institutional research reportssi 2011 –definition (contd.) performance gap (importance minus...

Institutional Research Report

Koji Fujiwara

August 16th, 2011

1

Topic

1. Fall 2011 Enrollment Outlook

2. Results for Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)

3. NTC Fact Book

4. Success Study (if time allows)

5. Survey Info.

2

Fall 2011 Enrollment Outlook

3

Fall 2011 Headcount and FTE

4

Headcount

Fall 2010 Opening Day Headcount 1,401

Fall 2011 Headcount as of this morning 1,321

Headcount Difference -80

FTE

Fall 2010 Opening Day FTE 850.3

Fall 2011 FTE as of this morning 773.4

FTE Difference -76.9

Note: FTE = Undergraduate Semester Hours / 15.

Fall 2011 Weekly Enrollment (FTE)

Note: For the opening day of Fall 10 semester, campus FTE = 533.9; distance FTE = 316.4; Total FTE = 850.3.

5

773.4

0.0

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

Fall 11 Campus

Fall 11 Distance

Fall 11 Total FTE

Fall 10 Total FTE

Fall 10 OP Campus

Fall 10 OP Distance

Fall 10 OP Total FTE

Results for Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)

6

SSI 2011 - Definition

The SSI measures students' satisfaction with a wide range of college experiences.

For each item, students rate by the importance of the specific expectation as well as their satisfaction.

Students respond to each item on a 1 to 7 Lichert scale, with 7 being high.

7

SSI 2011 – Definition (contd.)

Performance Gap (importance minus satisfaction) and Mean Difference in Satisfaction (NTC satisfaction minus Comparison Group satisfaction) are calculated and used for the report.

The smaller the performance gap, the better NTC is doing at meeting student expectations.

If the mean difference in satisfaction is a positive, then NTC students are more satisfied than the students in the comparison group.

Comparison Group: National Community Colleges, MnSCU 2 Years Colleges and NTC 2009.

8

Item Report: NTC 2011 vs. National

9

There are 95 items.

Of those items, 76 items are comparable.

Out of 76 items, there are only 5 items with negative significant differences. (NTC students are less satisfied than the students in the comparison group.)

The number of items with positive significant difference is 26.

Items with Negative Mean Difference

Item

NTC 2011 National 2011

Import Satis/SD Gap Import Satis/SD Gap Mean Difference

4. Security staff are helpful. 5.164.57 / 1.62

0.59 5.564.95 / 1.57

0.61 -0.38 ***

10. Child care facilities are available on campus.

4.523.72 / 1.76

0.80 4.544.44 / 1.64

0.10 -0.72 ***

11. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies.

5.534.63 / 1.44

0.90 5.934.93 / 1.46

1.00 -0.30 **

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

6.365.18 / 1.72

1.18 6.365.41 / 1.52

0.95 -0.23 *

82. Institution's commitment to evening students?

5.26 / 1.49

5.49 / 1.42

-0.23 *

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.0001; Gap = Importance - Satisfaction;Mean Difference = NTC satisfaction - Comparison Group satisfaction.

10

Scale Report

The items have been analyzed statistically (Factor Analysis) to produce scale scores.

The scales provide the “big picture” overview of what matters to NTC students.

11

Scale Report: NTC 2011 vs. National 2011

ScaleNTC 2011 National 2011


Academic Advising/Counseling 6.165.59 / 1.23

0.57 6.15 5.21 / 1.31 0.94 0.38 ***

Instructional Effectiveness 6.135.50 / 1.14

0.63 6.19 5.42 / 1.06 0.77 0.08

Concern for the Individual 6.115.47 / 1.26

0.64 6.09 5.24 / 1.20 0.85 0.23 **

Registration Effectiveness 6.055.41 / 1.09

0.64 6.17 5.43 / 1.04 0.74 -0.02

Student Centeredness 6.025.56 / 1.17

0.46 5.99 5.38 / 1.13 0.61 0.18 **

Admissions and Financial Aid 6.025.54 / 1.14

0.48 6.04 5.14 / 1.22 0.90 0.40 ***

Campus Climate 5.975.48 / 1.11

0.49 5.98 5.31 / 1.06 0.67 0.17 **

Service Excellence 5.935.38 / 1.17

0.55 5.97 5.28 / 1.07 0.69 0.10

Academic Services 5.845.50 / 1.05

0.34 6.06 5.46 / 1.05 0.60 0.04

Safety and Security 5.715.04 / 1.12

0.67 6.02 5.00 / 1.19 1.02 0.04

Campus Support Services 5.394.89 / 1.15

0.50 5.47 4.97 / 1.16 0.50 -0.08

Responsiveness to Diverse Populations5.50 / 1.27

5.49 / 1.24 0.01

Note: ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.0001; Gap = Importance - Satisfaction;Mean Difference = NTC satisfaction - Comparison Group satisfaction.

