Noel- Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory Results Gallaudet University Spring 2015 Report October 19, 2015 Office of Institutional Research
Gallaudet Student Satisfaction Inventory Spring 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 2 I. INTRODUCTION... 4 A. BACKGROUND... 4 B. METHODS... 4 II. STUDENT SATISFACTION SURVEY RESULTS... 5 A. INSTITUTIONAL CHOICE... 5 B. GENERAL SATISFACTION... 5 C. PRIORITIZING STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES... 7 D. GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY RESULTS BY COMPOSITE SCALE... 8 III. COMPARING GU WITH THE NATIONAL COMPARISON GROUPS... 11 IV. PROPOSED NEXT STEPS... 11 APPENDIX A: NOEL- LEVITZ STUDENT SATISFACTION INVENTORY... 13 APPENDIX B: GALLAUDET- SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE STUDENT SATISFACTION INVENTORY... 17 APPENDIX C: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS... 18 APPENDIX D: RANKING OF COMPOSITE SCALES... 23 APPENDIX E: SCALE SPECIFIC ITEMS... 24 APPENDIX F: PEER COMPARISONS BY ITEM... 31 APPENDIX G: PEER COMPARISONS BY SCALE... 40 APPENDIX H: LIST OF PEER INSTITUTIONS IN THE NATIONAL COMPARISON GROUP... 41 1
Executive Summary Spring 2015 semester was the first administration of the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) at Gallaudet University (GU). It was completed by 284 students, both undergraduate and graduate. Results from this year s SSI are compared to a cohort of private 4- year institutions. The next scheduled administration of the SSI is in spring 2016, which will allow us to compare results longitudinally. The SSI includes 96 items that ask students to respond using a Likert scale to rate items in two ways: importance to me and my level of satisfaction. Strengths are identified based on items with high importance and high satisfaction. Challenges are identified based on items with high importance and low satisfaction. 21% response rate; higher than the average SSI response rate 80% of the respondents indicated that GU was their first choice and 16% had said that GU was their second choice. 70% of the GU respondents said that their experience at GU had about met or met their expectations or better (1% below peers). 56% of the GU respondents were somewhat to very satisfied with their overall experience at GU (18% below peers). 44% of the GU respondents said that they would probably or definitely enroll at GU if they had to do it again (14% below peers). SSI items were grouped into composite scales based on the statistical and conceptual analyses. In the table below, all areas of strength and areas of challenge are listed. Strengths I am able to experience intellectual growth here. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about my program requirements. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent. The content of the courses within my major is valuable. The instruction in my major field is excellent. Nearly all faculty are knowledgeable in their field. Challenges There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus. This institution shows concern for students as individuals. Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.) 2
Strengths Challenges My academic advisor is concerned Adequate financial aid is available for about my success as an individual. most students. My academic advisor is approachable. Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning. Major requirements are clear and Faculty are fair and unbiased in their reasonable. There is a sense of security and freedom to express diverse perspectives. I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts. Computer labs are adequate and accessible. Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours. The university provides sufficient resources that help me effectively use technology for my academic needs. treatment of individual students. Financial aid counselors are helpful. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. Compared to peer institutions, Gallaudet University students level of satisfaction was significantly lower for 64 items out of 73 items (88%). One notable exception was an item about the book store staff. For this item, Gallaudet University students level of satisfaction was significantly higher than peer institutions. Gallaudet University students level of satisfaction was lower for all 12 scales when compared to peer institutions. These differences were significant for all scales with the exception of the Academic Advising scale. 3
I. Introduction A. Background The Noel- Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is intended to support the university in better understanding the student experience at Gallaudet University (GU). The SSI asks students to rate their level of satisfaction and perceived level of importance with specific experiences, units, and interactions at the university. Additional survey questions asked about students overall experience at GU, as well as demographic information. Survey items are grouped into composite scales to provide a broad overview of big- picture areas, such as Student- Centeredness and Academic Services. The SSI also includes three questions on pre- enrollment decisions, and two open- ended questions. Spring 2015 semester was the first administration of the SSI at GU. It was completed by 284 students, both undergraduate and graduate. Results from this year s SSI are compared to a cohort of private 4- year institutions. The next scheduled administration of the SSI is in spring 2016, which will allow us to compare results longitudinally. The SSI is one of two surveys administered on a regular cycle to GU students. