Institutional Assessment Report 2007-2008

Home , Carthage College, Edgewood College, Millikin University

INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT REPORT 2007-2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Progress Made Towards 2007-2008 Assessment Goals Assessment Goals for 2008-2009

I. STUDENT LEARNING 2007 Program Assessment Online Programming

II. GENERAL EDUCATION Overview FYS100 ENG140/ENG170

III. STUDENT SUPPORT Learning Commons Writing Center Supplemental Instruction Math Lab

IV. ALUMNI SURVEY Five Year Alumni Survey

V. FACULTY SURVEY Higher Education Research Institute's Survey of Faculty

VI. CURRENT STUDENTS Before College Study of Student Engagement National Study of Student Engagement Senior Survey

VII. STUDENT AFFAIRS Chaplain Student Counseling Cultural Diversity Health Center Residence Life and Housing Students with Disabilities Student Activities

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The reports contained in this binder provide information on assessment of Carroll majors, initiatives of the general education committee, analysis of the services in the Learning Commons, progress with online and hybrid programming, and the results of several student and faculty profile surveys. The Beginning College Survey of Student Satisfaction (BCSSE) was administered for the first time at Carroll and provides a snapshot of entering students' academic and co-curricular experiences and well as expectations for participation in activities during their first year of college. Also included for the first time this year are reports from several Student Affairs program regarding intended learning outcomes and progress towards goals. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was conducted again this year. The results of this survey have just been received late this summer so the analysis will be conducted in 2008-2009. This comprehensive report represents an attempt to compile in one place data gathered in 2007-2008 about what we know of our students and programs, how we measure these things, and how we share and use the data to make improvements. The intention is to publish this report within the portal this year and in future years so that the data is more broadly reviewed and used. Four assessment goals were set last year and there was significant progress made towards each of them. Details of the progress towards these goals are discussed in a report card which follows. This year the assessment committee spent several meetings discussing processes and possible new directions for assessment of learning outcomes at Carroll. The five new goals outlined below for 2008-2009 are the result of those discussions.

CARROLL UNIVERSITY MISSION STATEMENT

“We will provide a superior educational opportunity to our students, one grounded in the liberal arts tradition and focused on career preparation and lifelong learning.

We will demonstrate Christian values by our example.

We shall succeed in our mission when our graduates are prepared for careers of their choice and lives of fulfillment, service and accomplishment.”

ACHIEVING OUR MISSION: FIVE KEY ASSESSMENT GOALS FOR 2008-2009

Providing a superior educational opportunity

• Support the General Education Committee in the development of a comprehensive assessment plan for the new General Education Curriculum • Evaluate student engagement (NSSE) data and help target appropriate initiatives and communication mechanisms to disseminate results and recommendations • Publish assessment matrix and key instruments used in all academic programs • Work with deans to identify responsible person for programs not currently reporting assessment results • Begin to collect Student Affairs program assessment data for use in evaluation and program improvement

Preparing students for the future • Develop discipline specific questions for select majors on the senior survey.

PROGRESS TOWARDS FOUR KEY ASSESSMENT GOALS FOR 2007-2008

Providing a superior educational opportunity

Goal 2007-2008 Performance Going Forward Yellow Assessment committee members should meet with general education committee members 1. As General Education curriculum The director of assessment is working hand- this year and next to is reevaluated, develop appropriate in-hand with the general education assist in the assessment processes including committee as they begin the redesign of the development of an variables, methods or measurement, core curriculum. In 2008-2009 the redesign overall assessment institutional responsibility, use of will be completed and in 2009-2010 it will be plan for the new data and mechanisms for change. implemented. curriculum.

Goal 2007-2008 Performance Going Forward Green

This goal will be realized this year with the Going forward, we will 2. Provide institutional assessment publication of the 2007-2008 Institutional publish this report data and evaluation reports online. Assessment Report in the portal. routinely in the portal.

Goal 2007-2008 Performance Going Forward Yellow

Report was received from dean of students but there was insufficient progress made in terms of a comprehensive plan. There has Continue to build also been significant turnover in Student assessment plan for Affairs involving the departure of the dean of student life. Consider students, the assistant dean of students, and use of one or more of 3. Develop comprehensive the director of housing. The acting dean of these instruments in assesment plan for student life students for 2008-2009 is the Director of 2008-2009: NCHA, programs. Assessment for Carroll, however. CSEQ, NASPA.

Goal 2007-2008 Performance Going Forward Green

Next year, program 4. Review with campus, draft of specific questions for senior exit survey for adminstration two or three larger spring 2009 and collect program Survey was piloted spring 2008. The results programs will be specific questions. are included in this report. included. Assessment Program Review (06‐07)

The Assessment Committee reviewed program assessment reports from the 2006‐2007 academic year and provided individual feedback to twenty‐two programs. Several programs that are under the direction of new faculty or experiencing significant restructuring did not submit reports this year (Athletic Training, Business/ Into Technology, Human Biology, Small Business, Graphic

Communication, Physical Therapy). The committee extended verbal/written invitations to several departments that they believe would benefit from individual consultation. Several programs had exemplary reports and were directed to submit modified updates to the Assessment Committee in the future. A letter will be sent to the Deans regarding next steps for the programs in their areas with suggestions for future assessment related activities. Overall the quality of program level assessment reports continues to improve and reflects a commitment to the use of evidence to direct curricular change. The Assessment Committee also designed and piloted a Senior Survey during the spring of 2008.