12

Item Report: NTC vs. MnSCU 2yr Colleges

Item

NTC 2011 MnSCU 2yr 2011


4. Security staff are helpful. 5.164.57 / 1.62

0.59 5.254.85 / 1.50

0.40 -0.28 **

10. Child care facilities are available on campus.

4.523.72 / 1.76

0.80 4.284.39 / 1.57

-0.11 -0.67 ***

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

6.365.18 / 1.72

1.18 6.315.42 / 1.45

0.89 -0.24 **

21. There are a sufficient number of study areas on campus.

5.745.26 / 1.47

0.48 5.935.47 / 1.40

0.46 -0.21 *

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.0001; Gap = Importance - Satisfaction;Mean Difference = NTC satisfaction - Comparison Group satisfaction.

Out of 76 items, there are only 4 items with negative significant differences. (NTC students are less satisfied than the students in the comparison group.)

The number of items with positive significant difference is 27.

13

Scale Report: NTC vs. MnSCU 2yr Colleges

14

ScaleNTC 2011 MnSCU 2yr 2011

Import Satis / SD Gap Import Satis / SD Gap Mean Difference


0.57 6.055.22 / 1.26

0.83 0.37 ***


0.63 6.145.42 / 1.02

0.72 0.08


0.64 6.035.25 / 1.16

0.78 0.22 **


0.64 6.075.40 / 1.00

0.67 0.01


0.46 5.925.39 / 1.08

0.53 0.17 **


0.48 5.945.18 / 1.13

0.76 0.36 ***


0.49 5.915.33 / 1.03

0.58 0.15 *


0.55 5.875.29 / 1.02

0.58 0.09


0.34 5.965.48 / 0.98

0.48 0.02


0.67 5.835.00 / 1.10

0.83 0.04


0.50 5.334.95 / 1.10

0.38 -0.06


5.41 / 1.20

0.09


Scale Report: NTC 2011 vs. NTC 2009

ScaleNTC 2011 NTC 2009

Import Satis / SD Gap Import Satis / SD Gap Mean Difference


0.57 6.175.64 / 1.03

0.53 -0.05


0.63 6.145.58 / 0.91

0.56 -0.08


0.64 6.065.55 / 0.98

0.51 -0.08


0.64 6.055.52 / 0.90

0.53 -0.11


0.46 5.995.68 / 0.91

0.31 -0.12


0.48 5.975.48 / 1.04

0.49 0.06


0.49 5.975.51 / 0.90

0.46 -0.03


0.55 5.965.48 / 0.92

0.48 -0.10


0.34 5.965.54 / 0.89

0.42 -0.04


0.67 5.854.69 / 1.23

1.16 0.35 ***


0.50 5.254.92 / 1.00

0.33 -0.03


5.46 / 1.09

0.04


15

Summary Report

Q1. So far, how has your college experience met your expectations?

Q2. Rate your overall satisfaction with your experience here thus far.

Q3. All in all, if you had to do it over, would you enroll here again?

16

4.79

4.97

4.794.72

5.48

5.76

5.46 5.435.55

5.86

5.725.65

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

NTC 2011 (ref) NTC 2009 National 2yr 2011 MnSCU 2yr 2011

Q1

Q2

Q3

**

* * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Diff = -0.28

Diff = -0.31

NTC Fact Book

17

About NTC Fact Book

The Fact Book provides general statistical and descriptive information about NTC.

It may be useful to those engaged in planning, assessment, preparing reports, writing grant proposals or other endeavors within the college.

18

Example

19

Table 13. Full-time/Part-time by Gender

Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Full-time Female 346 28.4% 282 20.5% 284 17.7% 285 20.1%

