top ten items with the least improvement from 2008 to 2011, measured and ranked by the increase in performance gap scores over the three-year period. The item with the least improvement was “Residence hall regulations are reasonable,” the gap score increased 0.20, since satisfaction decreased significantly from 2008. Mean satisfaction with this item decreased 0.21, with the decline being significant at the 0.01 level. Keep in mind First Street Residence Hall had been open for approximately 10 weeks when the 2008 survey was administered. The gap for campus safety as an item also increased by 0.19 since satisfaction decreased 0.17, also significant at the 0.01 level. Other items with increased gap scores are timely faculty feedback; food selection in cafeteria, tuition is a worthwhile investment, faculty consideration of student differences and faculty caring about me as an individual. Smaller increases in gaps were seen for residence hall living conditions, content of courses in major are valuable, institutions concern for individuals, student fees, and residence hall staff. Scales represented in the Top Ten Least Improved are Campus Climate, Campus Life, Concern for the Individual, and Safety and Security.

21

Table 16 Top Ten Least Improved Areas, Ranked by Increase in Performance Gap

Rank Item Change in

Gap Score

Satisfaction Mean Difference

2008 vs. 2011

1 Residence hall regulations are reasonable 0.20 -0.21 (**)

2 The campus is safe and secure for all students 0.19 -0.17 (**)

3 Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course

0.18 -0.10

4 There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria

0.17 -0.05

5 Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment 0.15 -0.13 (*)

6 Faculty take into consideration student differences as they teach a course

0.13 -0.06

7 Faculty care about me as an individual 0.10 -0.01

8/9 Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable 0.09 -0.16 (*)

8/9 The content of the courses within my major is valuable 0.09 -0.04

10/11/12 This institution shows concern for students as individuals 0.08 -0.03

10/11/12 Student activities fees are put to good use 0.08 -0.05

10/11/12 Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual

0.08 -0.21


Special Populations Analysis, Housing Students The Flint campus of the University of Michigan made history in the Fall of 2008 when First Street Residence Hall opened its doors to 300 students. The following section takes a closer look at the satisfaction levels of residential students. There were 129 residential students who completed the SSI, accounting for 41.6% of the First Street occupants. The respondents in this group are 36.43% first-year students, 30.23% sophomores, 22.48% juniors, 7.75% seniors, and 3.10% graduate students. Overall Composite Scores for 2011 SSI, Residential Students vs. Non-Residential Composite scores are reported for each of the 12 scales in Table 17. Group means are reported for both importance and satisfaction scores for residential and non-residential students. Performance gaps are the difference between the mean Importance ratings and the mean Satisfaction ratings for each of the 12 scales. The last column shows the difference between residential and non-residential student satisfaction means and the national group satisfaction means. The difference in these scores is negative for each scale, indicating that UM-Flint resident hall students are less satisfied than non-resident hall students. The difference in means between resident hall and non-resident hall student satisfaction at UM-Flint for the 12 scales is displayed in Table 17 and Figure 7. Composite scores with the greatest importance to residential students are: Academic Advising, Instructional Effectiveness, Registration Effectiveness, and Recruitment & Financial Aid. Those with the highest satisfaction were: Campus Support Services, Responsiveness to Diverse Populations, Academic Advising, Student Centeredness, Instructional Effectiveness, and Campus Climate. Composite scores with the least satisfaction were: Campus Life, Recruitment & Financial Aid, Safety & Security, and Concern for the Individual. The largest gaps between importance and satisfaction for resident hall students are for the following

22

composite scales: Recruitment & Financial Aid, Safety & Security, Registration Effectiveness, and Instructional Effectiveness. Nine of the eleven composite scales have gaps of over 0.80. Non-residence hall student satisfaction means are all higher than residence hall student satisfaction means, with the exception of safety. Table 17 Composite Scores for the 12 SSI Scales, Residence Hall Students vs. Non-Residence Hall

Students, 2011

Scale Residence Hall Means Non-Residence Hall Means

Res vs. Non Mean

Importance Mean

Satisfaction Mean Gap

Importance Mean

Satisfaction Mean Gap

Satisfaction Difference

Academic Advising

6.33 5.41 0.92 6.35 5.62 0.73 -0.21 (*)

Campus Climate 6.16 5.35 0.81 6.12 5.46 0.66 -0.11

Campus Life 5.98 5.06 0.92 5.48 5.14 0.34 -0.08


6.07 5.46 0.61 6.04 5.56 0.48 -0.10

Concern For The Individual

6.14 5.22 0.92 6.11 5.36 0.75 -0.14


6.31 5.35 0.96 6.36 5.57 0.79 -0.22 (**)


6.22 5.09 1.13 6.16 5.22 0.94 -0.13


6.28 5.25 1.03 6.18 5.44 0.74 -0.19 (*)


Not Collected

5.41 Not

Collected Not

Collected 5.52

Not Collected

-0.11

Safety and Security

6.30 5.20 1.10 6.43 5.10 1.33 0.10

Service Excellence

6.04 5.26 0.78 5.97 5.34 0.63 -0.08


6.19 5.37 0.82 6.11 5.52 0.59 -0.15

*** (**) (*) indicates that the difference between the UM-Flint satisfaction mean for a particular item and the national mean for that item is statistically significant at the 0.001 (0.01) (0.05) level

Figure 7 Mean Difference in Satisfaction for Composite Scales, Residence Hall Students vs. Non-

Residence Hall Students, 2011

4.6

4.8

5

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

Diffe

ren

ce

of S

atisfa

ctio

n M

ea

ns

Non-Residence Hall Means Residence Hall Means

23

What is Important to Residential Students? Table 18 below summarizes the top ten most important items as identified by residential students. Seven of top ten most important items to housing students are the same as those of all students, and three items are different. Residents of First Street placed a higher level of importance on security staff responding quickly, financial aid awards are timely, and academic advisors are approachable.

Table 18 Top Ten Most Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Residence Hall Students

Rank (highest

to lowest)

Item

Residence Hall

Importance Mean

Non-Residence Hall

Importance Mean

1 Classes I need to complete my degree program are available

6.75 6.75

2 Content of courses within major is valuable 6.62 6.58

3 Instruction in my major field is excellent 6.59 6.57

4 Campus is safe and secure for all students 6.55 6.58

5 Security staff respond quickly in emergencies 6.54 6.37

6/7 Quality of instruction in classes excellent 6.48 6.52

6/7 Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment 6.48 6.48

8 Financial aid awards announced in time 6.47 6.27

9 My academic advisor is approachable 6.45 6.42

10 Able to register with few conflicts 6.43 6.52

Six of the ten items that are least important for housing students are the same as those of all students, and three items are different. Items not important to either group are: intercollegiate activities, intramural activities, student handbook, weekend activities and knowing what’s happening on campus. The other items of least importance as identified by residential students: child care, bookstore staff, parking, knowing what’s happening on campus, and graduate teaching assistants.

Table 19 Top Ten Least Important SSI Items to UM-Flint Residence Hall Students

Rank Item

Residence Hall

Importance Mean

Non-Residence Hall

Importance Mean

1 My child care needs are being met by the ECDC located on campus in the WSW building

5.07 5.01

2 Intercollegiate athletics contribute to spirit 5.40 4.85

3 Variety of intramural activities are offered 5.43 4.78

4 Males/females equal opportunity to participate athletics

5.69 5.41

5 Student handbook provides helpful info 5.74 5.56

6 Amount of student parking space is adequate 5.76 6.32

7 Number weekend activities for students 5.77 4.96

8 I generally know what's happening on campus 5.79 5.61

9 Bookstore staff are helpful 5.85 5.89

10 Graduate teaching assistants competent 5.86 5.93

24

What Are Residential Students Most Satisfied With? Table 20 summarizes the top ten highest mean satisfaction scores reported by UM-Flint residential students in 2011. Residential students report significantly high satisfaction levels with computer labs, the quality of UM-Flint faculty, the reputation of the University of Michigan-Flint, academic advisors, campus organizations, and commitment to excellence, campus staff and security response time. Further, students are satisfied with academic departmental advising, library and faculty availability. It should be noted that residential students were less satisfied overall than non-residential students in 2011.

Table 20 Top Ten SSI Satisfaction Items for UM-Flint Residential Students, Based on Mean Satisfaction

Rank

(highest to lowest)

Item

Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

Non-Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

1 Computer labs are adequate and accessible 5.79 5.79

2 Institution has good reputation in community 5.76 5.88

3 Nearly all faculty knowledgeable in field 5.75 5.89

4 My academic advisor is approachable 5.66 5.80

5 Easily get involved in campus organizations 5.65 5.45

6 Commitment to academic excellence on campus 5.63 5.72

7 Campus staff are caring and helpful 5.61 5.65

8 Security staff respond quickly in emergencies 5.60 5.45

9 I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met

5.58 5.73

10/11/12 Library resources and services are adequate 5.57 5.73

10/11/12 Faculty avail. after class/during office hours 5.57 5.82

10/11/12 Acad. advisor knows requirements in major 5.57 5.79

Based on gap scores, First Street residents indicate satisfaction with intramural activities, and ease of involvement, the campus’ reputation in the community, computer labs (adequate and accessible), and library and bookstore staff (helpful).

