The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions By David Edens, Ph.D

Transcription

1 2012 White Paper The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions By David Edens, Ph.D For-profit higher education is under intense scrutiny as issues have been raised about aggressive recruiting and admissions practices, poor student qualifications, substandard faculty qualifications, and lower curriculum standards (Bailey, Badway, & Gumport, 2001; Berg, 2005; Epstein, 2010a, 2010b; Irons & Wright, 2010). In addition to issues of quality and credentials, there is the broader question whether education can be successfully delivered when profit is also a motive. In critiquing for-profit higher education, some authors suggest that student outcomes and profitability are not congruent (Bailey et al., 2001; Berg, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Kinser, 2006). Despite the debate surrounding for-profit higher education, these schools represent one of the fastest-growing sectors in American higher education (Hentschke, Lechuga, & Tierney, 2010). The for-profit sector has grown by 236 percent over the last 10 years and now represents 12 percent of all students enrolled in U.S. higher education (Lynch, Engle, & Cruz, 2010). For-profit colleges and universities typically serve minority and first-generation students who attend for professional training or adult learning (Cantor, 2006), populations traditionally considered higher risk. In addition, the open admissions policies that allow life experience as well as academic experience to be considered for admissions may contribute to entering students being less prepared academically (Bailey et al., 2001; Berg, 2005; St. John, Starkey, & Paulsen, 1995). The lower level of academic preparation may be difficult to overcome during the short amount of time allocated to many of the degree programs, leading to additional criticism that degrees from for-profit institutions do not have the same value as ones earned from nonprofit educational institutions (Bailey et al., 2001; Berg, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Kinser, 2006). However, proponents of for-profit higher education defend the industry by asserting that for-profit schools are a valuable resource for adult training and professional development (Berg, 2005; Cantor, 2006).

2 Student satisfaction with the college experience is a key factor in persistence, as students who are satisfied with their experiences on campus tend to persist to graduation. The measurement of student satisfaction at a school is often a component of many institutional assessment plans. Student satisfaction with the college experience is a key factor in persistence, as students who are satisfied with their experiences on campus tend to persist to graduation (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Suhre, Jansen, & Harskamp, 2007). As Astin (1993) also notes, given the considerable investment of time and energy that most students make in attending college, their perceptions of the value of that experience should be given substantial weight (p. 273). Institutions that assess satisfaction often use that information to develop programs and services specifically designed to meet students needs, create a better fit, and in turn increase the satisfaction and persistence of their students (Beltyukova & Fox, 2002). With the debate about the value of for-profit higher education occurring at the national level, for-profit colleges and universities are being closely evaluated regarding student outcomes, graduation rates, placement rates, and student debt loads (Epstein, 2010a; Hentschke, Lechuga, & Tierney, 2010b; Irons & Wright, 2010). However, there is little empirical research on the for-profit sector; most of the literature is descriptive or historical in nature. This study contributes to the current body of literature regarding student satisfaction and the student experience in the for-profit sector. The findings from this study also provide relevant information to the administrators of for-profit colleges and universities about how student satisfaction can be used to enhance the student experience and gauge a student s intent to persist. Additionally, the results inform administrators and provide direction for programs and policies that support student persistence within the for-profit environment. Participants and institutions The sample was created from two different academic years as data was collected during two separate measuring periods. During the academic year, data on 2,476 students were collected from two for-profit colleges. During the academic year, the data came from 5,713 students at 20 for-profit institutions. Analyzing the characteristics of the data, the respondents in the sample were primarily female (66.3 percent), between 19 and 34 (65.1 percent), and either Black (38.4 percent) or Caucasian (34.2 percent). Most were first-year (49.5 percent) or second-year (38.4 percent) students who attended classes in the morning (51.3 percent) or evening (40.1 percent). Slightly more than half worked either full-time (31.5 percent) or part-time (20.9 percent) off campus. The students were primarily seeking either an associate degree (69.7 percent) or bachelor s degree (17.6 percent) at an institution of their first choice (63.3 percent). Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample. Additionally, institutional data were collected on characteristics such as racial composition, degree offerings, campus location, full-time faculty percentages, online offerings, commuter percentages, remediation percentages, and whether the campus utilized open enrollment policies. The institutions in this sample were selected because they were all for-profit schools that administered the Career and Private School Student Satisfaction Inventory Form B online (see the following section for details on this instrument). The schools were primarily in suburban locations (13) and most often offered both associate and bachelor s degrees (15). On average, the schools were staffed with 26.7 percent full-time faculty and conducted 8.8 percent of their instruction online. Additionally, the average remediation rate for all schools was 14.7 percent. All but one of the schools has open enrollment policies Noel-Levitz, Inc White Paper: The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions

