General College Freshmen Satisfaction with Their University of Minnesota Experience

Cathrine Wambach, Jennifer Hatfield, Mike Merabella

Office of Research and Evaluation

General College

University of Minnesota

Winter, 2002

            In spring quarter 1999 the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost conducted a survey of a random sample of university students to assess their satisfaction with various aspects of their University of Minnesota experience.  The results of the survey are presented in a report titled The 1999 Student experiences Survey: Students’ Perspectives on Their experiences at the University of Minnesota and Changes Since 1997 (Hendel, 2000).  A complete description of the methods used to collect the survey responses is included in that report. The survey asked students to rate their experience on a wide variety of topics - everything from parking to instruction.  The respondents included undergraduate and graduate students from the Twin Cities and coordinate campuses.

In gathering the data for the survey, the freshmen enrolled in General College were over-sampled.  This over-sampling allowed for a separate analysis of GC student satisfaction and comparisons between the satisfaction of first-year GC students and other U of M freshmen.  What follows is a description of GC and non-GC freshmen responses to a selection of the survey questions.  Non-parametric procedures were used to test for difference in items response between GC and non-GC freshman.  Because of the large number of tests, an alpha-level of .01 was used (though some results significant at the .05-level may also be acknowledged).

The first group of questions asked students to rate the quality of several aspects of the University using a 6-point rating scale from very poor (1) to excellent (6).  The data for this group of items are presented in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: GC and Non-GC Freshmen Students’ Ratings of the Quality of Their U of M Experience

N stands for number of survey respondents; SD stands for standard deviation where larger numbers indicate greater diversity of responses; * the difference between GC and Non-GC students was statistically significant at p<.01 using Mann-Whitney U test

The responses of GC and Non-GC students were similar to all items except quality of classrooms, administration's receptiveness to student concerns, and international aspects of classes where GC students were significantly more positive in their rating.  In general, students were least positive about the cost of attending.

            Two questions asked students to indicate their overall satisfaction with their U of M experience and whether or not they would enroll again at the same campus if they started over.  Overall satisfaction was rated on a 6-point scale from very dissatisfied to very satisfied.  The mean rating for GC students was 4.91 (N = 328, SD. = 1.12) and the mean rating for other freshmen was 4.85 (N = 197, SD = 1.19).  Responses to the intent to enroll again question ranged from 1 to 4 where 1 was definitely not and 4 was definitely yes.  The mean rating for GC students was 3.22 (N = 327, SD = .87) and the mean rating for other freshmen was 3.28 (N = 198, SD = .82). 

            Questions on the survey asked students how satisfied they were with a wide variety of university services that are not specific to colleges.  We would not expect GC students to differ from other first year students in their response to these items.  The items were rated on a 6-point scale where higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.  The results are in Table 2.  Overall, The fitness center received the highest ratings and parking received the lowest.  GC and non-GC students differed in their ratings of campus food services, but it is hard to interpret the meaning of this outcome.  The number of respondents to each question suggests how many students have had contact with the service.  While many students rated the bookstore and library services, fewer rated study abroad services or multicultural units.

Table 2: GC and Non-GC Students’ Satisfaction with a Variety of Campus Services

N stands for number of survey respondents, SD stands for standard deviation where larger numbers indicate greater diversity of responses, * the difference between GC and Non-GC students was statistically significant at p<.01 using Mann-Whitney U test

             The next set of items asked students how satisfied they were with aspects of courses and instruction.  GC students responded more positively to all the items in this set and for ten items the differences were statistically significant. 

Table 3: GC and Non-GC Students’ Satisfaction with Instruction

N stands for number of survey respondents; SD stands for standard deviation where larger numbers indicate greater diversity of responses; * the difference between GC and Non-GC students was statistically significant at p<.01 using Mann-Whitney U test

            The survey also included items about registration.  There were no differences in the extent to which GC and Non-GC students had problems registering for courses.  GC students reported being unable to register for an average of 2.54 courses in general and .88 courses in their major.  Non-GC students reported problems registering for 2.61 general courses and 1.03 courses in their majors.  GC and non GC students were similar in terms of whether they were able to obtain adequate information about courses: 31.3% of non-GC freshman and 27.5% of GC freshman said that they could not get accurate information on courses and course requirements.  Teaching assistants are an important feature of university instruction.  GC students reported having taken somewhat more courses taught entirely by TAs (average of 1.26 courses for GC students and 1.08 courses for non-GC students; significant at p<.05).  One reason why the GC average for courses taught by TAs would be higher than the Non-GC average is that GC students are required to take two terms of freshman composition, which is taught mainly by TAs everywhere in the university, while other freshmen only take one course.

