1. U NIVERSITY OF M INNESOTA Measuring Student Perspectives on University Experiences

2. Measuring Student Perspectives on University Experiences The focus of this report is on Student Experience, as reported in the 2001 Student Experiences Survey (SES). The 2001 SES was administered to a random sample of students enrolled on the four campuses of the University of Minnesota spring semester 2001.

3. Background During the past 10 years, the University of Minnesota has placed an emphasis upon improving the undergraduate experience on all campuses. Starting in 1997, this emphasis was dramatically strengthened through the enhancement and expansion of existing programs and such new programs as: New Student Convocation Freshman Seminars Academy of Distinguished Teachers

4. The University’s efforts to measure student perspectives on campus experiences are important to the Compact Planning Process, the University’s Institutional Measures, and the specific goals of the President’s Undergraduate Education Initiative. Background

5. The Compact Planning Process, which is premised upon a shared responsibility for articulating and realizing measurable outcomes, requires the persistent use of such evaluation and accountability tools as: surveys institutional level performance measures collegiate measures of efficiency and effectiveness These measures initially serve to set performance benchmarks. Subsequently they demonstrate our success in meeting our goals as well as help create informed options for future investment and institutional renewal. Background

6. 2001 Student Experiences Survey Respondents % of Sample Crookston102 (58.3%) Morris145 (64.4%) Duluth294 (58.8%) Twin Cities401 (50.1%) Grad/Prof415 (55.4%) Response Scale 1 = very poor 2 = poor 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent Survey Period: April – May 2001 Methodology: Electronic (Web)

7. It was just following the administration of the 1999 Student Satisfaction Survey that the University changed to a semester- based academic calendar and a new student information system (PeopleSoft). Students, faculty, and staff are still accommodating themselves to these very significant changes. The first year (1999-00) was particularly difficult for many students. We fully expected that student satisfaction as measured by the survey might suffer, and it did. Background

8. Overall Satisfaction 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

9. Would Probably or Definitely Enroll Again 2001 Student Experiences Survey

10. Overall Quality of the University’s Academic Programs Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

11. Quality of Faculty in Major Field of Study Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

12. Instruction: Quality of Instruction Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

13. Instruction: Availability of Instructors Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

14. Instruction: Class Size Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

15. Quality of Classrooms Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

16. Availability of Places to Study on Campus Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

17. Overall Physical Environment of the Campus Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

18. Administration's Responsiveness to Concerns of Students Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

19. Cost of Attending the University Undergraduates 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

20. Overall Satisfaction Students of Color 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

21. Overall Satisfaction Students of Color 2001 Student Experiences Survey sample too small sample too small 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

22. Overall Quality of the University’s Academic Programs Students of Color 2001 Student Experiences Survey 3 = fair 4 = good 5 = very good 6 = excellent

23. “Took a course that required accessing information through the internet.” 2001 Student Experiences Survey

24. “Accessed Course Materials Online.” 2001 Student Experiences Survey

25. “E-mailed an Instructor with a Question about a Class.” 2001 Student Experiences Survey

26. “Received an E-mail from an Instructor about class material.” 2001 Student Experiences Survey

27. Crookston Activity199719992001 Hours attending class 17.9 17.9 15.7 Hours in extracurricular activities 3.9 4.5 4.2 Hours Studying 13.2 17.0 14.1 Hours paid University job 3.6 6.4 3.8 Hours paid Non-University job 11.0 6.8 8.5 Total 49.6 52.6 46.3

28. Duluth Activity199719992001 Hours attending class 15.2 14.8 15.3 Hours in extracurricular activities 3.6 3.3 3.3 Hours Studying 15.6 15.2 14.4 Hours paid University job 3.2 3.5 3.2 Hours paid Non-University job 8.6 10.0 8.4 Total 46.2 46.8 44.6

29. Morris Activity199719992001 Hours attending class 16.5 16.2 14.8 Hours in extracurricular activities 6.2 4.1 4.6 Hours Studying 18.4 17.9 14.1 Hours paid University job 4.9 3.7 4.4 Hours paid Non-University job 3.5 4.2 4.5 Total 49.5 46.1 42.4

30. Twin Cities Activity199719992001 Hours attending class 15.0 14.6 14.9 Hours in extracurricular activities 3.1 2.9 3.6 Hours Studying 18.0 16.9 16.1 Hours paid University job 4.7 4.5 4.5 Hours paid Non-University job 10.0 10.6 10.2 Total 50.8 49.5 49.3

31. Calendar Preference? QuartersSemesters Undergraduate Crookston 57.6% 42.4% Morris 51.8% 48.2% Duluth 52.2% 47.8% Twin Cities 56.4% 43.6% Graduate 52.4% 47.6%

32. The overall goal of the University’s initiative to improve the undergraduate educational experience is to create a richer and deeper set of intensive learning experiences and academic connections that are strongly correlated with retention, graduation rates, and student satisfaction. A challenge for the Board of Regents and the administration is to continually review performance as it relates to Institutional Initiatives with the aid of the Institutional Measures and to adjust goals and benchmarks as appropriate. Conclusion

33. The University’s efforts to improve undergraduate education on all four campuses are on-going. So too is its monitoring of initiatives to improve undergraduate education and its measurement of student satisfaction with their undergraduate experience, student interest in the University, and student success.