3 Instrument Institutional reputation is important to students when they make their enrollment decisions. The instrument used was the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI; Schreiner & Juillerat, 1993). The SSI is available from Noel-Levitz in three main versions: a four-year college and university version; a two-year community, junior, and technical college version; and a two-year career and private school version. All versions are offered in a long format (Form A) and a short format (Form B). The SSI measures student satisfaction on issues as well as the priority the student places on each issue, and then organizes the responses into eight scales. (For this study, only the satisfaction measures were utilized.) This study utilized data collected from the two-year career and private school Form B through online administration of the survey. The average alpha reliability for the eight scales of the career and private Form B has been measured at.86. Beyond the 40 satisfaction questions, the SSI also collects additional data relating to general student satisfaction and student demographics. The value of satisfaction assessment at for-profit institutions Campus planning. Similar to commuter students attending traditional schools (Braxton, et al., 2004), for-profit students integrate into the campus community through their academic experiences. It is imperative that the curriculum and faculty at for-profit schools concentrate on the needs of the student. For-profit students often attend school to develop career or vocational skills needed to enter a profession or change careers. The faculty and curriculum must be able to effectively meet the needs of these students by providing relevant, industry-focused education (Sperling & Tucker, 1997). Toward that end, the measurement of satisfaction and the Student Satisfaction Inventory remain important tools in institutional assessment. The consumer theory of satisfaction (Pate, 1993) states that consumer input is important to assure that consumer needs are met. The SSI is a valid and effective tool in measuring several dimensions of satisfaction, including Campus Climate, Campus Services, Registration Effectiveness, and Institutional Effectiveness. The results of this study suggest that these SSI scales are of particular importance to meeting the needs of and creating a positive experience for students at for-profit institutions. These categories can provide administrators with valuable information about the academic environment, academic support services, ancillary services, and business operations that may affect student satisfaction and, in turn, a school s reputation, recruitment, and even alumni relations. Recruitment and alumni relations. A main reason why satisfaction remains an important variable to measure is that satisfaction affects students belief about their college experience. These beliefs ultimately affect an institution s reputation. Colleges compete for student admissions (Hoyt & Brown, 2003) and potential students gather information in many ways when making their choice (Dolinsky, 2010). Reputation is important as potential students gather formal information from school materials as well as informal information from friends, peers, and reviews (Hoyt & Brown, 2003). Empirically, reputation and college rankings have also been shown to affect college admissions and even pricing (Meredith, 2004). The effect of satisfaction and reputation goes beyond college recruitment and admissions. Reputation can also influence alumni views of the institution (Bailey, 2009) and levels of alumni giving (Bryant, 2006; Pate, 1993). Because reputation and marketability are important for student recruitment and alumni relations, institutional assessment of student satisfaction remains a valuable strategy. As a tool, the Student Satisfaction Inventory provides a means of measuring and understanding specific student satisfaction factors on campus. As they relate to the conceptual framework of this study, the categories of Campus Climate, Campus Services, Registration Effectiveness, and Instructional Effectiveness provide information regarding some of the institutional and academic environments that affect for-profit students. These data can help administrators review student beliefs that may affect the school s reputation as well as recruitment and alumni relations Noel-Levitz, Inc. 3