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was first administered in Spring 2005 and, most recently in Spring 2014. NSSE will next be administered at GU in spring, 2017 when GU moves to a three- year cycle. The SSI asks both undergraduate (UG) and graduate (Grad) students directly about their experience on campus. In comparison, NSSE asks only UG students questions about student engagement, student behaviors, and institutional practices that predict student success. The results of these efforts contribute valuable information for planning for student success, strategic planning, and continuous improvement. The SSI includes 96 items that ask students to respond using a Likert scale to rate items in two ways: importance to me and my level of satisfaction. Scales ranged from 1-7, with 7 as the highest (very important or very satisfied) and 1 as the lowest (not important at all or not satisfied at all). Eight of the total items were Gallaudet- specific questions. These eight items were added to address areas of particular interest and relevance to GU including: ASL/English bilingualism, diversity, technology, and GSR. Mean scores are presented using this 1-7 scale format. Means for importance are typically in the range of 5 to 6, while mean satisfaction scores are typically in the range of 4 to 5. Performance gaps are then calculated as the mean difference between perceived importance and satisfaction. The larger the performance gap, the greater the discrepancy between student importance and level of satisfaction. A copy of the survey instrument is located in Appendix A, and a copy of the institution- specific questions is provided in Appendix B. B. Methods During the 2015 spring semester, the Office of Intuitional Research administered via email the on- line version of the Noel- Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) to the population of GU students: 1374 undergraduate and graduate students. A total of 282 students responded to the survey. Demographic information for respondents is reported in Appendix C. These 282 responses represent an overall 4
response rate of 21%, 1% higher than the average response rate of 22% reported by Noel- Levitz for the SSI 1. Of the 282 respondents, 148 were undergraduate students (16 %) and 106 (25%) were graduate students. II. Student Satisfaction Survey Results This report presents detailed SSI results as follows: A. Institutional choice B. General satisfaction with GU C. Overall GU results by composite scale 2 D. Item rankings E. GU comparisons to peer institutions F. GU results for undergraduate and graduate students A. Institutional Choice Students were asked to indicate if GU was their first, second or third/lower choice when they entered college. Students who are at their first- choice institution tend to feel generally more satisfied with their educational experience than those who indicate that GU is their second or third choice. 80% of the respondents selected GU as their first choice, and 16% indicated it was their second choice. B. General Satisfaction The SSI included three items that asked about student satisfaction. 70% of the GU respondents said that their experience at GU had about met or met their expectations or was better (1% below peers) 56% of the GU respondents were somewhat to very satisfied with their overall experience at GU (18% below peers) 44% of the GU respondents said that they would probably or definitely enroll at GU if they had to do it again (14% below peers) 1 Personal communication with Noel- Levitz 2 Noel- Levitz groups most items into composite scales. For a detailed description of scales see Appendix E 5
College Experience Meeting the Student's Expectations 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 11% 4% Quite a bit or more worse than I expected 15% 11% Worse than I expected 34% 31% About what I expected 19% 25% Better than I expected 17% 15% Quite a bit or more better than I expected Gallaudet Universit y National Four- Year Privates 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 5% Not very or not satisfied at all Overall Satisfaction with the Student Experience at the Institution 18% 13% 8% 10% Somewhat dissatisfied Neutral 23% 17% Somewhat satisfied 33% 57% Satisfied or Very Satisfied Gallaudet University National Four- Year Privates 6
Enrolling Again at the Institution If They Had to Do It All Over 35% 30% 26% 26% 32% Gallaudet University 25% 20% 15% 10% 13% 11% 12% 6% 15% 12% 10% 11% 18% National Four- Year Privates 5% 0% Probably to definitely not Maybe not I don't know Maybe yes Probably to definitely yes Definitely yes C. Prioritizing Strengths and Challenges Noel- Levitz suggests using the matrix in figure 1 to analyze SSI results and prioritize actions. Figure 1. Matrix for Prioritizing Action In identifying areas of strength, two conditions had to be met: 1) the item s average importance score was in the top 50% of all items importance score and 2) the items average satisfaction score was in the top 25% of all items satisfaction scores. In identifying areas of challenges, two conditions had to be met: 1) 7
the item s average importance score was in the top 50% of all items importance score and 2) the item s average satisfaction score was in the bottom 25% of all items satisfaction scores or the gap (difference between importance and satisfaction) was in the top 25% of all items gap scores. In other words, items with high importance and high satisfaction are the institution s areas of strength, and items with high importance and low satisfaction are the institution s top challenges which are in need of immediate attention. D. Gallaudet University Results by Composite Scale Noel- Levitz has grouped most SSI items into composite scales based on statistical and conceptual analyses. Some of the SSI items appear in multiple scales. The scores for these scales provide an overall big- picture view of student satisfaction. While overall composite scale scores provide an indicator of general student satisfaction for each area, individual items within each scale must be evaluated to determine if any particular item within the scale is an outlier (see Appendix E for scale specific items). For example, strong dissatisfaction with campus parking may pull down the overall Safety and Security scale score. The following table identifies areas of strength and areas of challenge for each scale. For a table that ranks composite areas by their overall satisfaction, importance, and gap mean scores, refer to Appendix D. Composite Scale Areas of Strength Areas of Challenge Campus Climate There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus.* Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.* This institution shows concern for students as individuals.* Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. Campus Life Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.) Academic Advising My academic advisor is knowledgeable about my program requirements. 8
