BOB COWIN DOUGLAS COLLEGE BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA EAIR 2008 COPENHAGEN Student Services Results from a System-Wide Survey of Former College Students

Theoretical Background Student Engagement  Sustained participation in purposeful learning activities, accompanied by a positive emotional tone First Year Experience  Academic, social and emotional adaptations  Higher withdrawal rates towards end of first year and start of second year

Services to Assist with Transition and Adaptation Academic  e.g. Library assistance, writing centre Personal  e.g. Financial aid, counseling Institutional Operations  e.g. admissions, study and social space

Community Colleges Mainly first and second year offerings Academic and non-academic programs  Blurry boundaries  Continuum of university-transferable courses within programs, ranging from 0% to 100% Distributed throughout the region  Fairly good cross section of socio-economic classes and academic abilities

Former Student Survey Graduates and near-completers From 17 colleges: large and small, urban and rural Conducted about one year after leaving the institution (student may still be studying elsewhere) Special set of questions on student services posed in 2005 and ,000 responses (55% of the sample)

Student Services Program entry services:  Admission services and application processes (for entry to the institution)  Orientation session (introduction to the institution and the program)  Financial aid services (assistance in accessing loans and bursaries)  Registration procedures (for enroling in particular courses each term) Exit services:  Help in transferring to another institution (mainly to a university but sometimes to other colleges)  Help in finding employment after leaving the program (especially for students not transferring to another institution) Counsellng and Advising:  Career counseling services  Personal counseling services (psychological)  program advising (guidance about educational choices)  Website information and services (about the institution generally and the program specifically)

Student Services (continued) Facilities:  Classroom facilities  Places to study  Gymnasium/fitness facilities  Places on campus for socializing  Food services Academic Services:  Library services (the adequacy of the collection was rated elsewhere)  Learning support services (academic assistance, often in mathematics or with writing, beyond that provided in courses) General Campus Atmosphere:  A climate free of harassment and discrimination  A sense of safety and security at night

Rating Scale Five point  Very good  Good  Adequate  Poor  Very poor Not Available (e.g. at small campus) Not used

Usage High Use (86% - 100%): AdmissionsClassrooms RegistrationStudy space WebsiteSocial space LibraryFood Moderate Use (40% - 85%): OrientationJob search program advisingFinancial aid Career counsellingGym/fitness Low Use (0% - 39%): Transfer Learning support Personal counselling

Usage Details 99%Classrooms65%Orientation 98%Registration66%program advising 97%Harassment free58%Job search 97%Admissions49%Gym/fitness 91%Food44%Financial aid 89%Study space41%Career counselling 89%Website38%Transfer 88%Social space35%Learning support 85%Library26%Personal counselling 84%Night safety

Ratings: Very Good and Good 91%Harassment free68%Personal counselling 80%Night safety68%Study space 79%Library65%Transfer 79%Website65%Gym/fitness 77%Orientation64%Social space 76%Learning support62%Career counselling 75%Financial aid59%Food 74%Registration57%Job search 73%Classrooms 72%Admissions 70%program advising

Gender MalesFemales Males higher: Study space68%62% Night safety85%75% Females higher: Website information77%82% Orientation74%79% Personal counseling65%70%

Age Group Rating17 – 2425 – 2930+Range Very good26%22%32%10 Very good + Good80%74%79%6 Library Services

Age Group (2) 17 – 2425 – Study space93%91%84% Gym/fitness53% 43% Social space93%90%79% Usage

Academic Performance Low Grades Medium Grades High Grades Weaker students more satisfied: Study space68%65%63% Social space69%64%61% Food services65%59%56% Stronger students more satisfied: Learning support70%73%76% Transfer61%63%66% Job search52%51%59% Rating of Very good + Good combined

Region/Size Small, rural colleges  Where ratings differed, slightly more positive than in larger institutions  Exceptions: gym, library and website (smaller institutions may not have resources to perform as well)  Food services well rated  Students seem to appreciate personalized services that small institutions can provide, even though there might be fewer specialized services available

Field of Study Five or More Percentage Point Differences AppliedAcademicDifference Job search Program advising Gym/fitness Orientation78699 Food61538 Career counseling65578 Study space67616 Social space65596 Personal counseling69645 Admissions73685

Conclusion Multivariate analysis to control for interacting factors  e.g. younger students in academic programs, females in health programs Examination to see if patterns in who gives extreme ratings of “Very good” or “Very poor”

Discussion What findings from British Columbia seem likely to generalize to your jurisdiction? Might the findings related to the demographics of students (e.g. differences according to age or gender) seem likely to generalize better than findings about specific services (i.e. how students view and rate particular services)? Do these data provide any guidance whether institutions should change the resources they devote to these services?