Table 21 Top Ten Items Residential Students Are Most Satisfied With, Based on Gap Scores

Rank

(highest to

lowest)

Item

Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

Non-Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

1 Males/females equal opportunity to participate in athletics

0.25 0.20

2 Variety of intramural activities are offered 0.30 -0.34

3 Bookstore staff are helpful 0.33 0.22

4 Computer labs are adequate and accessible 0.38 0.58

5/6 Easily get involved in campus organizations 0.41 0.17

5/6 My child care needs are being met by the ECDC located on campus in the WSW building

0.44 0.26

7 Library staff are helpful and approachable 0.45 0.18

8 Institution has good reputation in community 0.50 0.36

9/10 Library resources and services are adequate 0.52 0.40

9/10 Student handbook provides helpful info 0.52 0.33

25

What Are Residential Students Least Satisfied With?

It should come as no surprise that residential students are least satisfied with food (adequate selection in the cafeteria.) Similar to parking, food service is a challenge for UM-Flint as is the case for many campuses. The Dining Services Advisory Board, along with Sodexo, is committed to meeting the needs of its customer base in this new mixed commuter/residential environment. Table 22 lists areas of least satisfaction. Residential students have lower mean satisfaction scores than non-residential students for most of the items in the top ten list.

Table 22 Top Ten Items Residential Students Are Least Satisfied With, by Satisfaction Mean

Rank Item

Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

Non-Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

1 Adequate selection of food in the cafeteria 3.83 4.97

2 Intercollegiate Athletics contribute to spirit 4.33 4.62


4 Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete my degree requirements and graduate in a timely manner

4.51 4.52

5 Adequate financial aid available 4.60 4.91

6 My child care needs are being met by the ECDC located on campus in the WSW building

4.63 4.75


4.67 4.58

8 Amount of student parking space is adequate 4.76 4.40

9 Residence hall regulations are reasonable 4.90 4.82

10 Billing policies are reasonable 4.91 5.16

When items for residential students are viewed by gap scores, the highest gap or area of least satisfaction is for the item “adequate selection of food.” Similar to the general student body, First Street residents echoed dissatisfaction with financial aid, course scheduling and parking lot lighting. Table 23 summarizes satisfaction based on gap scores.

Table 23 Top Ten Items Residential Students Are Least Satisfied With, Based on Gap Scores

Rank Item

Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

Non-Residence Hall

Satisfaction Mean

1 Adequate selection of food in the cafeteria 2.52 0.79

2 Adequate financial aid available 1.81 1.48

3 Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete my degree requirements and graduate in a timely manner

1.60 1.77


1.59 1.61

5 Financial aid awards announced in time 1.54 0.93


7 Parking lots are well-lighted and secure 1.37 1.12

8 Classes I need to complete my degree program are available

1.36 1.46

9 Billing policies are reasonable 1.34 1.01

10 Instruction in my major field is excellent 1.33 0.94

26

Supplemental Question #116: Downtown Businesses The 2001 survey included a series of questions relating to what students would like to see in the downtown Flint area. Students were asked to mark all that applied to three questions on current use of downtown Flint businesses and three questions on would they frequent a downtown business if it existed. While only 28.3% (n=405) of survey respondents (n=1,432), answered these questions, we do get a sense of what businesses downtown students are using and what they would like to see. Questions:

1. I currently frequent downtown Flint businesses to eat.

2. I currently frequent downtown Flint businesses to do my banking.

3. I currently frequent downtown Flint businesses to socialize with friends.

4. I would frequent downtown Flint businesses if there were a movie theater.

5. I would frequent downtown Flint businesses if there were a drugstore.

6. I would frequent downtown Flint businesses if there were a clothing store.

Table 24 Downtown Businesses

Question N Percentage of total (n=1432)

Currently

To Eat 160 11.2%

To Bank 34 2.4%

Socialize 42 2.9%

Would if

Movie theater 112 7.8%

Drugstore 11 0.80%

Clothing store 46 3.2%

Students currently frequent downtown businesses primarily to eat, eleven percent; this is four times greater than the other two options. Nearly three percent socialize downtown and over two percent do banking downtown. Students were asked if they would frequent three types of potential businesses that currently do not exist downtown. A movie theater was ranked the highest, with 7.8% (n=112), the closest theaters are in Grand Blanc or Flint Township. Students in First Street Residence Hall noted they were less satisfied with the number of weekend activities for students. This may serve as an opportunity in the downtown area. A clothing store was the second highest of the “would if” questions, over three percent responded they would frequent. Less than one percent responded to the third option of frequenting a drugstore if there was one downtown.

Factors Influencing the Decision to Attend University of Michigan-Flint Table 25 and Figure 8 show the factors students reported as influencing their decision to attend the University of Michigan-Flint. Cost is the primary factor, along with academic reputation and financial aid being major considerations. Residential students are influenced by personalized attention prior to enrollment to a much greater degree than non-residential students.

27

Table 25 Factors Influencing the Decision to Attend

Item Importance

UM-Flint

Importance National 4yr

Pub.

Residence Hall

Non-Residence

Hall

Cost 6.31 6.27 6.48 6.30

Financial Aid 5.95 5.95 6.34 5.91

Academic Reputation 6.17 6.21 6.26 6.17

Size 5.16 5.26 5.48 5.13

Opportunity to play sports 3.05 3.15 3.73 2.97

Recommendations from family/friends

4.73 4.64 4.64 4.74

Geographic setting 5.39 5.49 4.94 5.44

Campus appearance 5.27 5.33 5.56 5.25

Personalized attention prior to enrollment

5.23 5.21 5.62 5.19

Figure 8 Factors Influencing the Decision to Attend

Matrix for Prioritizing Action The SSI data from Noel-Levitz provides a dynamic set of information for UM-Flint to consider when developing action agendas. Using the matrix below helps conceptualize our student satisfaction data by both retention priorities and marketing opportunities. In addition it helps pinpoint areas where resources can be redirected from areas of low expectation to areas of high expectation.

o High importance/low satisfaction pinpoints areas in need of immediate attention.

DOES NOT APPLY TO UM-Flint FOR ANY OF THE 12 SCALE ITEMS.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Me

an Im

po

rtan

ce

University of Michigan-Flint National Four-Year Publics Residence hall Non-Residence hall

28

o High importance/high satisfaction showcases areas of strength that should be highlighted in promotional materials.

APPLIES TO UM-Flint FOR ALL 12 SCALE ITEMS.

o Low importance/high satisfaction suggests areas where it might be beneficial to redirect institutional resources to areas of higher importance.


o Low importance/low satisfaction presents an opportunity to examine those areas that have low status with students.


Figure 9 Matrix for Prioritizing Action 2011

In the Matrix for Prioritizing Action (Figure 9), 2011 results show “High Importance” and “High Satisfaction” for all 12 composite scales indicating that UM-Flint is generally meeting students’ expectations in all areas. The matrix can also be applied to the importance and satisfaction responses for students in the First Street Residence hall versus those who are not. As noted in the Special Populations section, UM-Flint residential students report significantly high satisfaction levels with computer labs, the quality of UM-Flint faculty, the reputation of the University of Michigan-Flint, academic advisors, campus organizations, and

-7

-5

-3

-1

1

3

5

7

-7 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7

Saftey & Security Academic Advising Instructional Effectiveness

Registration Effectiveness Recuritment & Financial Aid Campus Climate

Student Centeredness Concern for the Individual Campus Support Services

Service Excellence Campus Life

Very Important

Very Satisfied Very Dissatisfied

Very Umimportant

29

commitment to excellence, campus staff and security response time. Further, students are satisfied with academic departmental advising, library and faculty availability. When items for residential students are viewed by gap scores, the highest gap or area of least satisfaction is for the item “adequate selection of food.” Similar to the general student body, First Street residents echoed dissatisfaction with financial aid, course scheduling and parking lighting. These concerns are visually represented in Figure 10 which charts the differences in importance and satisfaction scores for each of the composite scales. Non-residential students view safety as slightly more important than residential students, who interact with safety more routinely, and are more satisfied with safety. Residential students reflected higher importance scores for scales on Registration Effectiveness, Recruitment & Financial Aid, Student Centeredness, Campus Climate, Concern for the Individual, Service Excellence, and Campus Support Services.

Figure 10 Matrix for Prioritizing Action 2011 Residential vs. Non-residential

30

Strategic Plan Implications The University’s strategic plan charts the institutional course for the five-year period from 2011 to 2016. Rooted in the campus vision, “Engaging Minds, Preparing Leaders,” the plan articulates the campus mission:

The University of Michigan-Flint is a comprehensive urban university of diverse learners and scholars committed to advancing our local and global communities. In the University of Michigan tradition, we value excellence in teaching, learning, and scholarship; student centeredness; and engaged citizenship. Through personal attention and dedicated faculty and staff, our students become leaders and best in their fields, professions, and communities.

The University of Michigan-Flint campus implements its vision and mission in a wider context of growth and change. The strategic plan seeks to foster growth in enrollment and initiatives that support academic excellence and student success. The plan focuses on eleven strategic priorities that emerge from our mission:

Priority #1 - Enhance the quality and breadth of academic programs, and be a school of first choice;

Priority #2 - Foster a culture in which faculty are supported in pursuing disciplinary and

interdisciplinary teaching, scholarship, and creative activity, and expand faculty professional development;

Priority #3 - Expand staff professional development; Priority #4 - Expand participation in civic engagement, experiential learning, and service learning; Priority #5 - Fulfill our student-centered mission as we serve a growing and increasingly diverse

student population; Priority #6 - Cultivate a campus climate that embraces diverse social identities and perspectives. Priority #7 - Increase enrollment, student retention and degree completion to achieve planned

growth; Priority #8 - Diversify revenues in keeping with the university’s mission; Priority #9 - Create a more integrated and systematic accounting of institutional data; use

technology to provide a competitive advantage in recruitment and retention; Priority #10 - Use and develop space that is responsive to a growing university; Priority #11 - Enhance Alumni relations to create a culture of university pride.