Composite Scale Areas of Strength Areas of Challenge My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual.* My academic advisor is approachable. Major requirements are clear and reasonable. Campus Support Services Computer labs are adequate and accessible. Admissions and Financial Aid Adequate financial aid is available for most students. Financial aid counselors are helpful. Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning. Safety and Security Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. Concern for the Individual Instructional Effectiveness My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual.* Faculty are usually available after class Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.* This institution shows concern for students as individuals.* There is a commitment to academic excellence 9
Composite Scale Areas of Strength Areas of Challenge and during office on this campus.* hours. I am able to experience intellectual growth here. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent. The instruction in my major field is excellent. The content of the courses within my major is valuable. Nearly all faculty are knowledgeable in their field. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students.* Registration Effectiveness I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts. Service Excellence Student Centeredness Students are made to feel welcome on this campus.* This institution shows concern for students as individuals.* Gallaudet- Specific Items There is a sense of security and freedom to express diverse perspectives. The university provides sufficient 10
Composite Scale Areas of Strength Areas of Challenge resources that help me effectively use technology for my academic needs. * Item is included in more than one scale. III. Comparing GU with the National Comparison Groups Noel- Levitz provides data to allow GU to compare the response of our students to those at other peer institutions. For the purpose of this analysis, peers are considered National Four- Year Private Institutions whose students completed the same survey version in the last three academic years. Below are the results by item and scale for all students at Gallaudet University and in the National Comparison Group. For a list of peer institutions, refer to Appendix H. SSI Scale Comparisons Gallaudet University students level of satisfaction was lower for all 12 scales when compared to other institutions. These differences were significant for all scales with the exception of the Academic Advising scale. SSI Item Comparisons Out of all 73 SSI items, Gallaudet University students level of satisfaction was significantly lower for 64 items compared to other institutions. One notable exception was the one item in which Gallaudet University students level of satisfaction was significantly higher than other institutions. This item was that the bookstore staff are helpful. Appendices F and G provide detailed data showing item comparisons and scale comparisons to peer institutions on the SSI, respectively. IV. Proposed Next Steps The data in this report offers areas of strength and areas of challenge. Both sets of information are valuable. Gallaudet seldom does enough to celebrate our strengths, and these (and other) strengths are what make Gallaudet a place like no other. At the same time, we need to examine further the challenges that we face in terms of student satisfaction. Of particular note, the challenges of issues that are affected by each and every person on campus. These issues include the extent to which students feel welcomed on campus, whether or not students perceive that the campus, as a whole has a commitment to academic excellence. And finally whether or not students believe we are concerned about them as individuals. In order to better understand what students mean by their response to these items, the Office of Institutional Research will conduct focus groups with diverse students during AY 2015-2016. OIR will also now begin a process of preparing for the spring, 2016 administration of the SSI by disseminating results of the 2015 SSI to students, and educating them on the importance and details of taking the SSI. 11
Comprehensively, the data from GU s administration of the Noel- Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory will be valuable to the extent that it is analyzed, discussed and applied to daily practice by units and individuals on campus. Student satisfaction is the goal of every person, and every unit on campus. For that reason, each individual and each will want to review the strengths described in this report and ask: What are we doing well? What, specifically, does this show us about the Gallaudet Advantage? Where do I fit into that advantage. And everyone on campus will want to examine carefully the challenges that GU has in increasing the value of a Gallaudet education to its graduates. Where do you fit in in welcoming students? Showing concern? What decisions does your unit make that demonstrate a commitment to academic excellence? Where do you, as one individual who makes difference in the lives of GU students, fit in? For more detailed information on the survey data, please contact Lindsay Buchko, Director of Institutional Research at lindsay.buchko@gallaudet.edu. 12
Appendix A: Noel- Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory 13
14
15
16
Appendix B: Gallaudet- Specific Questions for the Student Satisfaction Inventory Demographics 1. Is your hearing status: deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing Student Satisfaction 1. The content of the courses within General Studies (GSR) is valuable. 2. General Studies (GSR) courses help students develop a knowledge base for their academic career. 3. There are adequate programs or resources in place to strengthen my use of ASL. 4. There are adequate programs or resources in place to strengthen my use of English. 5. I am treated with respect for cultural/personal differences in at Gallaudet University. There is a sense of security and freedom to express diverse perspectives. 6. There is visible leadership to foster diversity/inclusion on campus. 7. The university provides sufficient resources that help me effectively use technology for my academic needs. 8. The use of Blackboard has had a positive impact on my academics. 17