4 There is a strong relationship between student satisfaction and intent to persist. Assessing intent to re-enroll. The results of this study do show a strong relationship between the measures of student satisfaction and intent to persist (R 2 =.36), which is also noted in the literature (Schreiner & Nelson, in press; Thomas & Galambos, 2004). The SSI measures this by asking students to rate their overall satisfaction with their college experience, and then whether students would re-enroll at their institution if they had to had to complete their educations all over again. It is difficult to make a direct correlation between students beliefs and attitudes (such as intent to persist) and actual persistence. In fact, much of the literature on persistence uses intent as the dependent variable rather than an actual measurement of persistence. This is in part due to the influence of many factors that could affect a student s actual persistence. However, as with using satisfaction data to assess institutional reputation to recruit students, those findings can also be used to re-recruit current students, validating their decision to persist. Implications for Practice A conceptual framework based on commuter-student persistence (Braxton et al., 2004) provides a lens through which to view the under-studied for-profit student population. This study confirms that for-profit students have many similarities to commuter students when considering the student outcome of persistence. Additionally, this study suggests that other components of the commuter-student persistence model may add to the understanding of why students at for-profit institutions persist. Finally, this study suggests that the measurement of student satisfaction remains an important part of any school s assessment plan and provides valuable information to manage a school s reputation as well as aid in recruitment and alumni relations. Campus ancillary services impact for-profit students. Because for-profit students, like commuter students, have limited time to spend on campus, it is logical that Campus Services and Registration Effectiveness are strong predictors of student satisfaction. Campus Services addresses the level of student satisfaction with ancillary services, such as the library, computer labs, and tutoring, that students use to achieve their academic goals. For-profit students, like the commuter student, have many external demands that limit their time on campus (Braxton et al., 2004). When students need to use academic support services, those services must be available at times that fit the student s needs. Additionally, these academic services must work efficiently, be easily accessible, and not impose additional time demands on the student. Registration Effectiveness measures levels of student satisfaction with the registration process and billing. This scale item focuses on the business aspects of the school rather than the academic items. Again, for-profit students have many external demands on their time and the limited time that the students have to spend on campus is primarily spent in the classroom (Braxton et al., 2004). It is important for administrators to recognize that all of the business services and other operations that students interface with must be efficient and not bureaucratic. Two items on the SSI: Classes are scheduled at times that are convenient for me and I am able to register for the classes I need with few conflicts allow administrators to assess student satisfaction with course availability and assure that there are classes available at the times that students can take them. These findings suggest that campus administrators should continue to evaluate policies, procedures, and ancillary services that could impact access to classes and services. Classes and support services should function in a way that efficiently assists students in achieving their goals. Using student satisfaction scores, administrators have the opportunity to make adjustments in policies or programs to better facilitate the needs of the for-profit student Noel-Levitz, Inc White Paper: The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions

5 Student satisfaction surveys can help better meet students needs. The classroom environment is essential to for-profit students. The classroom experience is important to for-profit students. Administrators in for-profit institutions must focus on the academic setting when evaluating persistence and retention in their schools. Unlike a traditional student, the for-profit student does not integrate into the campus environment through social mechanisms. Instead, like the commuter student, for-profit students spend a majority of their time on campus in the classroom. The quality of the academic experience thus affects for-profit students academic integration, institutional commitment, and subsequently their persistence (Braxton et al., 2004). The Instructional Effectiveness scale assesses levels of student satisfaction with the academic experience, including faculty, curriculum, and institutional commitment to academic excellence. Instructional effectiveness directly reflects the students beliefs about how the faculty and the curriculum are supporting their vocational skill development. Additionally, for-profit students are especially career oriented in their educational goals, and this heightened focus on career development makes the academic environment an area where student satisfaction scores can provide valuable information to administrators about student experiences. In light of this, for-profit administrators should work to make the academic environment as rich as possible. Faculty development programs should focus on teaching and learning. New methods of academic experiences such as learning communities and interdisciplinary coursework should be explored and developed (Tinto, 2010). Curriculum must be continually reviewed to assure it is meeting the needs of the student as well as the industry the students are trying to enter (Martone & Sireci, 2009; Sperling & Tucker, 1997). Considering the conceptual framework of this study, the academic environment may be the most important area for the assessment of overall student satisfaction (Braxton et al., 2004). Satisfaction as part of a comprehensive assessment strategy. Another reason for continued student satisfaction assessment is that these measurements are a necessary part of a comprehensive institutional assessment plan (Juillerat & Schreiner, 2004). Satisfaction data can be used to directly affect policies and program offerings on campus (Pate, 1993). Satisfaction data, when published, allow for transparency for the student-consumer to evaluate an institution s quality (Dill & Soo, 2004). Accrediting bodies also focus on a student-centered approach to assessment (Scanlon & McComis, 2010), and student satisfaction assessment provides one way to incorporate student input into the process of continuous improvement. Writing about national accreditation, which is more common in the for-profit sector, Scanlon and McComis stated: National accreditation will continue to inform the education community s accountability efforts and will continue to serve as an important resource and example, showing the value of helping institutions become more purposeful in their education practices, and helping students become more intentional learners (p. 140). As part of an assessment and accreditation process, student satisfaction surveys can provide valuable information to administrators regarding teaching and learning, campus services, and student life, which can be used in creating new programs and policies that better meet students needs Noel-Levitz, Inc. 5