The plan places maximum opportunity for initiative in these strategic directions with operational units. Vision and mission will guide the activities and inform the culture of each unit.

Summary and Conclusions The Noel Levitz SSI survey was conducted at UM-Flint in the fall of 2011 with a randomly selected sample of 1,432 representative students participating in the study of student satisfaction. Each UM-Flint student responded to approximately 200 separate

31

items in the written survey instrument, providing a total of approximately 286,400 individual pieces of information on UM-Flint students including a) their expectations of the campus experience at UM-Flint on nearly 100 individual items on a 7-point scale; b) their level of satisfaction with the campus experience at UM-Flint on almost 100 individual items on a 7-point scale; and c) detailed demographic information on approximately 12 items. We are confident the sample size and sample composition exceed the necessary thresholds to make valid generalizations from our representative sample about the UM-Flint student body. We can therefore make valid statistical inferences at the 95 percent level of confidence with an acceptable and small margin of error. We summarize the main findings from the 2011 SSI survey below:

When individual items are grouped, UM-Flint is significantly above the national average on every one of the 12 scales, at the 0.01 reported level of statistical significance (**).

The Academic Advising scale had the greatest improvement in satisfaction between 2008 and 2011. The scale mean satisfaction in 2008 was 5.50 increasing to 5.59 in 2011, significant at the 0.05 (*) level.

The largest change was seen in supplemental question #78 “I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met.” This item showed a satisfaction mean of 5.49 in 2008 and 5.70 in 2011, a difference of 0.21 that is significant at the 0.01 level. Also increasing were satisfaction means for “knowledgeable advisors” and “approachable advisors.”

Versus the 2008 results, UM-Flint student satisfaction was significantly higher in 2011 on about 3/5ths of the items, suggesting continuing and significant improvements in the quality of the educational services we are providing.

UM-Flint students continue to express concern that they cannot always easily get the classes they need to graduate on time.

Strengths

Strengths of UM-Flint are excellent instruction, faculty who are knowledgeable and accessible, and quality of instruction. Academic advisors are approachable and knowledgeable about requirements of majors, and students are seeing the requirements as reasonable and clear. Course variety and the commitment to academic excellence are reflected in students’ satisfaction with their ability to experience intellectual growth. These items all have significantly higher satisfaction than the National Four-Year Public norms. Other items of strength are: variety of courses, campus staff are caring and helpful, computer labs, academic departmental advising, campus well maintained, welcoming campus, reputation and drop/add policies. Challenges

Major challenges as indicated by survey results continue to be students’ ability to get the classes they need to complete degree programs. Campus safety is a challenge due to the City of Flint’s reputation; this is a primary concern for those living in the residence

32

hall. Continued vigilance is needed for items: courses in my major are valuable; instruction in my major is excellent; faculty is fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students; and timely feedback on course progress. While these are strengths, they are also of high importance to students. “Tuition as a worthwhile investment” has increased in its importance do to the bleak job environment. Recommendations

1. Seek to identify specific areas where university resources might be redirected in order to sustain continued improvement in student satisfaction.

2. Financial aid is an item of importance to students and should remain a priority

for the institution. 3. Efforts to address students’ concern that they cannot always get classes needed

to graduate on time should continue. 4. Where applicable, the SSI in conjunction with the University’s Strategic Plan

should be used to guide planning efforts at the unit level. 5. Continue to distribute SSI results widely across campus to aid in unit self-

assessment for on-going improvement of processes and procedures, and assist with regional and specialized accreditation self-studies.

6. We recommend that the ten supplemental questions used for the 2011 SSI

survey continue to be used in subsequent years, to provide for a comparison over time.

7. We recommend that future SSI surveys have a target sample size of

approximately 1000 student respondents to allow for analyses of sub groups. 8. We recommend increased controls be placed on distribution of instrument to

minimize unused surveys. 9. We recommend that the SSI continue to be given at a frequency of every three

years. It would be difficult to justify the expense of administering the survey at more frequent intervals. Costs of administering the SSI are detailed in Appendix E.

33

Appendix A: Student Satisfaction Inventory Questionnaire

34

35

36

37

Appendix B: Supplemental Questions

Student Satisfaction Inventory Supplemental Items (74 – 82)

Please record responses to items 74 – 82 on the Student Satisfaction Inventory answer sheet. 74) Classes I need to complete my degree program are available. 75) Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete degree

requirements and graduate in a timely manner. 76) Diversity (e.g., race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion) enriches the educational

experience at UM-Flint. 77) I am currently advised in the Academic Advising and Career Center (285 UPAV) and my

course advising needs are being met. 78) I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are

being met. 79) Career services available in the Academic Advising and Career Center (285 UPAV)

offer me the opportunity to prepare for my job search and/or for graduate school. 80) I know where to go if I need help resolving a conflict with one of my instructors. 81) The university values my health and well-being and offers opportunities that are both

educational and supportive to achieve healthy lifestyles. 82) The University Center (UCEN) serves as a place to hang-out and unwind between

classes.

Supplemental Item (116) Please record response to item 116 on the Student Satisfaction Inventory

answer sheet. Mark all that apply: (1) I currently frequent downtown Flint businesses to eat. (2) I currently frequent downtown Flint businesses to do my banking. (3) I currently frequent downtown Flint businesses to socialize with friends. (4) I would frequent downtown Flint businesses if there were a movie theater. (5) I would frequent downtown Flint businesses if there were a drugstore. (6) I would frequent downtown Flint businesses if there were a clothing store. 2011

38

Appendix C: Summary of Mean Scores for University of Michigan – Flint SSI Items 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, and 2011

Question 2011

Fall 99 N=482 Fall 02 N=1013 Fall 05 N=1110 Fall 2008 N=1261 Fall 11 N=1432 Nat'l

Significant Change 08 vs. 11 Local

Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff

Importance Mean Diff

Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001


6 4.97 1.03 5.99 5.17 0.82 6.02 5.31 0.71 6.1 5.49 0.61 6.12 5.5 0.62 *** 0.02 0.01 0.01

The campus staff are caring and helpful

2 6.33 5.06 1.27 6.35 5.37 0.98 6.33 5.56 0.77 6.35 5.64 0.71 6.34 5.64 0.7 *** -0.01 0 -0.01

This institution shows concern for students as individuals

59 6.27 4.92 1.35 6.14 5.12 1.02 6.23 5.34 0.89 6.21 5.49 0.72 6.26 5.46 0.8 *** 0.05 -0.03 0.08

It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus

29 6.14 5.17 0.97 6.14 5.25 0.89 6.16 5.38 0.78 6.26 5.57 0.69 6.27 5.56 0.71 *** 0.01 -0.01 0.02

Students are made to feel welcome on this campus

45 6.03 5.14 0.89 6.14 5.34 0.8 6.14 5.44 0.7 6.23 5.62 0.61 6.24 5.68 0.56 *** 0.01 0.06 -0.05

Administrators are approachable to students

10 5.73 4.64 1.09 5.72 4.83 0.89 5.76 5.05 0.71 5.86 5.26 0.6 5.87 5.27 0.6 *** 0.01 0.01 0

Most students feel a sense of belonging here

1 5.47 4.89 0.58 5.43 5.07 0.36 5.51 5.09 0.42 5.7 5.37 0.33 5.74 5.39 0.35 *** 0.04 0.02 0.02


6.11 4.83 1.28 6.06 5.05 1.01 6.07 5.23 0.84 6.08 5.35 0.73 6.11 5.34 0.77 *** 0.03 -0.01 0.04

Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students

25 6.42 4.96 1.46 6.4 5.24 1.16 6.38 5.38 1 6.4 5.47 0.93 6.42 5.42 1 *** 0.02 -0.05 0.07


59 6.27 4.92 1.35 6.14 5.12 1.02 6.23 5.34 0.89 6.21 5.49 0.72 6.26 5.46 0.8 *** 0.05 -0.03 0.08


14 6.22 4.95 1.27 6.2 5.04 1.16 6.19 5.29 0.9 6.22 5.42 0.8 6.29 5.5 0.79 *** 0.07 0.08 -0.01

Faculty care about me as an individual

3 6.16 4.84 1.32 6.16 5.18 0.98 6.11 5.32 0.79 6.07 5.43 0.64 6.16 5.42 0.74 *** 0.09 -0.01 0.1

Counseling staff care about students as individuals

22 5.97 4.55 1.42 5.91 4.85 1.06 5.97 5.11 0.86 5.99 5.12 0.87 6.02 5.17 0.82 *** 0.03 0.05 -0.05

Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual

30

5.23 4.96 0.27 5.1 4.75 0.35

-0.13 -0.21 0.08 (**)

Service Excellence

5.94 4.77 1.17 5.89 4.95 0.94 5.91 5.16 0.75 5.98 5.3 0.68 5.98 5.32 0.66 *** 0 0.02 -0.02


2 6.33 5.06 1.27 6.35 5.37 0.98 6.33 5.56 0.77 6.35 5.64 0.71 6.34 5.64 0.7 *** -0.01 0 -0.01

39

Question 2011



Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff


Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001

I seldom get the "run-around" when seeking information on this campus

57 6.28 4.52 1.76 6.18 4.7 1.48 6.19 5.01 1.18 6.13 5.1 1.03 6.16 5.09 1.07 *** 0.03 -0.01 0.04

The personnel involved in registration are helpful

27 6.18 4.94 1.24 6.1 5.32 0.78 6.18 5.43 0.75 6.15 5.52 0.63 6.42 5.27 1.15 *** 0.27 -0.25 0.52