Appendix C: Descriptive Statistics for Additional Demographic Questions Number and Percent of Responses by Age, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% 18 and under 3 2% 0 0% 4 1% 19 to 24 88 60% 21 20% 115 41% 25 to 24 39 26% 53 50% 95 34% 35 to 44 11 7% 18 17% 30 11% 45 and over 5 3% 13 12% 19 7% Unknown/Missing 2 1% 1 1% 19 7% Number and Percent of Responses by Enrollment Status, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% Day 134 91% 74 70% 218 77% Evening 7 5% 29 27% 38 14% Weekend 4 3% 0 0% 4 1% Unknown/Missing 3 2% 3 3% 22 8% Number and Percent of Responses by Current Class Load, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% Full- time 143 97% 81 76% 233 83% Part- time 5 3% 24 23% 32 11% Unknown/Missing 0 0% 1 1% 17 6% 18
Number and Percent of Responses by Enrollment Status, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% Freshman 20 14% 0 0% 20 7% Sophomore 36 24% 0 0% 36 13% Junior 44 30% 0 0% 44 16% Senior 48 32% 0 0% 48 17% Special Student 0 0% 0 0% 10 4% Graduate/Professional 0 0% 106 100% 106 39% Other 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% Unknown/Missing 0 0% 0 0% 16 6% Number and Percent of Responses by Current GPA, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% No credits earned 1 1% 0 0% 3 1% 2.0 2.49 12 8% 0 0% 12 4% 2.5 2.99 19 13% 1 1% 22 8% 3.0 3.49 49 33% 20 19% 70 25% 3.5 or above 66 45% 82 77% 154 55% Unknown/Missing 1 1% 3 3% 21 7% Number and Percent of Responses by Educational Goal, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% Associate degree 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% Bachelor s degree 101 68% 1 1% 106 38% Master s degree 26 18% 58 55% 88 31% Doctorate or professional degree 12 8% 47 44% 59 21% Certification (initial or renewal) 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% Self- improvement/pleasure 0 0% 0 0% 1 0.4% Job- related training 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% Other 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% Unknown/Missing 3 2% 0 0% 20 7% 19
Number and Percent of Responses by Employment, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% Full- time off campus 9 6% 21 20% 30 11% Part- time off campus 12 8% 16 15% 29 10% Full- time on campus 20 14% 8 8% 29 10% Part- time on campus 41 28% 33 31% 78 28% Not employed 62 42% 27 26% 94 33% Unknown/Missing 4 3% 1 1% 22 8% Number and Percent of Responses by Current Residence, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% Residence hall 110 74% 18 17% 134 48% Own house 4 3% 18 17% 22 8% Rent room or apartment off campus 26 18% 60 57% 89 32% Parent s home 4 3% 4 4% 8 3% Other 2 1% 4 4% 8 3% Unknown/Missing 2 1% 2 2% 21 7% Number and Percent of Responses by Residence Classification, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% In- state 37 25% 27 25% 66 23% Out- of- state 89 60% 68 64% 163 58% International (not U.S. citizen) 17 12% 10 9% 30 11% Unknown/Missing 5 3% 1 1% 23 8% 20
Number and Percent of Responses by Major, 2015 Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Total headcount 148 100% 106 100% 282 100% Accounting BS 4 3% 0 5 2% American Sign Language BA 3 2% 0 3 1% Art and Media Design BA 5 3% 0 7 3% Audiology PhD 0 0% 7 7 3% Biology BA 3 2% 0 3 1% Biology BS 3 2% 0 3 1% Business Administration BS 7 5% 0 7 3% Chemistry BS 3 2% 0 0% 3 1% Clinical Psychology PhD 0 0% 9 9% 9 3% Communication Studies BA 13 9% 0 0% 14 5% Critical Studies in the Education of 0 0% 3 3% 3 1% Deaf Learners PhD Deaf Ed: Special Programs MA 0 0% 1 1% 1 0.4% Deaf Edu: Adv Studies MA 0 0% 0 0% 1 0.4% Deaf Education EdS 0 0% 1 1% 1 0.4% Deaf HH ITF Certificate 0 0% 2 2% 2 1% Deaf Studies BA 9 6% 0 0% 9 3% Deaf Studies: Cultural Studies MA 0 0% 6 6% 6 2% Education BA 7 5% 0 0% 7 3% Education BS 1 1% 0 0% 1 0.4% Education: Deaf Education MA 1 1% 0 0% 1 0.4% Education: Early Childhood & Deaf 1 1% 1 1% 2 1% Ed MA Education: Elementary & Deaf Ed 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% MA Education: Secondary & Deaf Ed 0 0% 2 2% 2 1% MA English BA 3 2% 0 0% 3 1% Government BA 3 2% 0 0% 3 1% History BA 3 2% 0 0% 3 1% Information Technology BS 9 6% 0 0% 9 3% International Development MA 0 0% 1 1% 1 0.4% International Studies BA 5 3% 0 0% 6 2% Interpretation BA 7 5% 0 0% 8 3% Interpretation PhD 0 0% 5 5% 5 2% Interpretation: Interpreting 0 0% 7 7% 7 3% Practice/Research MA Linguistics MA 0 0% 5 5% 5 2% Linguistics PhD 0 0% 4 4% 4 1% Mathematics BA 7 5% 0 0% 7 3% 21
Undergraduate Graduate All Respondents # % # % # % Mathematics BS 1 1% 0 0% 1 0.4% Mental Health Counseling MA 0 0% 4 4% 5 2% Physical Education and Recreation 13 9% 0 0% 13 5% BS Psychology BA 12 8% 0 0% 12 4% Psychology MA 0 0% 3 3% 3 1% Public Administration MPA 0 0% 10 9% 10 4% School Counseling MA 0 0% 5 5% 5 2% School Psychology PsyS 0 0% 3 3% 3 1% Self- Directed 1 1% 0 0% 1 0.4% Sign Language Education MA 0 0% 8 8% 8 3% Social Work BA 11 7% 0 0% 11 4% Social Work MSW 1 1% 0 0% 10 4% Spanish BA 1 1% 0 0% 1 0.4% Special Student Undergraduate 0 0% 0 0% 1 0.4% Speech- Language Pathology MS 0 0% 1 1% 1 0.4% Theatre Arts BA 1 1% 0 0% 1 0.4% Undeclared 6 4% 1 1% 9 3% Unknown/Missing 2 1% 8 8% 27 10% 22
Appendix D: Ranking of Composite Scales The following table ranks the composite area by their overall mean satisfaction, importance, and gap scores. This ranking will give a rough overview of area students feel are important, area students are satisfied with, the area where student exceptions are not met. This table is useful to see the gaps between satisfaction and importance in some areas. For example, Academic Advising/Counseling ranks third highest in importance but ranks last in satisfaction, with a performance gap score of 1.20 Ranking of Composite Scales by Overall GU Mean Scores RANK Satisfaction Mean Importance Mean Gap Mean 1 Academic 5.52 Academic 6.35 Safety and 1.66 Advising Advising Security 2 Campus 5.22 Instructional 6.31 Recruitment and 1.59 Support Services Effectiveness Financial Aid 3 Instructional 5.04 Student 6.17 Student 1.48 Effectiveness Centeredness Centeredness 4 Concern for the 4.92 Campus 6.16 Campus Climate 1.44 Individual Climate 5 Registration 4.91 Concern for the 6.13 Service 1.32 Effectiveness 6 Responsiveness to Diverse Populations* Individual 4.75 Recruitment and Financial Aid Excellence 6.08 Instructional Effectiveness 7 Service Excellence 4.70 Safety and Security 6.06 Concern for the Individual 8 Campus 4.66 Campus 6.03 Campus Climate Support Services Life 9 Student 4.69 Service Excellence 6.02 Registration Centeredness Effectiveness 10 Campus Life 4.66 Registration 6.00 Academic Effectiveness Advising 11 Recruitment 4.49 Campus Life 5.80 Campus and Support Services Financial Aid 12 Safety and Security 4.40 Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) *Students were only asked their satisfaction with items in this scale; therefore, no scores for important or gap available. 1.27 1.21 1.14 1.09 0.83 0.81 23
