1. Student Learning Outcomes: How Counseling/Advisement and Select Student Services Programs Impact Students’ Self-Development 2004 NACADA PACIFIC REGION 9 CONFERENCE Pasadena, California  April 21 – 23, 2004 Esau Tovar  Merril A. Simon

2. 2 Contact Information Esau Tovar, M.S. Faculty Leader/Counselor, Assessment Center Santa Monica College 1900 Pico Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 434-4012 tovar_esau@smc.edu Merril A. Simon, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology and Counseling California State University Northridge 18111 Nordhoff St. Northridge, CA 91330-8265 merril.simon@csun.edu

3. 3 Presentation Abstract As the number of students attending community colleges continues to rise, we face ever-increasing budgetary constraints while experiencing a demand to serve students’ diverse needs without sufficient resources to do so. As we respond to accreditation standards focusing on the assessment of student learning outcomes and of demands for greater accountability, it is imperative that advising and student services programs systematically measure the impact of our services. This presentation will focus on the development and use of a 67-item student services survey measuring the use of college-wide student services and the degree of self-development experienced by students as a result of attending college. Specific contributions to students’ self- development (e.g., values, self-management) by counseling/advising and other services will be highlighted.

4. Why Assessment?

5. 5 Need Identified (SMC)  Primarily resulting from institutional accreditation self-study;  New accreditation standards;  Need to measure student learning outcomes in both academic and student services;  Focus on usage and satisfaction with services; and  Contribution of student services to students’ self-development (affective development)

6. 6 Why Conduct Student Support Services Assessment?  Schuh & Upcraft (2001) cite the following as reasons:  Survival  Quality  Affordability & Cost Effectiveness  Strategic Planning  Policy Development & Decision making  Politics  Accreditation

7. 7 What is Assessment?  Upcraft & Schuh (1996) indicate that: “Assessment is any effort to gather, analyze, and interpret evidence which describes institutional, divisional, or agency effectiveness.”

8. 8 What Does Assessment Model Consist of?  Schuh & Upcraft (2001) recommend the components of:  Tracking—Utilization of WHAT & by WHOM;  Needs Assessment  Satisfaction of Services  Student Cultures & Campus Environment  Outcomes Assessment (effect for learning, development, student success—users vs. non-users)  Peer institution Comparison  National Standards—CAS  Cost Effectiveness

9. 9 Assessment Process Define Problem PurposeWhere? Best Assessment Method Data Collection Whom? How? Instrumen- tation Whom? Data Analysis Implications of Findings Reporting Assessment Process: Schuh & Upcraft (2001)

10. 10 Assessment is Iterative Mission/Purposes Objectives/Goals Outcomes Gather Evidence How well outcomes are achieved? Interpret Evidence Decisions to improve; enhance SLOs; inform stakeholders; planning; budgeting.

11. Specific Community College Example

12. 12 Counseling Department Mission Statement The Counseling Department is committed to promoting student success by providing a broad range of innovative services that address the educational, developmental, psychological, and social needs of Santa Monica College students. We actively contribute to the broader academic mission of the College through our instructional services and by building a multicultural learning community. Values Statement The Counseling Department places priority on the following values as it pursues its mission by fostering: Responsiveness to the developmental growth and changing needs of students and staff. Innovation and creativity in the services we offer. Interpersonal respect at all levels. Reinforcement of student responsibility, self-direction, and decision-making skills. Diversity as reflected in our programs, services, and staff composition. Commitment to the ethical standards of the counseling profession.

13. 13 Assessment in Counseling  Interest in measuring the contributions of student services—particularly counseling—to students’ self- development while in college.  Interest in operationalizing select components of the Santa Monica College Counseling Department’s Mission Statement.  Moving beyond assessment of utilization/ satisfaction with services.

14. 14 Assessment in Counseling (cont.)  Many student services designed and driven by student development/environmental models:  Student retention (Tinto, 1993)  Student engagement (Astin, 1993)  How College Affects Students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1990)  Designing new curricula emphasizing both cognitive and non- cognitive components:  e.g., American Cultures requirement  Items written were based on problems or issues discussed with students in a counseling setting.

15. 15 Survey Characteristics  67 Items with four sections: 1.Background information; 2.Awareness and usage of, and satisfaction with twenty student services programs; 3.Importance and agreement to items relating to counseling services, course enrollment/registration services, financial aid, safety and involvement; and 4.Degree to which students’ college experiences contributed to their self-development.