Counseling staff care about students as individuals

22 5.97 4.55 1.42 5.91 4.85 1.06 5.97 5.11 0.86 5.99 5.12 0.87 6.02 5.17 0.85 *** 0.03 0.05 -0.02

Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available

71 5.97 4.48 1.49 5.88 4.61 1.27 5.88 4.78 1.1 5.95 5.03 0.92 5.93 5.06 0.87 *** -0.02 0.03 -0.05

Library staff are helpful and approachable

13 5.94 5.22 0.72 5.85 5.28 0.57 5.76 5.4 0.36 5.84 5.53 0.31 5.82 5.61 0.21

-0.02 0.08 -0.1

The staff in the health services area are competent

15

5.48 4.92 0.36 5.72 5.11 0.61 5.69 5.11 0.58

-0.03 0 -0.03

I generally know what's happening on campus

60 5.41 4.68 0.73 5.38 4.61 0.77 5.46 4.94 0.52 5.67 5.22 0.45 5.63 5.24 0.39 *** -0.04 0.02 -0.06

Safety and Security

6.53 4.49 2.04 6.48 4.99 1.49 6.42 5.12 1.3 6.41 5.02 1.39 6.41 5.1 1.31 *** 0 0.08 -0.08


7 6.66 5.38 1.28 6.62 5.57 1.05 6.59 5.52 1.07 6.56 5.49 1.07 6.58 5.32 1.26 (**) 0.02 -0.17 0.19 (**)

Parking lots are well-lighted and secure

28 6.54 4.8 1.74 6.46 5.29 1.17 6.39 5.27 1.12 6.38 5.24 1.14 6.42 5.27 1.15 *** 0.04 0.03 0.01

The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate

21 6.56 2.99 3.57 6.44 4.04 2.4 6.37 4.55 1.82 6.34 4.11 2.23 6.27 4.43 1.84 *** -0.07 0.32 -0.39 ***

Security staff respond quickly in emergencies

36 6.34 4.95 1.39 6.37 5.12 1.25 6.32 5.16 1.16 6.38 5.31 1.07 6.38 5.45 0.93 *** 0 0.14 -0.14 *


5.05

5.18

5.32

5.44

5.5

*** 0 0.06 0

Institution's commitment to part-time students

5.24

5.2

5.38

5.55

5.58

*** 0 0.03 0

Institution's commitment to evening students

4.89

5.03

5.23

5.32

5.43

*** 0 0.11 0

Instructions commitment to older, returning learners

5.17

5.27

5.36

5.49

5.52

*** 0 0.03 0

Instruction commitment to under-represented populations

4.97

5.13

5.21

5.38

5.41

** 0 0.03 0

Instruction commitment to commuters

5.02

5.19

5.4

5.45

5.51

*** 0 0.06 0

40

Question 2011



Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff


Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001

Instruction commitment to students with disabilities

4.98

5.3

5.33

5.47

5.56

** 0 0.09 0


4.86

5.11

6.17 5.26 0.91 6.2 5.34 0.86 6.19 5.41 0.78 *** -0.01 0.07 -0.08

I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts

34 6.57 4.55 2.02 6.6 5.01 1.59 6.55 5.29 1.26 6.53 5.37 1.16 6.5 5.42 1.08 *** -0.03 0.05 -0.08

Billing policies are reasonable

11 6.1 4.72 1.38 6.14 4.72 1.42 6.19 4.92 1.27 6.18 5.07 1.11 6.18 5.12 1.06 *** 0 0.05 -0.05

The personnel involved in registration are helpful

27 6.18 4.94 1.24 6.1 5.32 0.78 6.18 5.43 0.75 6.15 5.52 0.63 6.17 5.55 0.62 *** 0.02 0.03 -0.01

Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable

50 6.17 4.95 1.22 6.16 5.37 0.79 6.08 5.45 0.63 6.14 5.51 0.63 6.18 5.66 0.52 *** 0.04 0.15 -0.11 **

The business office is open during hours which are convenient for most students

20 6.02 5.16 0.86 5.89 5.15 0.74 5.85 5.22 0.63 5.97 5.25 0.72 5.9 5.31 0.59 ** -0.07 0.06 -0.13


6.07 4.75 1.32 6.08 4.88 1.2 6.12 5.01 1.11 6.18 5.14 1.04 6.17 5.2 0.97 *** -0.01 0.06 -0.07

Adequate financial aid is available for most students

17 6.31 4.48 1.83 6.32 4.64 1.68 6.37 4.65 1.72 6.38 4.8 1.58 6.38 4.87 1.51

0 0.07 -0.07

Admissions staff are knowledgeable

4 6.29 4.92 1.37 6.25 5.09 1.16 6.26 5.24 1.02 6.28 5.37 0.91 6.25 5.36 0.89 *** -0.03 -0.01 -0.02

Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning

12 6.18 4.59 1.59 6.19 4.72 1.47 6.23 4.97 1.26 6.31 5.11 1.2 6.29 5.3 0.99 *** -0.02 0.19 -0.21 **

Financial aid counselors are helpful

5 6.09 4.88 1.21 6.17 4.88 1.29 6.2 4.99 1.21 6.25 4.97 1.28 6.19 5.1 1.09 *** -0.06 0.13 -0.19 *

Admissions counselors respond to prospective students' unique needs and requests

43 5.8 4.73 1.07 5.86 4.94 0.92 5.86 5.1 0.76 5.95 5.32 0.63 5.93 5.28 0.65 *** -0.02 -0.04 0.02

Admissions counselors accurately portray the campus in their recruiting practices

48 5.75 4.87 0.88 5.67 4.98 0.69 5.74 5.07 0.67 5.91 5.28 0.63 5.92 5.3 0.62 *** 0.01 0.02 -0.01


6.35 5.19 1.16 6.34 5.36 0.98 6.33 5.47 0.86 6.31 5.55 0.76 6.36 5.54 0.82 *** 0.05 -0.01 0.06

The content of the courses within my major is valuable

8 6.67 5.24 1.43 6.64 5.34 1.3 6.58 5.49 1.09 6.53 5.61 0.92 6.58 5.57 1.01

0.05 -0.04 0.09

41

Question 2011



Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff


Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001

The instruction in my field is excellent

16 6.6 5.28 1.32 6.61 5.38 1.23 6.57 5.47 1.1 6.53 5.58 0.95 6.57 5.58 0.99 * 0.04 0 0.04

Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field

68 6.56 5.69 0.87 6.54 5.79 0.75 6.56 5.85 0.71 6.51 5.86 0.65 6.56 5.87 0.69 *** 0.05 0.01 0.04

The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent

58 6.55 5.28 1.27 6.53 5.54 0.99 6.54 5.56 0.98 6.45 5.62 0.83 6.51 5.61 0.9 *** 0.06 -0.01 0.07

There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus

69 6.44 5.11 1.33 6.45 5.27 1.18 6.42 5.48 0.94 6.39 5.63 0.76 6.4 5.59 0.81 *** 0.01 -0.04 0.05

Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students

25 6.42 4.96 1.46 6.4 5.24 1.16 6.38 5.38 1 6.4 5.47 0.93 6.42 5.42 1 *** 0.02 -0.05 0.07

Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours

65 6.38 5.51 0.87 6.37 5.68 0.69 6.35 5.77 0.58 6.34 5.75 0.59 6.35 5.79 0.56 *** 0.01 0.04 -0.03

I am able to experience intellectual growth here

39 6.31 5.49 0.82 6.35 5.55 0.8 6.33 5.66 0.67 6.34 5.76 0.58 6.38 5.79 0.59 *** 0.04 0.03 0.01

Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course

47 6.3 4.98 1.32 6.31 5.13 1.18 6.29 5.32 0.97 6.3 5.37 0.93 6.38 5.27 1.11 *** 0.08 -0.1 0.18

There is commitment to academic excellence on this campus

41 6.34 5.39 0.95 6.29 5.46 0.83 6.28 5.6 0.68 6.34 5.7 0.64 6.36 5.7 0.66 *** 0.02 0 0.02

Adjunct faculty are competent as classroom instructors

61 6.11 5.11 1 6.12 5.37 0.75 6.14 5.31 0.83 6.13 5.38 0.75 6.14 5.42 0.72 * 0.01 0.04 -0.03


3 6.16 4.84 1.32 6.16 5.18 0.98 6.11 5.32 0.79 6.07 5.43 0.64 6.16 5.42 0.74 *** 0.09 -0.01 0.1

Faculty take into consideration student differences as they teach a course

53 6.09 4.74 1.35 6.06 4.95 1.11 6.09 5.11 0.98 6.07 5.23 0.84 6.14 5.17 0.97 *** 0.07 -0.06 0.13

Academic Advising

6.33 5.07 1.26 6.31 5.13 1.18 6.3 5.37 0.93 6.31 5.5 0.81 6.35 5.59 0.76 *** 0.04 0.09 -0.05 *

My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major

33 6.51 5.32 1.19 6.5 5.37 1.13 6.5 5.56 0.94 6.46 5.62 0.84 6.51 5.76 0.75 *** 0.05 0.14 -0.09 *

Major requirements are clear and reasonable

55 6.46 5.05 1.41 6.46 5.14 1.32 6.44 5.38 1.06 6.42 5.53 0.89 6.44 5.6 0.84 *** 0.02 0.07 -0.05

My academic advisor is approachable

6 6.46 5.34 1.12 6.38 5.34 1.04 6.39 5.56 0.83 6.4 5.66 0.74 6.42 5.77 0.65 *** 0.02 0.11 -0.09 *

42

Question 2011



Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff


Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001


14 6.22 4.95 1.27 6.2 5.04 1.16 6.19 5.29 0.9 6.22 5.42 0.8 6.26 5.5 0.79 *** 0.04 0.08 -0.01