            To provide context for students' satisfaction with instruction, the survey also asked about class attendance and studying.  GC students reported attending class 15.95 hours per week and non-GC students reported 15.41 hours.  GC students reported studying 15.57 (N = 311; SD = 8.98; Median= 14) hours per week and Non-GC students reported studying 16.22 hours (N = 190; SD = 10.25; Median=15).  The average for each group was far from the 30 plus hours per week recommended by study skills experts and university policy, though the standard deviation was large indicating a great deal of variability in the students’ ratings:  Approximately 9% of GC students and 12% of non-GC students reported spending 30 or more hours per week studying.  On average, GC students reported working over two hours more per week than non-GC students (average of 11.4 and 9.1 hours per week of paid employment for GC and non-GC students respectively; significant at p<.05).  There was no difference in the students’ grades.  The GC students mean GPA was 2.68 and the non-GC students mean GPA was 2.66.

            Another section of the survey presented a list of experiences students may have had at the University of Minnesota and asked students to indicate those on the list they had in fact experienced within the last year (by marking yes or no).  The responses to those questions are in Table 4.  A Chi Square analysis was used to test for significant differences in the proportion of yes and no responses between the GC and Non-GC groups.  GC students were more likely to have spent some time talking alone with faculty, talked with a faculty member about career plans, attended a career planning event, worked with a faculty member on a research project (albeit a low proportion), and exchanged an assignment electronically.  Non-GC students were more likely to have heard a faculty member talk about his or her research and participated in some type of community service activity.

Table 4:  GC and Non-GC Students' Reported Experiences

* the difference between GC and Non-GC students was statistically significant at p<.01 based on Pearson chi-square test

The student satisfaction survey asked questions about advising (using a 6-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (6)).  GC students were somewhat more positive about the quality of advising, advisor availability, and advisor help in career planning.  GC students ratings were significantly more positive in terms of advisor help in involving them in campus life.  The data for this group of items is presented in Table 5 below.

Table 5:  GC and Non-GC Students’ Satisfaction with Advising

N stands for number of survey respondents; SD stands for standard deviation where larger numbers indicate greater diversity of responses; * the difference between GC and Non-GC students was statistically significant at p<.01 using Mann-Whitney U test

The survey also asked students how many times they met with their advisor during the year.  GC students reported significantly more advisor meetings (Mean = 5.23; SD=2.2; Median=5) than Non-GC students (Mean = 3.62; SD=1.65; Median=3).

            Another set of questions on the survey asked students to report their opinions about statements regarding University life using a 5-point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6).  The average responses to these questions are presented in Table 5.  There were no significant differences between GC and Non-GC students in terms of their response to these questions.

Table 4:  GC and Non-GC Students’ Satisfaction with Community

N stands for number of survey respondents; SD stands for standard deviation where larger numbers indicate greater diversity of responses

Conclusions

            The freshman satisfaction survey suggests that GC freshmen are as satisfied as other freshman at the U of M.  The major differences between GC and other freshmen occurred on the items related to instruction where GC students responded more positively than other students.  The stronger ratings for instruction given by GC students appear to highlight the unique nature of GC as a unit within the University which places more emphasis on active learning and student-instructor interaction.  

            The survey suggests that while students are involved in classroom activities, extra-curricular participation is weak, and students do not have a sense of U of M history or traditions.  However, lack of this knowledge does not seem to detract from overall satisfaction, which is high.  

            One area of concern revealed by the survey was that about a quarter of the respondents reported hearing a faculty or staff member make an inappropriate remark related to race or gender.  Faculty and staff members need to be alert to the many meanings a comment can take on depending on the perspective of the listener.  Also of concern was the report that about a third of respondents had witnessed cheating of some kind.  Devising pedagogies that make cheating unlikely is an ongoing challenge for faculty.