Appendix E: Scale Specific Items Campus Climate This broad composite scale assesses the extent to which [the] institution provides experiences that promote a sense of campus pride and feelings of belonging. One item in Campus Climate was a strength for GU: Freedom of expression. However, four items were Challenges: Commitment to academic excellence on the campus; Feeling welcome; Concern for Students as Individuals; and Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 5.06 6.33 1.27 Neither Freedom of expression is protected on 5.02 6.22 1.20 Neither campus. I feel a sense of pride about my campus. 4.98 5.93 0.95 Neither I generally know what s happening on 4.98 5.99 1.01 Neither campus. This institution has a good reputation within 4.97 6.18 1.21 Neither the community. Faculty care about me as an individual. 4.96 6.13 1.16 Neither The campus is safe and secure for all 4.90 6.38 1.48 Neither students. New student orientation services help 4.81 6.16 1.35 Neither students adjust to college There is a commitment to academic 4.80 6.38 Challenge excellence on this campus. Students are made to feel welcome on this 4.77 6.35 1.58 Challenge campus. There is a strong commitment to racial 4.74 6.16 1.42 Neither harmony on this campus. The campus staff are caring and helpful. 4.73 6.17 1.44 Neither This institution shows concern for students 4.58 6.49 1.32 Challenge as individuals. Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 4.57 6.07 1.50 Neither Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment 4.50 6.15 1.65 Challenge Administrators are approachable to students. 4.41 5.84 1.43 Neither Channels for expressing student complaints 4.16 6.04 1.88 Neither are readily available. I seldom get the run- around when seeking information on this campus. 3.99 6.10 2.11 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) 24
Academic Advising These five items in this scale assess the comprehensiveness of the academic advising program by evaluating academic advisors on the basis of their knowledge, competence, and personal concern for students. The Academic Advising scale was rated highest by students for both Importance and Satisfaction. Four of the five items in this scale are a GU Strength, three having to do with qualities of academic advisors and one having to do with the major requirements. Academic Advising Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge My academic advisor is knowledgeable about 5.76 6.49 0.73 Strength my program requirements. My academic advisor is concerned about my 5.55 6.40 0.85 Strength success as an individual My academic advisor is approachable. 5.47 6.38 0.92 Strength Major requirements are clear and reasonable 5.61 6.36 0.75 Strength My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward 5.21 6.10 0.89 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) Campus Support Services Campus Support Services assesses services students utilize to achieve their academic goals. GU students seem to be general satisfied with academic services on campus, as Support Services was rated second highest in overall satisfaction. Among support services, computer labs accessibility and adequacy was a GU strength. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge Library staff are helpful and approachable. 5.48 5.86 0.39 Neither Computer labs are adequate and accessible 5.45 6.25 0.80 Strength Library resources and services are adequate 5.01 6.04 1.04 Neither Tutoring services are readily available 4.82 6.03 1.21 Neither Academic support services adequately meet 4.93 6.18 1.25 Neither the needs of students There are adequate services to help me 4.83 6.11 1.28 Neither decide upon a career Bookstore staff are helpful 5.85 5.76-0.09 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) Admissions and Financial Aid The Admissions and Financial Aid scale is used to measure the effectiveness of the university s ability to enroll students in an effective manner. This composite scale ranks near the bottom in overall satisfaction. Several items in this scale have a high performance gap score and are considered a challenge for GU. 25
Students appear to want a greater availability of financial aid, earlier notifications of financial aid awards, and more helpful/knowledgeable financial aid and admissions staff. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge Admissions counselors respond to 4.94 5.93 0.99 Neither prospective students unique needs and requests Admissions counselors accurately portray 4.70 5.97 1.27 Neither the campus in their recruiting practices Admissions staff are knowledgeable. 4.67 6.01 1.34 Neither Adequate financial aid is available for most 4.30 6.20 1.90 Challenge students Financial aid counselors are helpful 4.26 6.16 1.90 Challenge Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning 4.21 6.17 1.96 Challenge Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) Concern for the individual This composite scale assesses GU s commitment to treating each student as an individual. Those groups who frequently deal with students on a person level (e.g., faculty, advisors, etc.) are included in this assessment). Once again, students are satisfied with their interactions with academic advisors. Two areas of concern are fair and unbiased treatment of individual students by faculty, and a perceived institutional concern for individuals. Both of these items are challenges for GU. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge My academic advisor is concerned about my 5.55 6.40 0.85 Strength success as an individual. Counseling staff care about students as 5.23 5.98 0.75 Neither individuals. Faculty care about me as an individual 4.96 6.13 1.16 Neither Faculty are fair and unbiased in their 4.67 6.17 1.50 Challenge treatment of individual students This institutional shows concern for students 4.58 6.25 1.66 Challenge as individuals Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual. 4.45 5.73 1.28 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) 26