Male 234 19.2% 225 16.4% 305 19.0% 282 19.9%

Unknown 2 0.2% 1 0.1% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%

Part-time Female 500 41.1% 683 49.7% 785 48.9% 663 46.7%

Male 132 10.8% 179 13.0% 227 14.2% 189 13.3%

Unknown 3 0.2% 3 0.2% 2 0.1%

Total 1,217 1,373 1,604 1,420

Source: ST_TERM_DATA 30th day

Table 15. Full-time/Part-time by Age Groups



Full-time 15 to 17 6 0.5% 4 0.3% 2 0.1% 4 0.3%

18-20 233 19.1% 179 13.0% 180 11.2% 179 12.6%

21-24 154 12.7% 137 10.0% 135 8.4% 120 8.5%

25-29 82 6.7% 77 5.6% 93 5.8% 94 6.6%

30-39 65 5.3% 76 5.5% 98 6.1% 106 7.5%

40 plus 40 3.3% 34 2.5% 82 5.1% 64 4.5%

Unknown 2 0.2% 1 0.1% 1 0.1%

Part-time 15 to 17 28 2.3% 39 2.8% 24 1.5% 16 1.1%

18-20 158 13.0% 191 13.9% 200 12.5% 161 11.3%

21-24 150 12.3% 201 14.6% 240 15.0% 205 14.4%

25-29 114 9.4% 171 12.5% 204 12.7% 168 11.8%

30-39 100 8.2% 148 10.8% 191 11.9% 149 10.5%

40 plus 82 6.7% 106 7.7% 150 9.4% 151 10.6%

Unknown 3 0.2% 9 0.7% 5 0.3% 2 0.1%

Total 1,217 1,373 1,604 1,420


Table 22. On-Campus and OnlineFall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10


On-Campus * 824 67.7% 797 58.0% 900 56.1% 759 53.5%

NTC Online * 116 9.5% 156 11.4% 190 11.8% 279 19.6%

BSU ** Students 15 1.2% 20 1.5% 30 1.9% 23 1.6%

Parter Institutions 252 20.7% 358 26.1% 384 23.9% 331 23.3%

Drop Courses 10 0.8% 42 3.1% 100 6.2% 28 2.0%

Total 1,217 1,373 1,604 1,420


Note: * A student is assigned to the campus where he/she is registered for the most credits; ** Bemidji State University.

20

67.7%

58.0%

56.1%

53.5%

9.5%

11.4%

11.8%

19.6%

20.7%

26.1%

23.9%

23.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fall 07

Fall 08

Fall 09

Fall 10

On-Campus NTC Online BSU Students Parter Institutions Drop Courses

Table 30. New* Undergraduate Students by Admission StatusFall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10


Undergrad Regular 234 37.4% 186 27.0% 231 26.7% 194 29.2%

Undergrad Transfer 140 22.4% 120 17.4% 171 19.7% 149 22.4%

Undergrad with Prev. Degree 12 1.9% 12 1.7% 17 2.0% 9 1.4%

PSEO 10 1.6% 18 2.6% 17 2.0% 18 2.7%

High School, Non-PSEO 14 2.2% 10 1.5%

Unclassified 216 34.5% 343 49.8% 430 49.7% 295 44.4%

Total 626 689 866 665


Note: * New students in Summer or Fall semester.

Table 32. Returned Undergraduate Students by Admission StatusFall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10


Undergrad Regular 274 46.4% 282 41.2% 267 36.2% 242 32.1%

Undergrad Transfer 213 36.0% 266 38.9% 311 42.1% 364 48.2%

Undergrad with Prev. Degree 18 3.0% 26 3.8% 34 4.6% 34 4.5%

PSEO 5 0.8% 4 0.6% 6 0.8% 4 0.5%

High School, Non-PSEO 4 0.7% 9 1.3%

Unclassified 77 13.0% 97 14.2% 120 16.3% 111 14.7%

Total 591 684 738 755


21

Table 42. High School Attended of New* StudentsFall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10


Bemidji High School 79 12.6% 62 9.0% 52 6.0% 51 7.7%

Jefferson Senior High School 3 0.5% 3 0.4% 8 0.9% 14 2.1%

Bagley High School 13 2.1% 10 1.5% 13 1.5% 13 2.0%

Red Lake High School 4 0.6% 9 1.3% 5 0.6% 12 1.8%

Blackduck Secondary School 22 3.5% 11 1.6% 17 2.0% 11 1.7%

Cass Lake-Bena High School 14 2.2% 9 1.3% 9 1.0% 10 1.5%

Fosston High School 6 1.0% 2 0.3% 9 1.0% 10 1.5%

Laporte High School 12 1.9% 8 1.2% 10 1.2% 9 1.4%

Park Rapids Area High School 9 1.4% 15 2.2% 14 1.6% 8 1.2%

Lincoln Senior High School 6 1.0% 6 0.9% 7 0.8% 7 1.1%

Warroad High School 8 1.3% 5 0.7% 7 0.8% 7 1.1%

Clearbrook-Gonvick HS 4 0.6% 7 1.0% 8 0.9% 6 0.9%

Fisher High School 1 0.2% 2 0.2% 6 0.9%

Senior High School 3 0.5% 3 0.4% 4 0.5% 6 0.9%

Crookston High School 3 0.5% 3 0.4% 4 0.5% 5 0.8%

Warren-Alvarado-Oslo HS 1 0.2% 4 0.6% 1 0.1% 5 0.8%

Cass Lake Area Learning Ctr 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 4 0.6%

