Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) Results SAC Research May 30, 2019 Presentation Overview Background and overview of SENSE

Student respondent characteristics and SENSE Results Part 1

Faculty and staff predictions activity

SENSE Results Part 2

Summary

Next steps

3 Background What is student engagement? • Quality and quantity of students’ interaction with faculty, staff, and peers, as well as their involvement in the subject matter.

Why is student engagement important? • Previous research has shown positive relationships between student engagement and student success. • Retention • Course success • Educational goal completion Purpose of SENSE at SAC Assess students’ early experiences and improve institutional practices that affect student success in the first year of college (and beyond). SENSE as a Tool

SENSE helps us ◦ Understand students' critical early experiences

◦ Identify and learn from practices that engage entering students

◦ Identify areas in which we can improve

Basic principles

◦ Grounded in research about what works to retain and support entering students

◦ Reports data publicly

◦ Is committed to using data for improvement

7 SENSE Core survey ◦ 38 core questions ◦ Interactions with faculty, staff, and other students ◦ Student services ◦ Course-taking behaviors ◦ Academic behaviors

Two special-focus add-on modules ◦ Financial assistance (12 questions) ◦ Pathways (12 questions) – questions related to the Guided Pathways framework. ◦ Academic advising ◦ Help choosing a major/program ◦ Following an academic plan ◦ Major/program changing Survey Administration SAC participated in the survey for the first time last fall! ◦ Use the results as baseline for future comparisons. Student participation and faculty, staff, and management involvement were all key to the success of the survey. Administered during the 4th & 5th weeks of fall 2018 ◦ First-time freshmen in English, math, and counseling courses. Subject Total Nbr Sections CNSL 15 ENGL 28 MATH 42 Grand Total 85 HUGE Thank You! All students Dr. Linda Rose Dr. Vaniethia Hubbard Diem Pham Maria Aguilar Beltran Mary Huebsch Dr. Michelle Priest and faculty! Matthew Beyersdorf Shelly Jaffray Martha Ramirez Kyle Bradley Tyler Johnson Kelly Ro Monica Bustamante Paula Kincaid Raquel Serratos Lorena Chavez Alicia Kruizenga Tatyana Shirman Richard Corp Dr. Jeffrey Lamb Christa Solheid Jennifer Davis Janice Love John Steffens Maria Dela Cruz Kimberly Mathews Maria Taylor Jennifer De La Rosa Lisa McKowan Justin Tolentino Ali Fahmy Teresa Mercado-Cota Melissa Utsuki Amanda Farah Becky Miller Reyes Vazquez Madeline Grant Amit Mishal Lithia Williams Pam Hernandez Dr. Veronica Oforlea Monica Zarske Dr. Bart Hoffman Suanne Oh Cristina Zamora Student Respondents 1709 student respondents ◦ 1676 “valid” surveys Focus of today’s results ◦ 834 “Entering” (First-time Freshman) respondents presentation ◦ 842 “Not Entering” (Not First-time Freshman) respondents

9 Excluded Respondents The following respondents were excluded from reporting: ◦ Respondent was under the age of 18 ◦ Respondent indicated previous survey submission ◦ Respondent did not indicate enrollment status ◦ Respondent did not indicate whether he or she was an entering or returning student ◦ Respondent returned an invalid survey

9 Student Respondent Characteristics Enrollment Status & Gender

100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 74% 80% 70% 66% 70% 60% 60% 56% 50% 50% 50% 47% 44% 40% 34% 40% 30% 26% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Part-Time Full-Time Male Female SAC SENSE 2018 Cohort SAC SENSE 2018 Cohort

Source: 2018 SENSE data

11 Age

100% 90% 88% 80% 70% 60% 50% 46% 40% 30% 20% 16% 14% 13% 10% 4% 6% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0% 18-21 22-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 >= 50 SAC SENSE 2018 Cohort

Source: 2018 SENSE data

13 Race

4% White 44%

71% Hispanic, Latino, Spanish 31%

1% Black or African American 13%

4% Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 6%

2% American Indian or Native American 1%

2% Other 4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SAC SENSE 2018 Cohort

Source: 2018 SENSE data

13 First-Generation Status

25% First-Generation Not First-Generation

75%

Source: 2018 SENSE data

14 Employment

More than 30 hours 21%

21-30 hours 11%

11-20 hours 11%

6-10 hours 9%

1-5 hours 10%

None 37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: 2018 SENSE data

18 Educational Goals

Complete a certificate 65%

Obtain an Associate degree 80%

Transfer to a four-year college or 85% university

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: 2018 SENSE data

19 SENSE Results Part 1 SENSE Benchmarks of Effective Practice with Entering Students The 6 SENSE benchmarks are: • Early Connections • High Expectations and Aspirations • Clear Academic Plan and Pathway • Effective Track to College Readiness • Engaged Learning • Academic and Social Support Network

22 Comparison group for benchmarks – Extra-large colleges

Year of Adjusted Targeted Number Percent of College Participation Survey Count of Surveys Target Fresno City College 2016 948 1500 63% Los Angeles Valley College 2016 758 1200 63% Riverside City College 2018 743 1200 62% Rio Hondo College 2018 700 1200 58% Santa Ana College 2018 834 1500 56% Santa Barbara City College 2018 676 1200 56% Sacramento City College 2017 792 1500 53% Long Beach City College 2018 734 1500 49% Chaffey College 2018 725 1500 48% San Joaquin Delta College 2018 568 1200 47% College of the Canyons 2018 516 1200 43% El Camino College 2018 543 1500 36% Grossmont College 2018 393 1200 33% Southwestern College 2018 358 1200 30% American River College 2018 376 1500 25%