16. 16 Survey Characteristics (continued)  Internal Consistency – Chronbach’s alpha: Total Survey.99 Awareness/usage of student services.87 Satisfaction with student services.99 Importance of counseling, course enrollment, financial aid, safety/ involvement.95 Agreement of counseling, course enrollment, financial aid, safety/involvement.96 Self-Development Full Scale.94

17. 17 Sampling Protocol  Administered in-and-out of classroom:  Randomly selected classes from across disciplines (academic & vocational courses; excluded non- graded; did not sample early-ending or online courses). Collected 1,156 (81% of total surveys )  Also administered by 20 different Student Services Programs as students presented for services Collected 277 (19% of total surveys )

18. 18 About Santa Monica College (at time of initial assessment)  Spring 2003 Enrollment:  Population: 27,850 graded students  Gender: 57% female, 43% male  Status: 30% full-time; 10% F1-Visa  Race/Ethnicity: 37% White, 27% Latino, 20% Asian, 9% African American, 4% Other, 3% Filipino

19. 19 Demographics of Respondents  26% F1-Visa  Goal:  86% AA Degree/Transfer;  8% Career Certificate;  4% Personal Growth;  1% Basic Skills.  Age: M = 24.5  SMC Attendance:  40% 1-2 semesters  31% 3-4 semesters  15% 5-6 semesters  14% Over 3 years

20. 20 Awareness of Student Services Percentage of Least Aware

21. 21 Utilization of Student Services Percentage of Most Used

22. 22 Utilization of Student Services Percentage of Least Used

23. 23 Satisfaction with Student Services Percentage of Most Satisfied

24. 24 Satisfaction with Student Services Percentage of Least Satisfied

25. 25 Importance of Counseling Services By Decreasing Level of Importance

26. 26 Agreement Rating by Counseling Service By Decreasing Agreement

27. Contributions of Select Student Services to Students’ Self- Development

28. 28 Factor Analysis for Self-Development Items (1 of 5)  Items subjected to:  Principle Components Factor Analysis  Varimax Rotation  Criteria for factor retention:  Initial Eigenvalues > 1  Scree Plot test  Item loading >.40  Theoretical justification of item loading on factor  International students’ responses excluded

29. 29 Self-Development Factor Analysis (2 of 5) Extent to which experiences at Santa Monica College has contributed to students’ self-development. (1 = very negative effect; 5 = very positive effect) Extracted Communalities 56.Understanding my career prospects.67 57.Developing my self-confidence.75 58.Developing a sense of personal identity.75 59.Recognize my potential for success.72 60.Helping me cope with change.74 61.Helping me handle stress.61 62.Helping me develop a personal code of values and ethics.72 63.Understanding people of diverse cultures, values, and ideas.74 64.Working with groups of people.77 65.Developing leadership skills.68 66.Taking responsibility for my own behavior.68 67.Developing time management skills.61

30. 30 Self-Development Factor Analysis (3 of 5) Total Variance Explained

31. 31 Self-Development Factor Analysis (4 of 5)

32. 32 Self-Development Factor Analysis (5 of 5) Rotated Component Matrix Understanding/ Management of Self α =.92 Developing Personal Values α =.90 Self- Development Full Scale α =.94

33. 33 Self-Development by Counselor Task Performance  Construct validation for the self-development scales is further enhanced by the statistically significant correlations with a variety of “key” tasks performed by counselors.  Correlations are based on students’ level of agreement with each item.

34. Influence of College Attendance on Self-Development Effect of Ethnicity, Length of Attendance, and Utilization of Student Services

35. 35 Vectors of Development (Chickering & Reisser, 1993)  Developing Competence;  Managing Emotions;  Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence;  Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships;  Establishing Identity;  Developing Purpose;  Developing Integrity.

36. 36 Interpreting Findings  All analyses described herein used multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA), controlling for:  Students’ Age  Cumulative GPA

37. 37 Effects of Ethnicity on Self-Development  Analyses indicated that age impacts degree of self-development to a statistically significant degree.  Significant effects for Ethnicity on :  Self-Development Full Scale  Understanding/Management of Self Subscale  Developing Personal Values Subscale

38. 38 Self-Development Differences by Ethnicity (1 of 2)  African American and Latino students consistently expressed statistically significant higher levels of development on the full scale and two subscales compared to Asian and White students.  Full Scale: Asians (AS) differed from African Americans*** (AA) & Latinos*** (LA); White (W) from AA*** & LA***.  Understanding/Managing of Self: AS from AA* & from LA***; White (W) from AA**, & LA***.  Developing Personal Values: AS & W differed from African Americans*** (AA) & Latinos*** (LA); White (W) from AA*** & LA***. Note: Bonferroni Comparisons * p <.05 ** p <.01 *** p <.001

39. 39 Self-Development Differences by Ethnicity (2 of 2) Note: Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: AGE = 24.40; GPA = 2.8951.(ns)

40. 40 Effects of Length of College Attendance on Self-Development  Analyses indicated that age impacts degree of self-development to a statistically significant degree.  Significant effects on:  Self-Development Full Scale  Understanding/Management of Self Subscale  Developing Personal Values Subscale