Centennial High School 1 0.2% 2 0.2% 4 0.6%

Crosby Ironton High School 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 1 0.1% 4 0.6%

Grand Rapids High School 3 0.5% 5 0.7% 8 0.9% 4 0.6%

Greenbush/Middle River HS 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 2 0.2% 4 0.6%

Hibbing High School 1 0.1% 3 0.3% 4 0.6%

Nevis High School 5 0.8% 2 0.3% 5 0.6% 4 0.6%

Roseau High School 3 0.5% 4 0.6% 11 1.3% 4 0.6%

Sacred Heart High School 3 0.5% 1 0.1% 2 0.2% 4 0.6%

Voyageurs Expeditionary HS 3 0.5% 7 1.0% 7 0.8% 4 0.6%

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley HS 8 1.3% 9 1.3% 11 1.3% 4 0.6%

West Central Area Secondary 3 0.4% 3 0.3% 4 0.6%

Win-E-Mac High School 2 0.3% 5 0.6% 4 0.6%

22

Table 43. University Enrollment for Undergraduate Students by Minnesota Counties



Beltrami 462 45.5% 501 44.7% 612 45.3% 518 43.0%

Hubbard 70 6.9% 74 6.6% 88 6.5% 82 6.8%

Clearwater 70 6.9% 67 6.0% 71 5.3% 76 6.3%

Polk 46 4.5% 32 2.9% 41 3.0% 59 4.9%

Cass 49 4.8% 47 4.2% 49 3.6% 55 4.6%

Roseau 20 2.0% 19 1.7% 35 2.6% 37 3.1%

Pennington 10 1.0% 23 2.1% 25 1.8% 31 2.6%

Douglas 11 1.1% 8 0.7% 19 1.4% 30 2.5%

Hennepin 11 1.1% 14 1.3% 19 1.4% 25 2.1%

Itasca 27 2.7% 23 2.1% 30 2.2% 21 1.7%

Stearns 3 0.3% 6 0.5% 16 1.2% 19 1.6%

Saint Louis 16 1.6% 16 1.4% 21 1.6% 16 1.3%

Becker 16 1.6% 22 2.0% 41 3.0% 14 1.2%

Marshall 10 1.0% 16 1.4% 20 1.5% 13 1.1%

Koochiching 17 1.7% 16 1.4% 17 1.3% 12 1.0%

Anoka 6 0.6% 6 0.5% 3 0.2% 10 0.8%

Dakota 5 0.5% 9 0.8% 13 1.0% 10 0.8%

Wadena 11 1.1% 14 1.3% 16 1.2% 10 0.8%

Otter Tail 20 2.0% 32 2.9% 37 2.7% 9 0.7%

Washington 4 0.4% 2 0.2% 4 0.3% 9 0.7%

Wright 6 0.5% 9 0.7% 9 0.7%

23

Success Study

24

Introduction

Cohort = Fall 2009, first-year, degree-seeking, full-time students

Target Variable = 2nd Fall (Fall 2010) Success (MnSCU local variable)

Success = 1 if a student returned in Fall 2010 or graduated by Fall 2010 or transferred to another institution by Fall 2010

Success = 0 if a student success status is not equal to one

The purpose of this study was to identify the variable(s) that effected the student success status.

25

DATA

Fall 2009 Cohort Full-time Part-timeCount Percent Count Percent

Undergrad Regular 169 55.6% 58 11.5%Undergrad Transfer 116 37.9% 54 11.1%Undergrad with Prev. Degree 12 3.9% 5 1.0%PSEO 1 0.3% 15 3.0%High School, Non-PSEO 0 0.0% 9 2.0%Unclassified 7 2.3% 359 71.4%Total 305 100% 500 100%

26

N = 297

There were 194 (65%) students with success status.

NTC retained 128 students and 66 students were either graduated or transferred.

Predictor Variables and Stepwise Logistic Regression

1. Age

2. Gender

3. # college readiness courses that student needs to take (0-3)

4. Pell Status

5. Fall 2009 GPA

6. Fall 2009 Completion Rate (# credits earned / # credits attempted)

A stepwise logistic regression revealed that “GPA” and “Completion Rate ” were the most important factors for the success status.

27

Projection: Comp. Rate× GPA = Success Status (use 2Q)

28

Projection: Comp. Rate× GPA = Success Status (use 1Q & 3Q)

29

Success Rate Projection using GPA (SLR Model)

30

Success Rate Projection using Completion Rate (SLR Model)

31

institutional research reportssi 2011 –definition (contd.) performance gap (importance minus...

Documents