6 Satisfaction assessment can be a valuable component of planning at for-profit institutions. Conclusion For-profit students must feel as if they fit on campus, and their time on campus is focused on academics. Integration into the campus environment occurs in the classroom. It is important to make the academic environment as rich as possible. In addition, because of the additional pressures on a for-profit student s time, all ancillary services and systems must be streamlined to serve the student in an effective and efficient manner. The Student Satisfaction Inventory provides a means for assessing student satisfaction and using that data to improve the quality of student life and learning at for-profit institutions. Focusing on categories such as Instructional Effectiveness, Registration Effectiveness, and Campus Climate can provide critical information that can be used to manage services, programs, and policies on campus. It also can be used to guide recruitment and alumni efforts, as satisfaction can strongly influence students perceptions of their educational experience. These results show that satisfaction assessment can be a valuable component of planning at those campuses, as well as a means for providing a better overall experience for for-profit students. References Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 145, doi: /cc.352 Bailey, T., Badway, N., & Gumport, P. J. (2001). For-profi t higher education and community colleges (Report no. x-xx). Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. Retrieved from ncpi/documents/pdfs/forprofitandcc.pdf Beltyukova, S. A., & Fox, C. M. (2002). Student satisfaction as a measure of student development: Towards a universal metric. Journal of College Student Development, 43, Berg, G. A. (2005). Lessons from the edge: For-profi t and nontraditional higher education in America. Westport, CT: Praeger. Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bryant, J. L. (2006). Assessing expectations and perceptions of the campus experience: The Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory. New Directions for Community Colleges, 134, doi: /cc.234 Cantor, J. A. (2006). Lifelong learning and the academy: The changing nature of continuing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). For-profit schooling: Where is the public good? In J. H. Franklin (Ed.), The last word: The best commentary and controversy in American education (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2004). Transparency and quality in higher education markets. Markets in Higher Education, 6, doi: / _4 Dolinsky, A. L. (2010). The adequacy of the information that students utilize when choosing a college: An attribute importance and information sufficiency approach. College Student Journal, 44(3), Retrieved from Education Full Text database Epstein, J. (2010a, July 26). Closer look at gainful employment. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/26/regs Epstein, J. (2010b, September 24). Update: Timeline shift for gainful rules. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from Hentschke, G. C., Lechuga, V. M., & Tierney, W. G. (2010). For-profit colleges and universities in a knowledge economy. In G. C. Henschke, V. M. Lechuga & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For profi t colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance, and place in higher education (pp. 1-22). Sterling, VA: Stylus Noel-Levitz, Inc White Paper: The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions

7 Hoyt, J. E., & Brown, A. B. (2003). Identifying college choice factors to successfully market your institution. College and University, 78(4), Irons, E., & Wright, G. (2010). Student loan defaults rise again. Oakland, CA: The Institute for College Access & Success. Retrieved from Juillerat, S. L., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). The role of student satisfaction in the assessment of institutional effectiveness. In T. Banta (Ed.), Hallmarks of effective outcomes assessment (pp ). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kinser, K. (2006). From main street to wall street: The transformation of for-profi t higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Bloomington, IN: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. Retrieved from psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= &rep=rep1&type=pdf Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lynch, M., Engle, J., & Cruz, J. L. (2010). Subprime opportunity: The unfulfi lled promise of for-profi t colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.: The Education Trust. Retrieved from Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), doi: / Meredith, M. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), doi: /B: RIHE f4 Pate, W. S. (1993). Consumer satisfaction, determinants, and post-purchase actions in higher education. College and University, 68(2), Retrieved from Education Full Text database Scanlon, E., & McComis, M. S. (2010). Accreditation and accountability: The role of for-profit education and national accrediting agencies. In G. C. Henschke, V. M. Lechuga & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), For-profi t colleges and universities: Their markets, regulation, performance, and place in higher education (pp ). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Schreiner, L. A., & Juillerat, S. L. (1993). The Student Satisfaction Inventory. Iowa City, IA: Noel-Levitz. Schreiner, L. A., & Nelson, D. D. (in press). The contribution of student satisfaction to persistence. Journal of College Student Retention. Sperling, J., & Tucker, R. W. (1997). For-profi t higher education: Developing a world-class workforce New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. St. John, E. P., Starkey, J. B., & Paulsen, M. B. (1995). The influence of prices and price subsidies on within-year persistence by students in proprietary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), doi: / Suhre, C. J. M., Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Harskamp, E. G. (2007). Impact of degree program satisfaction on the persistence of college students. Higher Education, 54(2), doi: /s Thomas, E. H., & Galambos, N. (2004). What satisfies students? Mining student-opinion data with regression and decision tree analysis. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), doi: /B:RIHE e Tinto, V. (2010). From theory to action: Exploring the institutional characteristics for student retention. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp ). New York: Springer Noel-Levitz, Inc. 7