My academic advisor helps me set goals to work towards

19 6.01 4.67 1.34 5.98 4.75 1.23 5.98 5.07 0.91 6.04 5.24 0.8 6.08 5.3 0.78 *** 0.04 0.06 -0.02


6.06 5.09 0.97 6.05 5.27 0.78 6.01 5.39 0.62 6.06 5.51 0.55 6.04 5.54 0.5 *** -0.02 0.03 -0.05

Computer labs are adequate and accessible

26 6.32 4.92 1.4 6.37 5.31 1.06 6.35 5.58 0.77 6.38 5.78 0.6 6.34 5.77 0.57 *** -0.04 -0.01 -0.03

Library resources and services are adequate

18 6.31 5.33 0.98 6.22 5.39 0.83 6.13 5.51 0.62 6.1 5.61 0.49 6.12 5.71 0.41 *** 0.02 0.1 -0.08 *

There are adequate services to help me decide upon a career

49 6.06 4.76 1.3 6.08 4.96 1.12 5.99 5.05 0.94 6.09 5.18 0.91 6.08 5.18 0.9

-0.01 0 -0.01

Academic support services adequately meet the needs of students

44 5.94 4.91 1.03 5.93 5.01 0.92 5.99 5.2 0.79 6.06 5.35 0.71 6.09 5.41 0.68 *** 0.03 0.06 -0.03

Bookstore staff are helpful

54 5.84 5.39 0.45 5.98 5.66 0.32 5.94 5.63 0.31 5.94 5.64 0.3 5.88 5.64 0.24 ** -0.06 0 -0.06

Tutoring services are readily available

32 5.98 5.07 0.91 5.9 5.21 0.69 5.9 5.33 0.57 5.99 5.39 0.6 5.96 5.41 0.55

-0.03 0.02 -0.05

Library staff are helpful and approachable

13 5.94 5.22 0.72 5.85 5.28 0.57 5.76 5.4 0.36 5.84 5.53 0.31 5.82 5.61 0.21

-0.02 0.08 -0.1

Campus Life

5.34 4.8 0.54 5.34 4.81 0.53 5.37 4.91 0.46 5.56 5.13 0.43 5.53 5.12 0.41 ** -0.03 -0.01 -0.02

Student activities fees are put to good use

73 6.01 4.43 1.58 5.99 4.5 1.49 6 4.64 1.36 6.03 4.92 1.11 6.06 4.87 1.19 *** 0.03 -0.05 0.08

Freedom of expression is protected on campus

67 5.96 5.19 0.77 5.89 5.31 0.58 5.99 5.26 0.73 6.14 5.57 0.57 6.04 5.62 0.42 *** -0.1 0.05 -0.15

Student disciplinary procedures are fair

63 5.79 5 0.79 5.84 5.17 0.67 5.85 5.28 0.57 5.96 5.46 0.5 5.99 5.42 0.57

0.03 -0.04 0.07

New student orientation services help students adjust to college

64 5.81 5.01 0.8 5.78 5.07 0.71 5.73 5.11 0.62 5.8 5.26 0.54 5.79 5.32 0.47 ** -0.01 0.06 -0.07

The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time

52 5.65 5.44 0.21 5.63 5.38 0.25 5.73 5.38 0.35 5.81 5.41 0.4 5.75 5.44 0.31 ** -0.06 0.03 -0.09

The student handbook provides helpful information about campus life

56 5.62 5.07 0.55 5.57 5.01 0.56 5.57 5.13 0.44 5.65 5.27 0.38 5.59 5.22 0.37

-0.06 -0.05 -0.01

43

Question 2011



Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff


Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001

There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria

38 5.44 4.95 0.49 5.52 4.69 0.83 5.53 4.74 0.79 5.7 4.9 0.8 5.82 4.85 0.97 *** 0.12 -0.05 0.17

I can easily get involved in campus organizations

46 5.27 4.8 0.47 5.32 4.98 0.34 5.37 5.1 0.27 5.65 5.33 0.32 5.67 5.46 0.21 *** 0.02 0.13 -0.11 *

There are a sufficient number of weekend activities for students

42 4.52 4.26 0.26 4.59 4.15 0.44 4.62 4.39 0.23 5.09 4.74 0.35 5.05 4.73 0.32 ** -0.04 -0.01 -0.03

Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate activities.

31

5.14 4.96 0.18 5.54 5.21 0.33 5.44 5.21 0.23 (***) -0.1 0 -0.1

A variety of intramural activities are offered

9 4.43 4.53 -0.1 4.51 4.55 -0.04 4.56 4.74 -0.18 4.84 4.94 -0.1 4.85 5.13 -0.28

0.01 0.19 -0.18 ***

Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable

23

5.3 5.08 0.22 5.23 4.92 0.31 *** -0.07 -0.16 0.09 (*)

Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual

30

5.23 4.96 0.27 5.1 4.75 0.35

-0.13 -0.21 0.08 (**)

Residence hall regulations are reasonable

40

5.2 5.05 0.15 5.19 4.84 0.35

-0.01 -0.21 0.2 (**)

The intercollegiate athletic programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit

24

4.62 4.47 0.15 4.97 4.62 0.35 4.91 4.59 0.32 (***) -0.06 -0.03 -0.03

Campus Climate

6.05 5.01 1.04 6.02 5.16 0.86 6.04 5.29 0.75 6.11 5.44 0.67 6.12 5.44 0.68 *** 0.01 0 0.01


7 6.66 5.38 1.28 6.62 5.57 1.05 6.59 5.52 1.07 6.56 5.49 1.07 6.58 5.32 1.26 (**) 0.02 -0.17 0.19 (**)

Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment

66 6.46 5.16 1.3 6.42 5.1 1.32 6.41 5.25 1.16 6.45 5.33 1.12 6.47 5.2 1.27

0.02 -0.13 0.15 (*)


2 6.33 5.06 1.27 6.35 5.37 0.98 6.33 5.56 0.77 6.35 5.64 0.71 6.34 5.64 0.7 *** -0.01 0 -0.01

There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus

41 6.34 5.39 0.95 6.29 5.46 0.83 6.28 5.6 0.68 6.34 5.7 0.64 6.36 5.7 0.66 *** 0.02 0 0.02


59 6.27 4.92 1.35 6.14 5.12 1.02 6.23 5.34 0.89 6.21 5.49 0.72 6.26 5.46 0.8 *** 0.05 -0.03 0.08

I seldom get the "run-around" when seeking information on this campus

57 6.28 4.52 1.76 6.18 4.7 1.48 6.19 5.01 1.18 6.13 5.1 1.03 6.16 5.09 1.07 *** 0.03 -0.01 0.04

44

Question 2011



Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff


Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001

It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus

29 6.14 5.17 0.97 6.14 5.25 0.89 6.16 5.38 0.78 6.26 5.57 0.69 6.27 5.56 0.71 *** 0.01 -0.01 0.02

Students are made to feel welcome on this campus

45 6.03 5.14 0.89 6.14 5.34 0.8 6.14 5.44 0.7 6.23 5.62 0.61 6.24 5.68 0.56 *** 0.01 0.06 -0.05

This institution has a good reputation within the community

51 6.12 5.63 0.49 6.16 5.74 0.42 6.14 5.69 0.45 6.22 5.79 0.43 6.24 5.86 0.38 *** 0.02 0.07 -0.05


3 6.16 4.84 1.32 6.16 5.18 0.98 6.11 5.32 0.79 6.07 5.43 0.64 6.16 5.42 0.74 *** 0.09 -0.01 0.1

Freedom of expression is protected on campus

67 5.96 5.19 0.77 5.89 5.31 0.58 5.99 5.26 0.73 6.14 5.57 0.57 6.04 5.62 0.42 *** -0.1 0.05 -0.15

Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available

71 5.97 4.48 1.49 5.88 4.61 1.27 5.88 4.78 1.1 5.95 5.03 0.92 5.93 5.06 0.87 *** -0.02 0.03 -0.05

There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus

62 5.9 5 0.9 5.82 5.21 0.61 5.87 5.34 0.53 5.91 5.4 0.51 5.87 5.51 0.36

-0.04 0.11 -0.15 *

Administrators are approachable to students

10 5.73 4.64 1.09 5.72 4.83 0.89 5.76 5.05 0.71 5.86 5.26 0.6 5.87 5.27 0.6 *** 0.01 0.01 0

I feel a sense of pride about my campus

37 5.6 5 0.6 5.64 5.12 0.52 5.63 5.17 0.46 5.84 5.4 0.44 5.84 5.35 0.49 ** 0 -0.05 0.05

Most students feel a sense of belonging here

1 5.47 4.89 0.58 5.43 5.07 0.36 5.51 5.09 0.42 5.7 5.37 0.33 5.74 5.39 0.35 *** 0.04 0.02 0.02

I generally know what's happening on campus

60 5.41 4.68 0.73 5.38 4.61 0.77 5.46 4.94 0.52 5.67 5.22 0.45 5.63 5.24 0.39 *** -0.04 0.02 -0.06

The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable

35

6.12 4.45 0.67 6.12 5.45 0.67 *** 0 1 0 *

Graduate teaching assistants are competent as classroom instructors

70

5.92 5.19 0.73

5.92 5.19 0.73

On the whole, the campus is well-maintained

72

6.31 5.81 0.5 *** 6.31 5.81 0.5

Supplemental 2011

The classes I need to complete my degree program are available

74 6.68 4.65 2.03 6.61 4.55 2.06 6.65 4.7 1.95 6.73 5.3 1.43 6.74 5.29 1.45

0.01 -0.01 0.02

45

Question 2011



Change Significant

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Mean Satisfaction

Gap Score

Freq. Importance

Freq. Satisfaction

Gap Score

* @.05 Mean Diff


Satisfaction

Mean Diff Gap

Score

* @.05

** @ .01 *** @.001

** @ .01 *** @.001

Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete degree requirements and graduate in a timely manner

