Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“Customers today are strongly value-oriented. They seek results
and service process quality that far exceeds the price and acquisition
costs they incur for a service.”
Source: Heskett, J.L., Sasser Jr., W.E. & Schlesinger, L.A. (1997). The Service Profit Chain. New York: Simon & Shuster Inc. 2
Presentation Outline
Introductions
Why is student satisfaction important?
Instrument design: What does your institution want to learn?
Best practices in current student data collection
Data analysis and reporting: Highlights of selected research results
From research to action
Questions
3
About Maguire Associates
A 25 year-old, research-based consultancy helping over 350 educational institutions and consortia
Founded in 1983 by Jack Maguire, former Dean of Enrollment Management at Boston College
Staffed by a senior consulting team comprising higher education and marketing practitioners with governing board experience
Supported by a team of market researchers and social scientists
4
Student Satisfaction & Retention
Market Research
Strategic Financial Aid Modeling
Student Recruitment Optimization
Enrollment Management Consulting
Strategic Planning
Advancement & Alumni Engagement
Branding & Image Development
Pricing Optimization & Value Enhancement
Integrated Marketing
5
Service Areas
Primary Goals of Student Satisfaction & Retention Research Identify strengths and weaknesses of an
institution as perceived by students
Examine how these variables contribute to students’ overall satisfaction and likelihood of completing their education at the institution
Highlight differences and similarities across important subgroups
Make decisions about where to invest institutional resources to enhance satisfaction with the overall experience and increase student degree completion rates
6
Why is Student Satisfaction Important?
7
Freshman Retention Rates (4-Year U.S. Universities & Colleges)
Source: Data from 2008 U.S. News and World Report College Edition
8
Statistics
Mean 75%
Median 75%
Minimum 33%
Maximum 99%
N 1,348
Graduation Rates (4-Year U.S. Universities & Colleges)
Source: Data from 2008 U.S. News and World Report College Edition
9
Statistics
Mean 53%
Median 52%
Minimum 7%
Maximum 98%
N 1,390
The Multiple FunnelModel of Enrollment Management
10
Important Outcomes to Define Success of Presidency
Improved retention and graduation rates
11
Source: 2005 Chronicle of Higher Education Survey of Four-year College and University Presidents
Top Institutional Concerns
Student retention
12
Source: 2005 Chronicle of Higher Education Survey of Four-year College and University Presidents
Satisfaction-Retention Matrix
STAY
LEAVE
SATISFIEDLESS THANSATISFIED
A
DC
B
“Loyalists” “Hostages”
“Mercenaries” “Defectors”
Satisfaction
Retention
AB: Among persisters, what are the demographic and attitudinal differences between satisfied and less than satisfied students?
BD: Among less than satisfied students, which students stay versus dropout, and why?
AD: What are the differences between satisfied current students and dissatisfied dropouts?
13
Instrument Design:
What Does Your Institution Want to Learn?
14
Key Outcome Variables
How satisfied are you overall with your experience at X University?
How likely is it that you will complete your degree at X University?
or
To what extent have you considered leaving X University?
If you were able to go back to when you chose a university, knowing what you know now, would you choose to attend X University again, choose to attend another university, or not go to university at all?
15
Key Predictor Variables
Demographic/socioeconomic characteristics
Attitudes/opinions about X University on specific areas:– Academics– Resources– Affordability/value– Faculty– Supporting/Advising services– Preparation for the future– Social life– Extracurricular activities – Educational goals
16
Stated vs. Derived Importance
Stated Importance
Derived importance– Is calculated by correlating evaluation of particular
attributes with overall satisfaction– Uncovers items that are most important to the
satisfaction of students (These attributes will not always be the same features students identify as being important. However, they will be the ones which, if improved, will most likely increase satisfaction.)