8 Participating Institutions American Intercontinental University, IL Bryant and Stratton Colleges (multiple campus locations) Technical Career Institutes, NY The College of Westchester, NY Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents Variable Label Number of students Percentage Gender Age Race/Ethnicity Status Attendance Class Level Female 3, % Male 1, % 18 and under % 19 to 24 1, % 25 to 34 1, % 35 to % 45 and over % American Indian % Asian % Black/African American 2, % Hispanic/Latino (including Puerto Rican) % Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander % Caucasian/White 1, % Multiracial % Other % Full-time 4, % Part-time 1, % Morning 2, % Afternoon % Evening 2, % Weekend % 1 year or less 2, % 2 years 2, % 3 years % 4 or more years % continued on next page TM Noel-Levitz, Inc White Paper: The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions

9 Variable Label Number of students Percentage Current GPA Employment Degree Goals Current Residence Institutional Choice Primary Payment Source No credits earned 1, % 1.99 or below % 2.0 to % 2.5 to % 3.0 to , % 3.5 and above 1, % Full-time off campus 1, % Part-time off campus 1, % Full-time on campus % Part-time on campus % Not employed 2, % Diploma/Certificate % Associate degree 3, % Bachelor s degree 1, % Master s degree % Transfer to another institution % Other % Residence Hall % Own house 1, % Rent room or apartment off campus 1, % Parent s home 1, % Other % First Choice 3, % Second Choice 1, % Third or lower choice % Scholarships % Financial aid 4, % Family contributions % Self support % Other % TM 2012 Noel-Levitz, Inc. 9

10 Figure 1. The effect of satisfaction on students intent to reenroll Satisfaction as measured by 8 factors of SSI Intent to re-enroll R 2 =.36 Online FT Faculty Remediation Enrollment Female Employment Choice Current GPA TM In this model, there is a significant relationship between satisfaction and students intent to reenroll. After controlling for the effects of student and institutional characteristics, this model explains 36 percent of the variation in students intent to reenroll and, Do it over again Noel-Levitz, Inc White Paper: The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions

11 Please visit to download these additional Noel-Levitz National Satisfaction-Priorities Reports that may be of interest Noel-Levitz, Inc. 11

12 About the author David Edens is an instructor and former academic director at the Art Institute of California-Hollywood and has just completed his doctorate in Higher Education at Azusa Pacifica University. His research has focused on the characteristics of student success in the for-profit sector. Most specifically, his research interest is student satisfaction at for-profit colleges and universities. This study was conducted by Dr. Edens with support from Noel-Levitz. Dr. Laurie Schreiner, one of the authors of the Student Satisfaction Inventory, was Dr. Eden s faculty advisor on this project. Questions about this report? We hope you found this report to be helpful and informative. If you have questions or would like more information about these findings, please contact Noel-Levitz at or ContactUs@noellevitz.com. A word about Noel-Levitz A trusted partner to higher education, Noel-Levitz helps systems and campuses reach and exceed their goals for enrollment, marketing, and student success. Over the past three decades, the higher education professionals at Noel-Levitz have consulted directly more than 2,700 colleges and universities nationwide in the areas of: Student retention Staff and advisor development Student success Marketing and recruitment Financial aid services Research and communications Institutional effectiveness All material in this paper is copyright by Noel-Levitz, Inc. Permission is required to redistribute information from Noel-Levitz, Inc., either in print or electronically. Please contact us at ContactUs@ noellevitz.com about reusing material from this paper. Noel-Levitz has developed an array of proven tools and software programs; diagnostic tools and instruments; Web-based training programs; and customized consultations, workshops, and national conferences. With the Satisfaction-Priorities Surveys, including the Student Satisfaction Inventory, the firm brings together its many years of research and campus-based experience to enable you to get to the heart of your campus agenda. Find it online. This report is posted online at: Sign up to receive additional reports and papers as they become available: P Noel-Levitz, Inc White Paper: The Value of Student Satisfaction Assessment at For-Profit Higher Education Institutions ContactUs@noellevitz.com