75

6.29 4.48 1.81 6.26 4.52 1.74

-0.03 0.04 -0.07

Diversity (e.g. race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion) enriches the educational experience

76 5.93 5.37 0.56 5.41 5.18 0.23 5.55 5.28 0.27 5.7 5.42 0.28 5.72 5.53 0.19

0.02 0.11 -0.09

I am currently advised in the Academic Advising and Career Center and my course advising needs are being met

77

5.89 5.05 0.84 5.92 5.11 0.81

0.03 0.06 -0.03

I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met

78

6.23 5.49 0.74 6.33 5.7 0.63

0.1 0.21 -0.11 **

Career services available in the Academic Advising & Career Center offer me the opportunity to prepare for my job search or for graduate school

79

6.08 4.92 1.16 6.06 5.01 1.05 6.06 4.96 1.1 6.09 5.07 1.02

0.03 0.11 -0.08

I know where to go if I need help resolving a conflict with one of my instructors

80

6.19 4.61 1.58 6.19 4.58 1.61

0 -0.03 0.03


81

5.02 4.74 0.28

5.02 4.74 0.28

My child care needs are being met by the Early Childhood Development Center located on campus in the White Bldg.

5.12 4.64 0.48

-5.12 -4.64 -0.48

The University Center (UCEN) serves as a place to hang-out and unwind between classes.

82

5.77 5.45 0.32 5.71 5.45 0.26

-0.06 0 -0.06

46

Appendix D: Summary of Mean Scores for Residence Hall 2008 2011

Item

University of Michigan-Flint

National Four-Year Publics

Residence hall Non-Residence hall University of Michigan-

Flint National Four-Year

Publics Residence hall Non-Residence hall

Diff of means Satis.

Res. Vs. Non.

Sig. Res. Vs.

Non.

Change Res. 08 vs. 11

Import Satis Gap Import Satis Gap Import Satis Gap Import Satis Gap Import Satis Gap Import Satis Gap Import Satis Gap Import Satis Gap

1. Students feel a sense of belonging.

5.70 5.37 0.33 5.66 5.07 0.59 5.81 5.40 0.41 5.68 5.36 0.32 5.74 5.39 0.35 5.74 5.14 0.60 5.97 5.25 0.72 5.72 5.41 0.31 -0.16 -0.15

2. Campus staff are caring and helpful.

6.35 5.64 0.71 6.25 5.17 1.08 6.33 5.79 0.54 6.36 5.62 0.74 6.34 5.64 0.70 6.29 5.21 1.08 6.23 5.61 0.62 6.35 5.65 0.70 -0.04 -0.18

3. Faculty care about me as an individual.

6.07 5.43 0.64 6.09 5.03 1.06 6.01 5.57 0.44 6.10 5.40 0.70 6.16 5.42 0.74 6.12 5.09 1.03 6.03 5.27 0.76 6.17 5.45 0.72 -0.18 -0.30

4. Admissions staff are knowledgeable.

6.28 5.37 0.91 6.20 4.99 1.21 6.10 5.56 0.54 6.33 5.34 0.99 6.25 5.36 0.89 6.25 5.11 1.14 6.13 5.47 0.66 6.27 5.35 0.92 0.12 -0.09

5. Financial aid counselors are helpful.

6.25 4.97 1.28 6.14 4.74 1.40 6.20 5.10 1.10 6.27 4.95 1.32 6.19 5.10 1.09 6.23 4.84 1.39 6.26 4.97 1.29 6.18 5.12 1.06 -0.15 -0.13

6. My academic advisor is approachable.

6.40 5.66 0.74 6.42 5.41 1.01 6.34 5.70 0.64 6.42 5.67 0.75 6.42 5.77 0.65 6.46 5.49 0.97 6.45 5.66 0.79 6.42 5.80 0.62 -0.14 -0.04

7. Campus is safe and secure for all students.

6.56 5.49 1.07 6.44 5.29 1.15 6.51 5.90 0.61 6.58 5.40 1.18 6.58 5.32 1.26 6.47 5.43 1.04 6.55 5.49 1.06 6.58 5.31 1.27 0.18 -0.41

8. Content of courses within major is valuable.

6.53 5.61 0.92 6.54 5.43 1.11 6.31 5.69 0.62 6.58 5.60 0.98 6.58 5.57 1.01 6.57 5.53 1.04 6.62 5.43 1.19 6.58 5.60 0.98 -0.17 -0.26

9. Variety of intramural activities are offered.

4.84 4.94 -0.10 4.92 5.03 -0.11 5.55 5.05 0.50 4.69 4.92 -0.23 4.85 5.13 -0.28 5.02 5.13 -0.11 5.43 5.13 0.30 4.78 5.12 -0.34 0.01 0.08

10. Administrators are approachable to students.

5.86 5.26 0.60 5.88 4.90 0.98 6.01 5.54 0.47 5.84 5.19 0.65 5.87 5.27 0.60 5.96 5.04 0.92 6.14 5.39 0.75 5.84 5.26 0.58 0.13 -0.15

11. Billing policies are reasonable.

6.18 5.07 1.11 6.13 4.66 1.47 6.03 5.16 0.87 6.22 5.04 1.18 6.18 5.12 1.06 6.19 4.83 1.36 6.25 4.91 1.34 6.17 5.16 1.01 -0.25 -0.25

12. Financial aid awards announced in time.

6.31 5.11 1.20 6.22 4.74 1.48 6.27 5.26 1.01 6.33 5.07 1.26 6.29 5.30 0.99 6.30 4.86 1.44 6.47 4.93 1.54 6.27 5.34 0.93 -0.41 (**) -0.33

13. Library staff are helpful and approachable.

5.84 5.53 0.31 5.77 5.46 0.31 5.88 5.58 0.30 5.83 5.53 0.30 5.82 5.61 0.21 5.84 5.57 0.27 5.93 5.48 0.45 5.81 5.63 0.18 -0.15 -0.10

14. Acad. adv. concerned success as individuals.

6.22 5.42 0.80 6.27 5.17 1.10 6.20 5.54 0.66 6.23 5.40 0.83 6.26 5.50 0.79 6.33 5.28 1.05 6.23 5.35 0.88 6.30 5.53 0.77 -0.18 -0.19

15. Staff in the health services are competent.

5.72 5.11 0.61 5.95 5.03 0.92 5.83 5.24 0.59 5.68 5.07 0.61 5.69 5.11 0.58 6.04 5.19 0.85 5.95 5.08 0.87 5.65 5.12 0.53 -0.04 -0.16

16. Instruction in my major field is excellent.

6.53 5.58 0.95 6.52 5.41 1.11 6.40 5.52 0.88 6.57 5.59 0.98 6.57 5.58 0.99 6.55 5.50 1.05 6.59 5.26 1.33 6.57 5.63 0.94 -0.37 (**) -0.26

17. Adequate financial aid available.

6.38 4.80 1.58 6.32 4.67 1.65 6.33 5.18 1.15 6.40 4.72 1.68 6.38 4.87 1.51 6.37 4.89 1.48 6.41 4.60 1.81 6.39 4.91 1.48 -0.31 -0.58

18. Library resources and services are adequate.

6.10 5.61 0.49 6.14 5.46 0.68 6.07 5.69 0.38 6.11 5.60 0.51 6.12 5.71 0.41 6.18 5.58 0.60 6.09 5.57 0.52 6.13 5.73 0.40 -0.16 -0.12

19. Acad. advisor helps set goals to work toward.

6.04 5.24 0.80 6.08 4.88 1.20 6.09 5.39 0.70 6.04 5.20 0.84 6.08 5.30 0.78 6.15 5.02 1.13 6.16 5.07 1.09 6.07 5.33 0.74 -0.26 -0.32

20. Business office open hours convenient.

5.97 5.25 0.72 5.98 5.03 0.95 6.17 5.39 0.78 5.93 5.22 0.71 5.90 5.31 0.59 6.02 5.18 0.84 6.14 5.10 1.04 5.88 5.33 0.55 -0.23 -0.29

21. Amount of student parking space is adequate.

6.34 4.11 2.23 6.27 3.22 3.05 5.90 4.91 0.99 6.43 3.95 2.48 6.27 4.43 1.84 6.23 3.37 2.86 5.76 4.76 1.00 6.32 4.40 1.92 0.36 -0.15

22. Counsel. staff care about students - individ.

5.99 5.12 0.87 5.96 4.83 1.13 6.04 5.43 0.61 5.99 5.04 0.95 6.02 5.17 0.82 6.05 5.01 1.04 6.03 5.22 0.81 6.02 5.17 0.85 0.05 -0.21

23. Living conditions in res. halls comfortable.

5.30 5.08 0.22 5.89 4.43 1.46 6.45 5.99 0.46 4.85 4.65 0.20 5.23 4.92 0.31 5.95 4.61 1.34 6.42 5.42 1.00 5.01 4.84 0.17 0.58 ** -0.57

24. Intercolleg. athletics contribute to spirit.

4.97 4.62 0.35 5.28 4.73 0.55 5.37 4.78 0.59 4.87 4.57 0.30 4.91 4.59 0.32 5.37 4.85 0.52 5.40 4.33 1.07 4.85 4.62 0.23 -0.29 -0.45

25. Faculty fair/unbiased in treatment students.

6.40 5.47 0.93 6.37 5.12 1.25 6.27 5.69 0.58 6.43 5.42 1.01 6.42 5.42 1.00 6.40 5.25 1.15 6.35 5.30 1.05 6.43 5.45 0.98 -0.15 -0.39

26. Computer labs are adequate and accessible.

6.38 5.78 0.60 6.28 5.40 0.88 6.27 5.99 0.28 6.41 5.74 0.67 6.34 5.77 0.57 6.29 5.49 0.80 6.17 5.79 0.38 6.37 5.79 0.58 0.00 -0.20

47

2008 2011

Item







Res. Vs. Non.