17
Sample University
18
Average
Importance Rating
Average Quality Rating
Intellectual Environment 4.48 4.08
Access to a City 4.25 4.10
Quality of Campus Housing 4.14 3.46
Diversity of Student Body 4.10 2.66
Availability of Financial Aid 3.86 2.95
Sense of Campus Community 3.69 2.35
Prestige 3.24 3.82
Correlation:Quality Rating with Overall Satisfaction
.40
.36
.33
.50
.13
.45
.33
Derived Importance
Pros– Shorter instrument– Can ask many more “other” questions (i.e., demographic,
goals, etc.)– “Stated” importance may be misleading and very often
many variables are rated as important
Cons– Satisfaction ratings with small standard deviations will not
be correlated with dependent measures
19
Best Practicesin Current Student
Data Collection
20
On-line Survey Larger samples can be collected more cost-efficiently
Sample sizes are more manageable to process and more conducive to sophisticated analyses
Surveys have a shorter turnaround time
Instruments can be customized and use complex skip patterns
Visual stimuli or dynamic content can be more easily incorporated
24-hour access is available to respondents; respondents can work at their own pace and/or return later
Surveys are not subject to interviewer bias
Respondents tend to provide more in-depth verbatim responses
More environmentally friendly21
Response Rates 31 survey records analyzed; 24 colleges and universities
22 undergraduate surveys– Range: 11% to 45%– Average = 25%
9 graduate student surveys– Range: 7% to 34%– Average = 21%
Variables examined– Setting (urban, suburban, rural)– Religious affiliation (has an affiliation, does not have an affiliation)– Timing of the data collection– Incentives– Students’ overall satisfaction levels and self assessed likelihood of
graduating
22
Response Rates by Top Prize Amount
05
101520253035
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $1,100
Resp
onse
Rat
e (%
)
Undergraduate Graduate
Correlation = +0.413
23
Data Analysis and Reporting:
Highlights of Selected Research Results
24
Overall Satisfaction – 35 Surveys
Graduate StudentsUndergraduate Students
Research Audience
6.00
5.70
5.40
5.10
4.80
Ov
era
ll S
ati
sfa
cti
on
Undergraduate Students: mean is 5.16, range of 4.61 to 5.65Graduate Students: mean is 5.45, range of 4.83 to 6.16Scale: 1 = Not at All Satisfied and 7 = Very Satisfied 25
Likelihood of Graduating – 21 Surveys
Graduate StudentsUndergraduate Students
Research Audience
6.60
6.30
6.00
Lik
elih
oo
d o
f G
rad
ua
tin
g
26
Undergraduate Students: mean is 6.40, range of 5.86 to 6.64Graduate Students: mean is 6.51, range of 6.25 to 6.76Scale: 1 = Not at All Likely and 7 = Definitely
Overall Satisfaction by Likelihood of Graduating
27
Likelihood of Graduating
1 Definitely Will not
Graduate 2 3 4 5 6
7 Definitely
Will Graduate
Overall Satisfaction
1=Extremely Dissatisfied 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
2 1 0 0 0 0 1 11
3 1 0 3 1 2 1 10
4 0 0 0 4 1 4 16
5 0 0 0 2 3 8 27
6 0 0 1 1 5 4 62
7 = Extremely Satisfied 0 0 0 0 0 1 17
27 of the 190 responding students (14%) are dissatisfied, but say they are likely to graduate
1 student is satisfied yet unlikely to graduate
Current StudentsMean = 6.55
Former StudentsMean = 4.34
Overall Satisfaction of Current and Former Students
28
Percent of Students Enrolled at First-choice Institution – 16 Schools
29
-- 16 Different Colleges and Universities --
Segmentation Analysis
Overall satisfaction
Likelihood of graduating
Class year or semester
Gender
Major program of study
Academic ability (grade point average)
Residential status
30
Segmentation Analysis
5.53
6.406.84 7.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Scale: 1 (Definitely Will Not Graduate) to 7 (Definitely Will Graduate)
Likelihood of Graduating by Class Year
31
Segmentation AnalysisSatisfaction by Class Year
Agreement with“There are plenty of internship opportunities available to me”
4.123.83
3.65 3.56
1
2
3
4
5
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Agreement with“Career advising at this university
meets my needs”
3.963.74
3.553.31
1
2
3
4
5
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Agreement with“I find students herecare for each other”
4.364.07
3.90 3.88
1
2
3
4
5
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Agreement with“Students have no voice
in what goes on at this school”
3.63