Instructional Effectiveness The instructional effectiveness composite scale looks at 14 items to assess students academic experience at the college. The Instructional effectiveness scale was rated as second highest in importance by students. Five items in Instructional Effectiveness are strengths for GU. These include: faculty availability; the ability to experience intellectual growth at GU; the quality of instruction; instruction in major fields; and content of courses. However, two items on this scale are considered challenges for GU. One is variety of courses offered. The second one is particularly interesting: commitment to academic excellence on campus. This is particularly interesting in contract to the five specific areas of strength related to academic quality. This item also had the highest gap score of any item in the scale. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in 5.44 6.41 0.97 Strength their fields. Faculty are usually available after class and 5.36 6.23 0.87 Strength during office hours. I am able to experience intellectual growth 5.34 6.50 1.16 Strength here. The quality of the instruction I receive in 5.17 6.49 1.32 Strength most of my classes is excellent. The instruction in my major field is excellent. 5.14 6.47 1.33 Strength Adjunct faculty are competent as classroom 5.01 6.19 1.18 Neither instructors. Faculty care about me as an individual. 4.96 6.13 1.16 Neither Faculty take into consideration student 4.87 6.17 1.30 Neither differences as they teach a course. Graduate teaching assistants are competent 4.85 6.05 1.20 Neither as classroom instructors. There is a commitment to academic 4.80 6.38 1.58 Challenge excellence on this campus. The content of the courses within my major 5.21 6.47 1.26 Strength is valuable. Faculty provide timely feedback about 4.82 6.29 1.47 Neither student progress in a course. There is a good variety of courses provided 4.70 6.29 1.50 Challenge on this campus Faulty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students 4.67 6.17 1.50 Challenge Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) 27
Registration Effectiveness This composite scale is made up of five items that look at the effectiveness of registration/billing policies and personnel. Students are generally satisfied with registration effectiveness at GU, and being able to register for classes that they need with a few conflicts is a GU strength. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge I am able to register for classes I need with 5.22 6.34 1.12 Strength few conflicts. The personnel involved in registration are 5.10 6.05 0.96 Neither helpful. Class change (drop /add) policies are 5.02 5.83 0.81 Neither reasonable. The business office is open during hours 4.92 5.81 0.89 Neither which are convenient for most students. Billing policies are reasonable 4.37 5.94 1.57 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) Responsive to Diverse Populations This scale asks students to rate only their satisfaction with the college s commitment to different groups of students. Students felt most satisfied with GU s Commitment for students with disabilities. There was less satisfaction with commitment to under- represented and part- time students. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge Institution s commitment to students with 4.98 N/a N/a N/a disabilities? Institution s commitment to older, returning 4.86 N/a N/a N/a learners? Institution s commitment to commuters? 4.85 N/a N/a N/a Institution s commitment to evening 4.76 N/a N/a N/a students? Institution s commitment to under- 4.52 N/a N/a N/a represented populations? Institution s commitment to part- time students? 4.48 N/a N/a N/a Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) Student Centeredness The student centeredness composite scale measures whether students feel welcomed and valued on campus, and was rated by students as the third most important of 12 scales. Two areas in this scale stand out as GU challenges: students sense of feeling welcome, and students sense of belonging. 28
Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge It is an enjoyable experience to be a student 5.06 6.33 1.27 Neither on this campus Students are made to feel welcome on 4.77 6.35 1.58 Challenge campus. The campus staff are caring and helpful. 4.73 6.17 1.44 Neither Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 4.57 6.07 1.50 Neither This institution shows concern for students 4.58 6.25 1.66 Neither as individuals. Administrators are approachable to students 4.41 5.84 1.43 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied Service Excellence The Service Excellence scale assesses the perceived attitude of GU s staff, especially front- line staff, towards students. Students are generally satisfied with service excellence at GU. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge Library staff are helpful and approachable. 5.48 5.86 0.39 Neither The personnel involved in registration are 5.10 6.05 0.96 Neither helpful. I generally know what s happening on 4.98 5.99 1.01 Neither campus. The campus staff are caring and helpful. 4.73 6.17 1.44 Neither Channels for expressing student complaints 4.16 6.04 1.88 Neither are readily available I seldom get the run- around when seeking 3.99 6.10 2.11 Neither information on this campus. The staff in the health services area are 3.93 5.86 2.01 Neither competent. Counseling staff care about students as individuals. 5.23 5.98 0.75 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) Safety and Security This small composite scale attempts to measure the effectiveness of campus security personnel and campus facilities. The Safety and Security scale had the highest gap between student ratings of satisfaction and importance, and security staff quick response to emergencies is considered a GU challenge. 29
Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge The campus is safe and secure for all 4.90 6.38 1.48 Neither students. Security staff respond quickly in 4.49 6.31 1.82 Challenge emergencies. Parking lots are well- lighted and secure. 4.30 5.91 1.61 Neither The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate. 3.71 5.56 1.85 Neither Scale: 1 (not important/not satisfied at all) 4 (neutral) 7 (very important/very satisfied) Gallaudet- Specific Items GU added eight items to the NL SSI. These eight items were added to address areas of particular interest and relevance to GU including: ASL/English bilingualism, diversity, technology, and GSR. Among these items, diversity received the highest ratings, both in terms of satisfaction and importance, while response to items asking about GSR were lower. Item Satisfaction Importance Gap Strength/ Challenge I am treated with respect for cultural/personal differences in at Gallaudet University. 6.38 5.10 1.28 There is a sense of security and freedom to Strength express diverse perspectives. 6.35 5.11 1.24 There are adequate programs or resources in place to strengthen my use of ASL. 6.14 5.01 1.13 There is visible leadership to foster diversity/inclusion on campus. 6.12 4.78 1.34 The university provides sufficient resources Strength that help me effectively use technology for my academic needs. 6.12 5.23 0.89 There are adequate programs or resources in place to strengthen my use of English. 6.02 4.79 1.23 The content of the courses within General Studies (GSR) is valuable. 5.53 4.04 1.49 General Studies (GSR) courses help me develop my knowledge base for my academic career. 5.55 4.14 1.41 30
Appendix F: Peer Comparisons by Item Peer Comparisons by Item National Four- Year Gallaudet University - SSI Privates Item Impt Sat/SD Gap Impt Sat/SD Gap Diff 1. Most students feel a sense of belonging here. 6.07 2. The campus staff are caring and helpful. 6.17 3. Faculty care about me as an individual. 6.13 4. Admissions staff are knowledgeable. 6.01 5. Financial aid counselors are helpful. 6.16 6. My academic advisor is approachable. 6.38 7. The campus is safe and secure for all students. 6.38 8. The content of the courses within my major is valuable. 6.47 9. A variety of intramural activities are offered. 4.90 10. Administrators are approachable to students. 5.84 11. Billing policies are reasonable. 5.94 12. Financial aid awards are announced to students in time to be helpful in college planning. 6.17 4.57 / 1.53 1.50 6.02 4.73 / 1.58 1.44 6.37 4.96 / 1.74 1.17 6.27 4.67 / 1.64 1.34 6.20 4.26 / 1.97 1.90 6.27 5.47 / 1.71 0.91 6.43 4.90 / 1.61 1.48 6.45 5.29 / 1.45 0.73-0.72*** 5.60 / 1.35 0.77-0.87*** 5.55 / 1.39 0.72-0.59*** 5.40 / 1.47 0.80-0.73*** 5.14 / 1.65 1.13-0.88*** 5.74 / 1.55 0.69-0.27** 5.75 / 1.39 0.70-0.85*** 5.21 / 1.57 1.26 6.62 5.7 / 1.32 0.92-0.49*** 4.83 / 1.62 0.07 5.11 4.41 / 1.73 1.43 6.04 4.37 / 1.88 1.57 6.16 4.21 / 1.89 1.96 6.28 5.07 / 1.56 0.04-0.24* 5.36 / 1.42 0.68-0.95*** 4.75 / 1.67 1.41-0.38*** 5.07 / 1.65 1.21-0.86*** 13. Library staff are helpful and approachable. 5.86 5.48 / 1.53 0.38 5.76 5.7 / 1.32 0.06-0.22** 14. My academic advisor is concerned about my success as an individual. 6.40 5.55 / 1.64 0.85 6.34 5.54 / 1.59 0.80 0.01 * Difference statistically significant at the.05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the.01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the.001 level Impt = Importance; Sat = Satisfaction, SD = Standard Deviation, Gap = diff between Impt and Sat 31
Peer Comparisons by Item National Four- Year Gallaudet University - SSI Privates Item Impt Sat/SD Gap Impt Sat/SD Gap Diff 15. The staff in the health services area are competent. 5.94 3.93 / 1.94 2.01 6.00 5.12 / 1.62 0.88-1.19*** 16. The instruction in my major field is excellent. 6.47 17. Adequate financial aid is available for most students. 6.20 18. Library resources and services are adequate. 6.04 19. My academic advisor helps me set goals to work toward. 6.10 20. The business office is open during hours which are convenient for most students. 5.81 21. The amount of student parking space on campus is adequate. 5.56 22. Counseling staff care about students as individuals. 5.98 23. Living conditions in the residence halls are comfortable (adequate space, lighting, heat, air, etc.) 6.24 24. The intercollegiate athletic programs contribute to a strong sense of school spirit. 5.22 25. Faculty are fair and unbiased in their treatment of individual students. 6.17 5.14 / 1.56 1.33 6.59 4.30 / 1.75 1.90 6.41 5.01 / 1.61 1.03 6.12 5.21 / 1.72 0.89 6.07 4.92 / 1.59 0.89 5.96 3.71 / 1.85 1.85 5.97 5.23 / 1.63 0.75 6.09 4.30 / 1.81 1.94 6.14 4.58 / 1.59 0.64 5.28 4.67 / 1.61 1.50 6.40 5.68 / 1.35 0.91-0.54*** 4.96 / 1.67 1.45-0.66*** 5.61 / 1.33 0.51-0.60*** 5.13 / 1.69 0.94 0.08 5.29 / 1.46 0.67-0.37*** 4.02 / 2.07 1.95-0.31* 5.31 / 1.49 0.78-0.08 4.80 / 1.73 1.34-0.50*** 4.53 / 1.82 0.75 0.05 5.37 / 1.51 1.03-0.70*** 26. Computer labs are adequate and accessible. 6.25 5.45 / 1.60 0.80 6.25 5.47 / 1.54 0.78-0.02 * Difference statistically significant at the.05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the.01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the.001 level Impt = Importance; Sat = Satisfaction, SD = Standard Deviation, Gap = diff between Impt and Sat 32