Sig. Res. Vs.

Non.



27. Registration personnel are helpful.

6.15 5.52 0.63 6.18 5.09 1.09 6.18 5.62 0.56 6.15 5.50 0.65 6.17 5.55 0.62 6.24 5.19 1.05 6.28 5.42 0.86 6.16 5.57 0.59 -0.15 -0.20

28. Parking lots are well-lighted and secure.

6.38 5.24 1.14 6.21 4.80 1.41 6.20 5.47 0.73 6.42 5.19 1.23 6.42 5.27 1.15 6.21 4.93 1.28 6.29 4.92 1.37 6.44 5.32 1.12 -0.40 (**) -0.55

29. Enjoyable experience to be student on campus.

6.26 5.57 0.69 6.28 5.26 1.02 6.39 5.59 0.80 6.23 5.57 0.66 6.27 5.56 0.71 6.33 5.35 0.98 6.28 5.29 0.99 6.27 5.60 0.67 -0.31 (*) -0.30

30. Residence hall staff concerned about individ.

5.23 4.96 0.27 5.52 4.69 0.83 6.22 5.66 0.56 4.81 4.63 0.18 5.10 4.75 0.35 5.62 4.79 0.83 5.95 5.05 0.90 4.94 4.69 0.25 0.36 ** -0.61

31. Males/females equal opport. part. athletics.

5.54 5.21 0.33 5.54 5.22 0.32 5.92 5.52 0.40 5.43 5.13 0.30 5.44 5.21 0.23 5.65 5.39 0.26 5.69 5.44 0.25 5.41 5.21 0.20 0.23 -0.08

32. Tutoring services are readily available.

5.99 5.39 0.60 5.98 5.27 0.71 6.26 5.76 0.50 5.93 5.31 0.62 5.96 5.41 0.55 6.05 5.40 0.65 6.21 5.43 0.78 5.93 5.42 0.51 0.01 -0.33

33. Acad. advisor knows requirements in major.

6.46 5.62 0.84 6.50 5.46 1.04 6.36 5.55 0.81 6.48 5.64 0.84 6.51 5.76 0.75 6.54 5.56 0.98 6.42 5.57 0.85 6.52 5.79 0.73 -0.22 0.02

34. Able register for classes with few conflicts.

6.53 5.37 1.16 6.52 4.88 1.64 6.39 5.51 0.88 6.57 5.33 1.24 6.50 5.42 1.08 6.55 4.98 1.57 6.43 5.29 1.14 6.52 5.44 1.08 -0.15 -0.22

35. Assess/course placement proced. reasonable.

6.14 5.33 0.81 6.15 5.10 1.05 6.14 5.45 0.69 6.14 5.31 0.83 6.12 5.45 0.67 6.23 5.24 0.99 6.02 5.29 0.73 6.13 5.49 0.64 -0.20 -0.16

36. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies

6.38 5.31 1.07 6.28 4.91 1.37 6.38 5.61 0.77 6.38 5.24 1.14 6.38 5.45 0.93 6.35 5.14 1.21 6.54 5.60 0.94 6.37 5.45 0.92 0.15 -0.01

37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus.

5.84 5.40 0.44 5.79 5.10 0.69 6.04 5.63 0.41 5.80 5.35 0.45 5.84 5.35 0.49 5.87 5.22 0.65 5.92 5.24 0.68 5.83 5.36 0.47 -0.12 -0.39

38. Adequate selection of food in the cafeteria.

5.70 4.90 0.80 5.85 4.44 1.41 6.24 4.62 1.62 5.58 4.96 0.62 5.82 4.85 0.97 5.92 4.58 1.34 6.35 3.83 2.52 5.76 4.97 0.79 -1.14 (***) -0.79

39. Able to experience intellectual growth here.

6.34 5.76 0.58 6.35 5.47 0.88 6.27 5.71 0.56 6.37 5.77 0.60 6.38 5.79 0.59 6.42 5.58 0.84 6.29 5.43 0.86 6.39 5.84 0.55 -0.41 (***) -0.28

40. Residence hall regulations are reasonable.

5.20 5.05 0.15 5.65 4.71 0.94 6.21 5.82 0.39 4.78 4.67 0.11 5.19 4.84 0.35 5.76 4.87 0.89 6.20 4.90 1.30 4.99 4.82 0.17 0.08 -0.92

41. Commitment to academic excellence on campus.

6.34 5.70 0.64 6.29 5.28 1.01 6.21 5.71 0.50 6.38 5.70 0.68 6.36 5.70 0.66 6.34 5.38 0.96 6.41 5.63 0.78 6.35 5.72 0.63 -0.09 -0.08

42. Number weekend activities for students.

5.09 4.74 0.35 5.40 4.43 0.97 5.88 4.95 0.93 4.87 4.68 0.19 5.05 4.73 0.32 5.46 4.56 0.90 5.77 4.37 1.40 4.96 4.78 0.18 -0.41 (**) -0.58

43. Admiss. counselors respond needs/requests.

5.95 5.32 0.63 5.96 4.91 1.05 6.07 5.55 0.52 5.94 5.27 0.67 5.93 5.28 0.65 6.05 5.04 1.01 6.08 5.31 0.77 5.91 5.29 0.62 0.02 -0.24

44. Acad. support svcs. meet needs of students.

6.06 5.35 0.71 6.06 5.05 1.01 6.05 5.57 0.48 6.06 5.30 0.76 6.09 5.41 0.68 6.16 5.18 0.98 6.12 5.27 0.85 6.09 5.43 0.66 -0.16 -0.30

45. Students are made to feel welcome on campus.

6.23 5.62 0.61 6.20 5.30 0.90 6.24 5.75 0.49 6.23 5.59 0.64 6.24 5.68 0.56 6.24 5.42 0.82 6.24 5.56 0.68 6.24 5.70 0.54 -0.14 -0.19

46. Easily get involved in campus organizations.

5.65 5.33 0.32 5.77 5.18 0.59 6.05 5.60 0.45 5.56 5.26 0.30 5.67 5.46 0.21 5.84 5.27 0.57 6.06 5.65 0.41 5.62 5.45 0.17 0.20 0.05

47. Faculty provide feedback/progress in course.

6.30 5.37 0.93 6.30 5.03 1.27 6.12 5.34 0.78 6.35 5.37 0.98 6.38 5.27 1.11 6.36 5.09 1.27 6.27 5.02 1.25 6.39 5.30 1.09 -0.28 (*) -0.32

48. Admiss. counselors accurately portray campus.

5.91 5.28 0.63 5.93 4.94 0.99 6.00 5.44 0.56 5.90 5.24 0.66 5.92 5.30 0.62 6.01 5.09 0.92 5.98 5.27 0.71 5.91 5.31 0.60 -0.04 -0.17

49. Adequate services to help decide career.

6.09 5.18 0.91 6.16 5.01 1.15 6.01 5.49 0.52 6.12 5.11 1.01 6.08 5.18 0.90 6.22 5.11 1.11 6.14 5.14 1.00 6.07 5.18 0.89 -0.04 -0.35

50. Class change (drop/add) policies reasonable.

6.14 5.51 0.63 6.16 5.29 0.87 6.16 5.80 0.36 6.15 5.45 0.70 6.18 5.66 0.52 6.21 5.39 0.82 6.28 5.52 0.76 6.17 5.68 0.49 -0.16 -0.28

51. Institution has good 6.22 5.79 0.43 6.15 5.43 0.72 6.04 5.79 0.25 6.26 5.79 0.47 6.24 5.86 0.38 6.21 5.56 0.65 6.26 5.76 0.50 6.24 5.88 0.36 -0.12 -0.03

48

2008 2011

Item







Res. Vs. Non.

Sig. Res. Vs.

Non.



reputation in community.