4.42 4.53 4.60
1
2
3
4
5
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 32
Segmentation Analysis
Current Students
Former Students
n ~ 1,200 n ~ 150 Distance of Home from School
50 or fewer miles 64.9% 56.7% Gender
Male 35.5% 46.2% Ethnicity
Caucasian/White 68.6% 74.8% Family Income
> $60,000 44.4% 52.5% High School Type
Public 78.9% 82.5% High School GPA
3.50 or higher 34.9% 23.8% 3.00-3.49 37.1% 41.3% Below 3.0 16.2% 19.6%
Demographic Profile of Current and Former Students
33
Segmentation AnalysisIndependent T-Test Analysis of Quality Ratings of a University
on Characteristics by Overall Satisfaction
2.94 2.22 1>2
2.95 2.27 1>2
4.24 3.72 1>2
4.01 3.41 1>2
3.40 2.64 1>2
3.59 2.87 1>2
3.62 3.11 1>2
3.49 2.92 1>2
3.10 2.25 1>2
3.92 3.57 1>2
3.71 2.98 1>2
4.14 3.48 1>2
3.79 3.15 1>2
3.97 3.47 1>2
3.64 2.91 1>2
3.52 2.80 1>2
4.03 3.37 1>2
3.63 2.58 1>2
2.76 2.19 1>2
3.26 2.75 1>2
3.52 2.83 1>2
3.82 3.04 1>2
3.18 2.51 1>2
3.33 2.69 1>2
3.49 2.99 1>2
3.50 2.91 1>2
2.97 2.43 1>2
3.65 3.16 1>2
3.84 3.21 1>2
3.44 2.79 1>2
3.20 2.47 1>2
3.34 2.80 1>2
3.14 2.53 1>2
3.06 2.70 1>2
3.20 2.65 1>2
3.44 3.03 1>2
3.43 2.99 1>2
Total Costs (tuition, room and board, and other expenses)
Availability of Financial Aid to Meet Need
Attractive Campus
Geographic Location
Social Life
Prestige of College or University
Size of Student Body
Diversity of Student Body
Sense of Campus Community
Access to City
Academic Reputation
Quality of Major
Interdisciplinary Courses/Majors
Academic Facilities (library, computers, classrooms, labs, etc.)
Close Contact with Faculty
Preparation for Graduate/Professional School
Availability of Majors/Programs
Value of Education (combination of quality and costs)
Area Surrounding Campus
Parents' Preference
Employment Opportunities After Graduation
Quality of Faculty
Ratings in Guidebooks/Magazines
Extracurricular Activities
Instruction Enhanced by Technology
Accreditation from National Professional Associations
Quality of On-Campus Housing
Small Class Size
Emphasis on Teaching Undergraduates by Professors
Undergraduate Research/Internship Opportunities
Quality of Students
Reputation of Alumni
Merit-Based Financial Aid
Varsity Athletics
Campus Safety and Security
Availability of an Honors College
Recreational Sports/Fitness Facilities
(1)
MoreSatisfied
(2)
LessSatisfied
Overall Satisfaction
SignificantDifferences
Maguire Associates, Inc. Bedford, Massachusetts
Scale: 1 (Very Low Quality) to 5 (Very High Quality)Notes: Bold indicates significant market segment differences (p < .01).
34
Regression Analysis
Multiple Regression AnalysisPredictive Model of Overall Satisfaction
Using Quality Ratings on the College Characteristics
10 = Extremely Satisfied1 = Very Dissatisfied
Scale: 1 (Very Low Quality) to 5 (Very High Quality)
Ratings in Guidebooks/MagazinesValue of EducationQuality of StudentsSocial LifeCampus Safety and Security
Item
Best Fitting Model
ß = 0.22ß = 0.22ß = 0.20ß = 0.17ß = 0.16
Variance Accounted for (R2) = 0.399 Overall
Satisfaction
Outcome Measure
35
Satisfaction-Retention Matrix
STAYSTAY
LEAVELEAVE
SATISFIEDSATISFIEDLESS THANLESS THANSATISFIEDSATISFIED
A
DC
B
SatisfiedStaying
Less than SatisfiedStaying
SatisfiedLeaving
Less than SatisfiedLeaving
Satisfaction
Retention
STAYSTAY
LEAVELEAVE
SATISFIEDSATISFIEDLESS THANLESS THANSATISFIEDSATISFIED
A
DC
B
SatisfiedStaying
Less than SatisfiedStaying
SatisfiedLeaving
Less than SatisfiedLeaving
STAYSTAY
LEAVELEAVE
SATISFIEDSATISFIEDLESS THANLESS THANSATISFIEDSATISFIED
A
DC
B
SatisfiedStaying
Less than SatisfiedStaying
SatisfiedLeaving
Less than SatisfiedLeaving
Satisfaction
Retention
AB, BD, AD
The following variables are in model for all three transitions:
– quality of students– quality of major
The following variables are in model for two out of three transitions:
– parents’ preference (AB, BD)– value of education (AB, AD)
Regression Analysis
From Researchto Action
37
From Research to Action
Organize recommended actions suggested by the research in a thematic fashion
– Academic community– Future outcomes– Campus atmosphere and student life– Value and affordability– Location
Share results with current students, faculty and staff
38
Questions
Tara E. ScholderVice President for Research Operations
[email protected], Ext. 241
Linda Cox MaguireExecutive Vice President
[email protected], Ext. 221
39