Peer Comparisons by Item National Four- Year Gallaudet University - SSI Privates Item Impt Sat/SD Gap Impt Sat/SD Gap Diff 27. The personnel involved in registration are helpful. 6.05 28. Parking lots are well- lighted and secure. 5.91 29. It is an enjoyable experience to be a student on this campus. 6.33 30. Residence hall staff are concerned about me as an individual. 5.73 31. Males and females have equal opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. 6.04 32. Tutoring services are readily available. 6.03 33. My academic advisor is knowledgeable about requirements in my major. 6.49 34. I am able to register for classes I need with few conflicts. 6.34 35. The assessment and course placement procedures are reasonable. 6.12 36. Security staff respond quickly in emergencies. 6.31 37. I feel a sense of pride about my campus. 5.93 38. There is an adequate selection of food available in the cafeteria. 5.93 5.10 / 1.59 0.95 6.23 4.30 / 1.79 1.61 6.04 5.06 / 1.59 1.27 6.46 4.45 / 1.78 1.28 5.82 5.15 / 1.53 0.89 5.62 5.46 / 1.46 0.77-0.36*** 5.17 / 1.63 0.87-0.87*** 5.48 / 1.55 0.98-0.42*** 5.11 / 1.66 0.71-0.66*** 5.48 / 1.55 0.14-0.33** 4.82 / 1.71 1.21 6.00 5.6 / 1.42 0.40-0.78*** 5.76 / 1.57 0.73 6.51 5.22 / 1.74 1.12 6.53 5.09 / 1.64 1.03 6.24 4.49 / 1.83 1.82 6.36 4.98 / 1.62 0.95 5.96 3.69 / 1.88 2.24 6.07 5.74 / 1.54 0.77 0.02 5.16 / 1.74 1.37 0.06 5.40 / 1.43 0.84-0.31** 5.30 / 1.60 1.06-0.81*** 5.26 / 1.63 0.7-0.28** 4.30 / 1.93 1.77-0.61*** 39. I am able to experience intellectual growth here. 6.50 5.34 / 1.60 1.16 6.50 5.73 / 1.35 0.77-0.39*** * Difference statistically significant at the.05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the.01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the.001 level Impt = Importance; Sat = Satisfaction, SD = Standard Deviation, Gap = diff between Impt and Sat 33
Peer Comparisons by Item National Four- Year Gallaudet University - SSI Privates Item Impt Sat/SD Gap Impt Sat/SD Gap Diff 40. Residence hall regulations are reasonable. 5.88 4.71 / 1.66 1.17 5.94 41. There is a commitment to academic excellence on this campus. 6.38 4.8 / 1.68 1.58 6.39 42. There are a sufficient number of weekend 4.34 / activities for students. 5.49 1.78 1.15 5.54 43. Admissions counselors respond to prospective students' unique needs and requests. 5.93 44. Academic support services adequately meet the needs of students. 6.18 45. Students are made to feel welcome on this campus. 6.35 4.94 / 1.65 0.99 6.06 4.98 / 1.70 0.96-0.27* 5.58 / 1.42 0.81-0.78*** 4.69 / 1.74 0.85-0.35** 5.34 / 1.49 0.72-0.40*** 4.93 / 1.63 1.25 6.16 5.4 / 1.42 0.76-0.47*** 4.77 / 1.70 1.58 6.35 5.64 / 1.44 0.71-0.87*** 46. I can easily get involved in campus organizations. 5.95 4.89 / 1.70 1.06 5.93 5.43 / 1.51 0.50-0.54*** 47. Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress in a course. 6.29 4.82 / 1.72 1.47 6.36 5.24 / 1.52 1.12-0.42*** 48. Admissions counselors accurately portray the campus in their recruiting practices. 5.97 4.70 / 1.63 1.27 6.15 5.15 / 1.65 1.00-0.45*** 49. There are adequate services to help me decide upon a career. 6.11 4.83 / 1.63 1.28 6.28 5.33 / 1.52 0.95-0.50*** 50. Class change (drop/add) policies are reasonable. 5.83 5.02 / 1.80 0.81 6.15 5.46 / 1.52 0.69-0.44*** 51. This institution has a good reputation within the community. 6.18 4.97 / 1.60 1.21 6.26 5.63 / 1.49 0.63-0.66*** * Difference statistically significant at the.05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the.01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the.001 level Impt = Importance; Sat = Satisfaction, SD = Standard Deviation, Gap = diff between Impt and Sat 34
Peer Comparisons by Item National Four- Year Gallaudet University - SSI Privates Item Impt Sat/SD Gap Impt Sat/SD Gap Diff 52. The student center is a comfortable place for students to spend their leisure time. 5.70 53. Faculty take into consideration student differences as they teach a course. 6.17 54. Bookstore staff are helpful. 5.76 55. Major requirements are clear and reasonable. 6.36 56. The student handbook provides helpful information about campus life. 5.67 57. I seldom get the "run- around" when seeking information on this campus. 6.10 58. The quality of instruction I receive in most of my classes is excellent. 6.49 59. This institution shows concern for students as individuals. 6.25 60. I generally know what's happening on campus. 5.99 61. Adjunct faculty are competent as classroom instructors. 6.19 62. There is a strong commitment to racial harmony on this campus. 6.16 4.90 / 1.62 0.80 5.91 4.87 / 1.64 1.30 6.21 5.85 / 1.36-0.09 5.85 5.61 / 1.49 0.75 6.45 5.26 / 1.57 0.41 5.68 5.17 / 1.66 0.74-0.27* 5.22 / 1.52 0.99-0.35*** 5.52 / 1.48 0.33 0.33*** 5.63 / 1.39 0.82-0.02 5.25 / 1.49 0.43 0.01 3.99 / 1.97 2.11 6.15 4.9 / 1.77 1.25-0.91*** 5.17 / 1.45 1.32 6.53 5.59 / 1.37 0.94-0.42*** 4.58 / 1.76 1.67 6.39 5.4 / 1.56 0.99-0.82*** 4.98 / 1.63 1.01 5.97 5.01 / 1.55 1.18 6.22 4.74 / 1.75 1.42 6.05 5.22 / 1.57 0.75-0.24* 5.46 / 1.44 0.76-0.45*** 5.59 / 1.44 0.46-0.85*** 63. Student disciplinary procedures are fair. 6.06 4.86 / 1.76 1.20 6.13 5.31 / 1.57 0.82-0.45*** * Difference statistically significant at the.05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the.01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the.001 level Impt = Importance; Sat = Satisfaction, SD = Standard Deviation, Gap = diff between Impt and Sat 35
Peer Comparisons by Item National Four- Year Gallaudet University - SSI Privates Item Impt Sat/SD Gap Impt Sat/SD Gap Diff 64. New student orientation services help students adjust to college. 6.16 4.81 / 1.74 1.35 6.03 5.33 / 1.56 0.70-0.52*** 65. Faculty are usually available after class and during office hours. 6.23 5.36 / 1.55 0.87 6.34 66. Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment. 6.15 4.5 / 1.76 1.65 6.49 67. Freedom of expression is protected on campus. 6.22 68. Nearly all of the faculty are knowledgeable in their field. 6.41 69. There is a good variety of courses provided on this campus. 6.29 70. Graduate teaching assistants are competent as classroom instructors. 6.05 71. Channels for expressing student complaints are readily available. 6.04 72. On the whole, the campus is well- maintained. 6.16 5.02 / 1.71 1.20 6.26 5.44 / 1.47 0.97 6.56 5.75 / 1.33 0.59-0.39*** 4.94 / 1.74 1.55-0.44*** 5.46 / 1.54 0.80-0.44*** 5.90 / 1.27 0.66-0.46*** 4.79 / 1.70 1.50 6.43 5.5 / 1.49 0.93-0.71*** 4.85 / 1.74 1.20 6.04 4.16 / 1.86 1.88 6.09 4.71 / 1.80 1.45 6.33 5.34 / 1.45 0.70-0.49*** 4.88 / 1.71 1.21-0.72*** 5.79 / 1.37 0.54-1.08*** 73. Student activities fees are put to good use. 5.79 4.12 / 1.68 1.67 6.12 4.8 / 1.71 1.32-0.68*** 74. Campus item: The content of the courses within General Studies (GSR) is valuable. 5.53 4.04 / 1.94 1.49 75. Campus item: General Studies (GSR) courses help me develop my knowledge base for my academic career. 5.55 4.14 / 2.01 1.41 * Difference statistically significant at the.05 level ** Difference statistically significant at the.01 level *** Difference statistically significant at the.001 level Impt = Importance; Sat = Satisfaction, SD = Standard Deviation, Gap = diff between Impt and Sat 36