52. Student center is comfortable place.

5.81 5.41 0.40 5.80 5.19 0.61 6.01 5.78 0.23 5.76 5.33 0.43 5.75 5.44 0.31 5.89 5.31 0.58 6.06 5.34 0.72 5.70 5.46 0.24 -0.12 -0.44

53. Faculty consider differences as teach course.

6.07 5.23 0.84 6.12 4.90 1.22 6.05 5.37 0.68 6.08 5.19 0.89 6.14 5.17 0.97 6.17 5.00 1.17 6.11 5.12 0.99 6.15 5.19 0.96 -0.07 -0.25

54. Bookstore staff are helpful.

5.94 5.64 0.30 5.91 5.40 0.51 5.94 5.62 0.32 5.94 5.65 0.29 5.88 5.64 0.24 5.98 5.53 0.45 5.85 5.52 0.33 5.89 5.67 0.22 -0.15 -0.10

55. Major requirements are clear and reasonable.

6.42 5.53 0.89 6.40 5.31 1.09 6.24 5.70 0.54 6.47 5.50 0.97 6.44 5.60 0.84 6.45 5.45 1.00 6.38 5.36 1.02 6.45 5.63 0.82 -0.27 (*) -0.34

56. Student handbook provides helpful info.

5.65 5.27 0.38 5.72 5.12 0.60 5.93 5.61 0.32 5.59 5.20 0.39 5.59 5.22 0.37 5.79 5.25 0.54 5.74 5.22 0.52 5.56 5.23 0.33 -0.01 -0.39

57. Seldom get "run-around" on campus.

6.13 5.10 1.03 6.20 4.45 1.75 6.00 5.42 0.58 6.16 5.03 1.13 6.16 5.09 1.07 6.23 4.54 1.69 6.10 4.98 1.12 6.17 5.11 1.06 -0.13 -0.44

58. Quality of instruction in classes excellent.

6.45 5.62 0.83 6.46 5.31 1.15 6.24 5.67 0.57 6.50 5.61 0.89 6.51 5.61 0.90 6.50 5.39 1.11 6.48 5.33 1.15 6.52 5.65 0.87 -0.32 (**) -0.34

59. Inst. shows concern for students as individ.

6.21 5.49 0.72 6.24 4.98 1.26 6.10 5.73 0.37 6.24 5.44 0.80 6.26 5.46 0.80 6.29 5.10 1.19 6.27 5.14 1.13 6.26 5.50 0.76 -0.36 (**) -0.59

60. I generally know what's happening on campus.

5.67 5.22 0.45 5.76 4.88 0.88 5.91 5.44 0.47 5.63 5.17 0.46 5.63 5.24 0.39 5.83 4.98 0.85 5.79 5.24 0.55 5.61 5.24 0.37 0.00 -0.20

61. Adjunct faculty competent.

6.13 5.38 0.75 6.12 5.17 0.95 6.01 5.53 0.48 6.16 5.35 0.81 6.14 5.42 0.72 6.19 5.32 0.87 6.15 5.19 0.96 6.14 5.45 0.69 -0.26 (*) -0.34

62. Strong commitment to racial harmony.

5.91 5.40 0.51 5.94 5.22 0.72 6.08 5.53 0.55 5.88 5.37 0.51 5.87 5.51 0.36 6.01 5.45 0.56 5.96 5.34 0.62 5.85 5.54 0.31 -0.20 -0.19

63. Student disciplinary procedures are fair.

5.96 5.46 0.50 6.00 5.13 0.87 6.05 5.66 0.39 5.95 5.41 0.54 5.99 5.42 0.57 6.10 5.34 0.76 6.10 5.18 0.92 5.98 5.45 0.53 -0.27 (*) -0.48

64. Orientation services help students adjust.

5.80 5.26 0.54 5.89 5.06 0.83 6.02 5.33 0.69 5.75 5.24 0.51 5.79 5.32 0.47 5.97 5.19 0.78 6.12 5.41 0.71 5.75 5.31 0.44 0.10 0.08

65. Faculty avail. after class/during ofc. hours.

6.34 5.75 0.59 6.33 5.52 0.81 6.28 5.76 0.52 6.35 5.74 0.61 6.35 5.79 0.56 6.35 5.62 0.73 6.25 5.57 0.68 6.36 5.82 0.54 -0.25 (*) -0.19

66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.

6.45 5.33 1.12 6.42 5.06 1.36 6.37 5.63 0.74 6.47 5.26 1.21 6.47 5.20 1.27 6.47 5.20 1.27 6.48 5.18 1.30 6.48 5.21 1.27 -0.03 -0.45

67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus.

6.14 5.57 0.57 6.09 5.26 0.83 6.25 5.80 0.45 6.12 5.52 0.60 6.04 5.62 0.42 6.16 5.46 0.70 6.07 5.52 0.55 6.04 5.64 0.40 -0.12 -0.28

68. Nearly all faculty knowledgeable in field.

6.51 5.86 0.65 6.48 5.62 0.86 6.43 5.00 0.53 6.54 5.85 0.69 6.56 5.87 0.69 6.52 5.72 0.80 6.37 5.75 0.62 6.49 5.89 0.60 -0.14 0.75

69. Good variety of courses provided on campus.

6.39 5.63 0.76 6.40 5.33 1.07 6.32 5.76 0.56 6.41 5.61 0.80 6.40 5.59 0.81 6.43 5.44 0.99 6.39 5.43 0.96 6.40 5.62 0.78 -0.19 -0.33

70. Graduate teaching assistants competent.

5.91 5.18 0.73 6.08 5.03 1.05 5.93 5.55 0.38 5.92 5.09 0.83 5.92 5.19 0.73 6.15 5.17 0.98 5.86 5.06 0.80 5.93 5.21 0.72 -0.15 -0.49

71. Channels - express student complaints avail.

5.95 5.03 0.92 6.02 4.64 1.38 6.04 5.44 0.60 5.93 4.92 1.01 5.93 5.06 0.87 6.07 4.77 1.30 5.98 5.00 0.98 5.92 5.08 0.84 -0.08 -0.44

72. The campus is well-maintained.

6.29 5.82 0.47 6.25 5.53 0.72 6.28 5.88 0.40 6.29 5.82 0.47 6.31 5.81 0.50 6.31 5.65 0.66 6.21 5.48 0.73 6.33 5.86 0.47 -0.38 (***) -0.40

73. Student activities fees are put to good use.

6.03 4.92 1.11 6.10 4.47 1.63 6.17 5.47 0.70 6.00 4.79 1.21 6.06 4.87 1.19 6.16 4.62 1.54 6.27 5.09 1.18 6.04 4.84 1.20 0.25 -0.38

74. Classes I need to complete my degree program are available.

6.73 5.30 1.43 6.65 5.77 0.88 6.76 5.21 1.55 6.74 5.29 1.45 0.00 6.75 5.39 1.36 6.75 5.29 1.46 0.10 -0.38

75. Course scheduling problems have interfered with my ability to complete my degree

6.29 4.48 1.81 6.05 5.04 1.01 6.34 4.35 1.99 6.26 4.52 1.74 0.00 6.11 4.51 1.60 6.29 4.52 1.77 -0.01 -0.53

49

2008 2011

Item







Res. Vs. Non.

Sig. Res. Vs.

Non.



requirements and graduate in a timely manner.

Diversity enriches the educational experience.

5.70 5.42 0.28 5.94 5.56 0.38 5.63 5.39 0.24 5.72 5.53 0.19 0.00 5.99 5.36 0.63 5.69 5.55 0.14 -0.19 -0.20

77. I am currently advised in the Academic Advising and Career Center and my course advising needs are being met.

5.89 5.05 0.84 6.22 5.53 0.69 5.81 4.91 0.90 5.92 5.11 0.81 0.00 6.27 5.20 1.07 5.88 5.10 0.78 0.10 -0.33

78. I am currently advised in an academic department and my course advising needs are being met.

6.23 5.49 0.74 6.11 5.36 0.75 6.26 5.53 0.73 6.33 5.70 0.63 0.00 6.36 5.58 0.78 6.33 5.73 0.60 -0.15 0.22

79. Career services available in the Academic Advising and Career Center offer me the opportunity to prepare for my job search and/or for graduate school

6.06 4.96 1.10 6.22 5.30 0.92 6.03 4.86 1.17 6.09 5.07 1.02 0.00 6.15 5.09 1.06 6.09 5.08 1.01 0.01 -0.21

80. I know where to go if I need help resolving a conflict with one of my instructors.

6.19 4.61 1.58 6.22 5.12 1.10 6.18 4.49 1.69 6.19 4.58 1.61 0.00 6.26 4.67 1.59 6.19 4.58 1.61 0.09 -0.45

81. My child care needs are being met by the ECDC located on campus in the WSW building.

5.12 4.64 0.48 5.62 5.08 0.54 4.96 4.46 0.50 5.02 4.74 0.28 0.00 5.07 4.63 0.44 5.01 4.75 0.26 -0.12 -0.45

82. The University Center serves as a place to hang-out and unwind between classes.

5.77 5.45 0.32 6.20 5.78 0.42 5.68 5.37 0.31 5.71 5.45 0.26 0.00 6.18 5.41 0.77 5.65 5.47 0.18 -0.06 -0.37

84. Institution's commit. to part-time students?

5.55 5.10 5.68 5.53 5.58 5.22 5.35 5.61 -0.26 -0.33

85. Institution's commitment to evening students?

5.32 5.08 5.61 5.25 5.43 5.21 5.28 5.46 -0.18 -0.33

86. Inst's commit. to older, returning students?

5.49 5.18 5.67 5.45 5.52 5.32 5.51 5.53 -0.02 -0.16

87. Inst's commit. to under-represent population?

5.38 5.10 5.66 5.32 5.41 5.27 5.32 5.43 -0.11 -0.34

88. Institution's commitment to commuters?

5.45 4.92 5.69 5.40 5.51 5.07 5.47 5.53 -0.06 -0.22

89. Inst's commitment student with disabilities?

5.47 5.25 5.65 5.42 5.56 5.42 5.55 5.57 -0.02 -0.10

50

Appendix E: Fall 2011 Administration Itemized Expenses

Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)

INVENTORIES Order placed in March 2,525 inventories @ $1.70 each = $4,292.50 Order placed in November 1,000 inventories @ $2.00 each = $2,000.00 SERVICES Processing & Set Up Fee = $135.00 Hard Copy Report = $105.00 Year-to-Year Comparison Report = $80.00 Raw Data File = $135.00 Custom Report = $120.00 INCENTIVES Coupons redeemed = $10,412.96 MISCELLANEOUS Shipping & Handling = $343.38 Printing Costs = $277.50 Miscellaneous Supplies = $104.20 TOTAL = $18,005.54

Documents

Report on the University of Michigan-Flint Student Satisfaction