41. 41 Self-Development Differences by Length of College Attendance  First year students expressed significantly lower levels of self-development compared to 3 rd year and 4 th + year students;  Findings consistent with theory (Vectors of Development; Chickering & Reisser, 1993) Note: Bonferroni Comparisons: * p <.05, ** p <.01 Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: AGE = 24.40; GPA = 2.8951.(ns)

42. 42 Effects of Utilization of Counseling Services on Self-Development  Analyses indicated that age impacts degree of self-development to a statistically significant degree.  Significant effects on:  Self-Development Full Scale  Understanding/Management of Self Subscale  Developing Personal Values Subscale

43. 43 Effects of Utilization of Counseling Services on Self-Development  As may be expected, the greater the number of times a student used counseling services, the greater their level of self-development. Differences: Full Scale: 1 & 4**; 1 & 5***; 2 & 4**; 2 & 5***; 3 & 5** UMS Subscale: 1 & 4**; 1 & 5**; 2 & 4*; 2 & 5**; 3 & 5* DPV Subscale: 1 & 4**; 1 & 5***; 2 & 4*; 2 & 5**; 3 & 5* *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: AGE = 24.40.

44. 44 Effects of Utilization of Special Programs on Self-Development  Students participating in SMC’s select “special programs” (e.g., African American Collegiate Center, Latino Center, Pico Partnership) expressed significantly higher levels of self- development than non-participants.  Findings support the premise that the very nature of their function and the added services they provide (social, cultural, affective) further assist students. ***p <.001 Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: AGE = 24.01, GPA = 2.9126.

45. 45 Effects of Utilization of Special Programs on Self-Development  EOPS participants differed to a significant degree from non-EOPS participants  EOPS students required to meet with counselor three times per semester. *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: AGE = 24.03, GPA = 2.9132.

46. 46 Effects of Financial Aid on Self- Development  Analyses indicated that age impacts degree of self-development to a statistically significant degree.  Significant effects on:  Self-Development Full Scale  Understanding/Management of Self Subscale  Developing Personal Values Subscale

47. 47 Effects of Financial Aid on Self- Development  Students using financial aid services—presumably receiving financial aid—expressed significantly higher degrees of self-development, compared to students not receiving it (finding consisted with other studies). Differences: Full Scale: 1 & 4*; 1 & 5***; 2 & 5** UMS Subscale: 1 & 5** DPV Subscale: 1 & 4*; 1 & 5***; 2 & 5***; 3 & 5* *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: AGE = 24.01.

48. 48 Effects of Feeling Safe on Campus on Self-Development  Analyses indicated that age impacts degree of self-development to a statistically significant degree.  Significant effects on:  Self-Development Full Scale  Understanding/Management of Self Subscale  Developing Personal Values Subscale

49. 49 Effects of Feeling Safe on Campus on Self-Development  Students feeling safe on campus expressed significantly higher scores on self-development. Safety is a contributing factor to a supportive learning environment. Differences: Full Scale: 2 & 4***; 2 & 5***; 3 & 4 *; 3 & 5***; 4 & 5*** UMS Subscale: 2 & 4***; 2 & 5***; 3 & 4 *; 3 & 5***; 4 & 5*** DPV Subscale: 2 & 4***; 2 & 5***; 3 & 5***; 4 & 5*** *p <.05; **p <.01; ***p <.001 Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: AGE = 23.80.

50. 50 Conclusions (1 of 3)  College attendance significantly and positively impacts students’ self- development, particularly for:  African Americans & Latinos;  Those attending college for a longer period of time;  Students receiving counseling services, including ethnic and SES-based programs (e.g., Latino Center, EOPS);  Students receiving financial aid assistance;  Students feeling safe on campus.

51. 51 Conclusions (2 of 3)  Students particularly credit college attendance as positively impacting their ability to:  Understand people of diverse values and cultures;  Taking responsibility for their own behavior;  Helping shape a personal identity;  Enhancing their self-development;  Recognizing the potential for success.

52. 52 Conclusions (3 of 3)  There is a need for student services to move beyond simply conducting usage and satisfaction studies.  Assessment of student learning outcomes should also emphasize non-cognitive domains.  Assessment should be ongoing and embedded into student services’ ongoing evaluations—not simply program reviews.  Assessment should be used to improve service delivery.

53. 53 Select References Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Komives, S. R., Woodard, D. B., & Associates (2003) (4 th ed.). Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., Andreas, R., Lyons, J., Strange, C., et al. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and personal development outside the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schuh, J. H., Upcraft, M. L., & Associates. (2001). Assessment practice in student affairs: An application manual. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Upcraft, M. L., & Schuh, J. H. (1996). Assessment in student affairs: A guide for practitioners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.