Student Satisfaction. Per the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as posted by the Common University Data Ontario, 2009, the undergraduate student satisfaction rate (total of excellent and good responses) at Toronto for NSSE Question “How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?” = 70.9% for Senior Year respondents. • Per the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as posted by the Common University Data Ontario, 2009, the undergraduate student satisfaction rate (total of definitely yes and probably yes responses) at Toronto for NSSE Question “If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?” = 70% for Senior Year respondents. • Please provide one or more example in the space provided below of a promising practice that Toronto used during 2009-10 to increase student satisfaction. A promising practice could be a strategy, initiative or program viewed by the institution to be an innovative practice, success story and/or key accomplishment that the institution would like to highlight. Although survey results from tools such as NSSE identify areas to enhance the student experience at U of T, they do not offer explanations of the underlying causes. Recognizing the need for deeper understanding of some of the priority issues highlighted in these surveys and the ways in which the University can respond, the Vice-Xxxxxxx, Students, initiated a tri-campus, qualitative assessment project to drill down into some areas of the undergraduate student experience. The University held a series of 38 focus groups which were convened across all three campuses and involved 367 students. A report of the participants’ feedback has been distributed to stakeholders (e.g. departments, colleges and faculties). A Council on Student Experience, a tri-campus committee of staff and faculty, serves as the central locus of discuss and coordination of efforts to address the issues. This fall, the Council will work to establish a number of working groups in addressing key issues of student-faculty interaction, orientation, academic and personal support and quality of service.
Student Satisfaction. Per the KPI results reported in 2009-10 the student satisfaction rate at Confederation for KPI Question #14 “Overall, your program is giving you knowledge and skills that will be useful in your future career” = 89.7
Student Satisfaction. JNCAAM shall endeavor to ensure high-level of student satisfaction with its course delivery and curricula by offering high quality instructional and educational classes that include regular and significant exposure to Juniper’s technologies.
Student Satisfaction. We continue to treat student satisfaction as an unambiguous priority and are working to ensure that student satisfaction is embedded in all that we do – explicitly recognising that the National Student Survey results should be higher. The 2017 institution National Student Survey results have seen a marked improvement of 3% in overall satisfaction, as well as further improvement of 4% in satisfaction with assessment and feedback. Levels of satisfaction in the Postgraduate Taught and Postgraduate Research Experience surveys have remained broadly stable, but with improvements in some areas. While the 2017 surveys point to progress in various areas, they also highlight the need for the University to continue to address issues regarding aspects of the student experience.
Student Satisfaction. The University will continue to work with the OU Students Association to improve student satisfaction and adopt a student-led approach to student satisfaction planning.
Student Satisfaction. The University’s performance on the national CEQ administered through the GCA shows a consistent rise in survey scores and national rankings on all scales. For 2011: Good teaching scale—Score 72%, Rank 7th; Generic skills scale—Score 80%, Rank 28th; Overall satisfaction scale—Score 81%; Rank 21st. CEQ goals for the Compact period are to raise the GTS score to 73%; and the GSS to 82% and the OSS score to 83%. The SEQ within the UES introduces new measures. SEQ goals for the Compact period are to achieve ratings of good-excellent by 86% of respondents for Quality of teaching (83% in 2012) and 82% for Quality of the entire educational experience (79% in 2012).
Student Satisfaction. The College uses a range of methods to understand the level of student satisfaction with the delivery of the curriculum and the other services, conducted face-to-face, through representatives or by survey. We operate a complaints handling process for when students and others are not satisfied with the service they receive. We conduct an annual survey of our students, which incorporates the questions from the national student satisfaction and engagement survey. We use this survey to inform areas where satisfaction is lower than targets set. In these cases, the faculty or department involved is required to identify and implement actions to improve the service. The targets themselves are subject to annual review. Outputs for 2019/20
Student Satisfaction. 18. We have made an unequivocal commitment to improve the student experience at the University. Our NSS 2018 were disappointing, and to build on work already in train, we have undertaken in-depth analysis of the results, with some of our key findings (both positive and negative) are noted below.
Student Satisfaction. Per the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as posted by the Common University Data Ontario, 2009, the undergraduate student satisfaction rate (total of excellent and good responses) at your institution for NSSE Question "How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?" for Senior Year respondents = 82% • Per the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) as posted by the Common University Data Ontario, 2009, the undergraduate student satisfaction rate (total of definitely yes and probably yes responses) at your institution for NSSE Question "If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?" for Senior Year respondents = 83% • Please provide one or more examples in the space provided below of a promising practice that University of Ontario Institute of Technology used during 2009-10 to increase student satisfaction. A promising practice could be a strategy, initiative or program viewed by the institution to be an innovative practice, success story and/or key accomplishment that the institution would like to highlight. As per the results of previous CUSC student satisfaction surveys, UOIT issued an RFP for a new food service provider on campus.
Student Satisfaction. Helena College regularly participates in national student engagement surveys developed and administrated by the Center of Community College Student Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin. The surveys provide institutional and national cohort benchmarking of up to six aspects of student engagement including items assessing student awareness, use and satisfaction with support services. In the latest surveys completed in 2013 Helena College showed improved or consistent performance on four out of five benchmarks for all students (CCSSE) and six out six benchmarks for new students (SENSE). Benchmarks of engagement measured and direction of change from 2011 survey: Survey of Entering Student Engagement Community College Survey of Student Engagement Early Connections ↑ Active and Collaborative Learning ←→ High Expectations and Aspirations ↑ Student Effort ↑ Clear Academic Plan and Pathway ↑ Academic Challenge ↑ Effective Track to College Readiness ↑ Student‐Faculty Interaction ↑ Engaged Learning ↑ Support for Learners ↓ Academic/Social Support Networks ←→ ↑ Improvement in performance ↓ Decline in performance ←→ No change in performance 3.4 Enrollment trends, projections, and challenges Several factors have the potential of affecting the College’s enrollment projections. These include: • The economy (including employment statistics) • Program offerings • Local high school success rates • Demographics for K‐12 students • Successful transfer programs to MUS institutions • Financial assistance, including scholarships • Successful placement of graduates in various occupations Unduplicated Headcount Enrollment: AY 2009‐10 AY 2010‐11 AY 2011‐12 AY 2012‐13 AY 2013‐14 1,785 2,004 2,096 2,194 1,921 *See Appendix C‐4 – Student FTE by Residency & Level *See Appendix C‐5 – Student Headcount by New Student Status *See Appendix C‐6 – Degrees Award by Type