22 Overall Performance by Benchmarks 100 90 80 70 60 49.5 47.4 49.6 47.6 47.7 50 44.3 45.7 46.3 46.7 43.4 44.1 39.7 40 30

20 Standardized Score 10 0 Early High Clear Effective Track Engaged Academic and Connections Expectations Academic Plan to College Learning Social Support and and Pathway Readiness Network Aspirations SAC Other Ex-Large Colleges

Source: 2018 SENSE data

24 Faculty/Staff Predictions Activity SENSE Early Connections

*

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d = - 0.22

24 SENSE High Expectations and Aspirations

* *

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d > - 0.20

24 SENSE High Expectations and Aspirations

* * *

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d > 0.20

24 SENSE Clear Academic Plan and Pathway

*

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d = - 0.26

24 SENSE Effective Track to College Readiness

Source: 2018 SENSE data

24 SENSE Engaged Learning All related to student interactions outside of class *

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d = - 0.22

24 SENSE Engaged Learning

*

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d = - 0.22

24 SENSE Engaged Learning

* *

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d > - 0.20

24 SENSE Academic and Social Support Network *

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d = - 0.22

24 How did SAC students feel about their experiences with various student services? How satisfied were you with the following services?

3 * 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.2 1.9 2 1.8

1 Academic Career counseling Job placement Face-to-face Online tutoring advising/planning assistance tutoring SAC Ex-Large Colleges

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d = - 0.56

24 Satisfaction with Services How satisfied were you with the following services?

* * * * 3 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.2 2

1 Writing, math, Financial Computer lab Student Transfer credit Services to or other skill lab assistance organizations assistance students with advising disabilities SAC Ex-Large Colleges

Source: 2018 SENSE data *p < .001, d > - 0.30

24 What has been your MAIN source of academic advising (help with academic goal-setting, planning, course recommendations, graduation requirements, etc.)?

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 46%47% 40% 28% 30% 25% 20% 12%14% 6% 8% 7% 10% 1% 2% 4% 0% Instructors College staff Friends, Computerized College Web Other college (not family, or degree advisor site materials instructors) other students system SAC Ex-Large Colleges

22 Would you recommend this college to a friend or family member?

100% 93% 95% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 7% 5% 0% Yes No SAC Ex-Large Colleges Guided Pathways Module Results Did a staff member at this college help you decide on a program, major, or pathway of study?

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 35% 36% 40% 30% 34% 30% 21% 20% 20% 13% 11% 10% 0% Yes Already decided on Talked with staff about No program, major, or possible programs, pathway of study on my majors, and pathways of own study, but have not decided on one SAC Ex-Large Colleges At this college, are you required to follow an academic plan that specifies which courses you are required to take?

100% 90% 80% 66% 70% 62% 60% 50% 40% 30% 21% 19% 20% 17% 15% 10% 0% Yes I do not have an No academic plan SAC Ex-Large Colleges If you were interested in changing your program, major, or pathway of study at this college, do you know how to go about doing this?

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

50% 42% 40% 36% 34% 32% 31% 30% 27% 20% 10% 0% Yes I am not sure No SAC Ex-Large Colleges Financial Aid Module Results Which one of the following best describes the source from which you originally learned about the process for applying for financial assistance to help pay for college?

100% 90% 80% 70% 65% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 16% 9% 10% 7% 4% 0% Parents or other High school College Friend or other Did not learn family members counselor or employee/staff student about financial teacher member assistance application process Please pick the response that best describes your situation.

100% 90% 80% 70% Might see 60% different results 50% if “grants” 40% 26% instead of “loans” 30% 25% 25% 20% 15% 8% 10% 0% Please pick the response that best describes your situation.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 46% 40% 33% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% Would accept loan so I can Would accept loan, but Would not accept loan while take more classes would not take more classes attending this college Which of the following is/was most likely to interfere with your ability to stay in college?

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 49% 50% 40% 29% 30% 20% 9% 9% 10% 5% 0% Cost of tuition Housing expenses Childcare Transportation Other non- and books expenses expenses financial reasons Summary and Next Steps Summary • Use this year’s results as a baseline for future comparisons. • Relative to other extra-large colleges, SAC is performing similarly or slightly lower in terms of overall benchmarks of effective practices, with the exception of “High Expectations and Aspirations.” Summary: Areas doing well • Faculty showing that they want their students to succeed. • Faculty accessibility • Student group work during class. • Student – student communication • Advisors helping students identify first semester coursework. • Academic advising, career counseling, and face-to-face tutoring • Financial assistance • 93% would recommend SAC to friends or family! Summary: Areas for improvement • Helping students feel more welcome. • Students’ academic preparation • Appointment times for academic advising • Class participation (questions, discussions) • Faculty – student interactions on assignments • Student – student interactions outside of class • Use of writing, math, and learning centers • Awareness of student organizations Next Steps • Merge SENSE data with existing SAC data to determine academic outcomes in first year of college based on SENSE ratings. • Persistence • Units attempted and completed • G.P.A. • Longitudinal studies • Graduation • Time-to-degree • Post-guided pathways implementation Thank you! “We dedicate this report to all of these people and to millions of courageous community college students, many of whom defy overwhelming odds to walk through our doors each fall [and spring] in search of a better life. They deserve from each of us, every day and without exception, that we do everything within our power to help them achieve their academic goals.” Angela Oriano-Darnall Associate Director, SENSE

50