This survey was sent electronically to students enrolled in Capstone courses. Survey data is included in a latter section of the Institutional Report. Specific comments and recommendations are included below:

Accounting Assessment Report 2006‐07 Assessment Committee Comments

The 06‐07 accounting report clearly demonstrates the use of multiple direct and indirect measure to evaluate student learning. The evaluation of results assists the department in determining any change that might be warranted. The majority of concerns are related to the administrative issues of scheduling and use of adjuncts. The committee suggests you continue to evaluate the major in the current manner; however it will only be necessary to turn in a modified report next year.

ART Assessment Report 2006‐07 Assessment Committee Comments

The 06‐07 art assessment report was difficult to evaluate because rubrics, apparently used to assess learning outcomes, were not included in the report. It is not clear, for instance, how the goal of articulate writing has been defined and how faculty members know whether students are “sufficient writers.” The link between evaluation methods and program outcomes is vague and it is difficult to evaluate the purposeful use of instruments or how outcomes drive changes. The assessment committee recommends the art program faculty consider meeting with assessment committee members in preparation for submission of a long‐form assessment report this year.

Biochemistry Assessment Report 2006‐07 Assessment Committee Comments

Learning outcomes are clearly defined and connected to the program goals. Multiple instruments are utilized to measure the program's learning outcomes. A brief explanation of departmental, curricular, and instructional changes, based on the assessment results, was included in the report.

Suggestions for future assessment plans include:

1) Include learning outcomes and measures for the curriculum for the committee report. 2) Reporting the results of the ACS exam that relates to Biochemistry. 3) Providing more specific results data. (In the 2005‐06 report very general statements were made, "students achieve scores consistent with the national average.") 4) Comment on how assessment results will be shared with faculty and students. 5) Completing the long form assessment report.

Addendum:

The Biochemistry Program was emailed the committee's comments in March, 2007. A meeting was suggested to discuss the comments.

Business Administration Assessment Report 2006‐07 Assessment Committee Comments

Learning outcomes are clearly defined and connected to program goals and Carroll College's Pillars of Learning. Multiple instruments are utilized to measure the program's learning outcomes, with an emphasis on the Internship Evaluations providing information concerning students' performance in relationship to the program's learning outcomes. Strengths of the program were clearly articulated.

Suggestions for subsequent assessment reports are as follows:

1) Include a copy of the Senior Exit Survey and the Program Pre‐Test/Post‐Test. 2) Identify growth areas in relationship to learning outcomes. 3) Identify the student feedback channels and document specific comments.

Addendum:

The Business Administration program was emailed the committee's comments in April, 2008. A meeting was suggested to discuss the comments. Greg Schultz, a faculty member in the Business Administration Program and a member of the assessment committee, requested that he share the comments with his program.

Chemistry Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The Chemistry Program has produced an exemplary assessment report. The seven core learning outcomes are clearly defined and linked with multiple assessment instruments. The Program recently finalized its new curricula and has revised their learning outcomes and measures to reflect the modifications. As a result, several new assessment measures will be implemented in spring 2008 that include a Lab Practicum exam and a Safety exam. We look forward to the results of these newly created assessment tools when the first cohort of students completes the new curriculum.

For 2007‐2008 please provide:

1. ACS exam data for the proposed three separate tracks: a. Biology & Pre‐professional b. Chemistry c. Biochemistry 2. Results from Lab practicum exam 3. Results from Safety exam 4. Evidence of how you assess learning outcomes in non‐chemistry program courses a. BIO 100 and SOC

In summary, the Chemistry Program has devised an exceptional assessment plan that more adequately fits the new curriculum. The assessment committee looks forward to updates on the short form until 2010, when we will again request the long form.

Communication Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments The communication Department has established a two year program for developing their assessment plan. During the 2007‐2008 year they will identify learning outcomes and internship evaluation instruments. The committee will anticipate three along with a scaffolded matrix in next year's report. Adding a summary for goals for the 2008‐09 year should be articulated. As always the current committee is available for consultation.

Computer Science Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments Learning outcomes are clearly defined and connected to the program goals, however only three of the six are currently assessed. Multiple measures are utilized to assess the learning outcomes, with particular emphasis on the Capstone. Internal examination of results has led the Computer Science Program to suggest the addition of a new major. We commend the program for addressing the fact that learning outcomes need to be designed to reflect the needs of the two different majors: Traditional Software Development and Information Technology.

For 2007‐2008 please provide:

1. Two separate long for assessment reports (one for each major) 2. Results from the Exit Survey and Alumni Survey 3. Quantitative results from student Internships 4. Results from the three learning outcomes that are currently not assessed 5. Proposed assessment measures for Regis courses

If you have any questions or need assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the committee for assistance.

EDUCATION – UNDERGRADUATE Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The undergraduate education assessment report for 06‐07 was well written and thorough. Learning outcomes are clearly articulated, appropriate measures are employed, results are analyzed and shared, and the changes described are outcome‐based. Full‐time faculty work with part‐time faculty to ensure consistency across the curriculum. Education program faculty are also working with content areas faculty where PRAXIS results seem worse or weak. Given the exemplary report prepared for 06‐07 and the DPI visit scheduled in the coming year, the assessment committee recommends that no 07‐08 report be required for the undergraduate education program.

EDUCATION – GRADUATE Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The learning outcomes for the graduate education program are clearly articulated in the 06‐07 report but it is not clear where expected outcomes are addressed within the curriculum. Multiple measures are used to evaluate learning outcomes for on‐campus graduate education students. The Learning Communities faculty, however, report only informant (indirect) measures. There is no evidence that expected performance for either delivery mode is shared among faculty or with students. No data is provided in the report therefore there is no analysis and no action taken or proposed that is the result of assessment outcomes. The assessment committee recommends that the graduate education faculty members, especially the Learning Communities faculty members, meet with assessment committee members in preparation for submission of a long‐form assessment report for the coming year.

Environmental Science Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The Environmental Science Program is very committed to student learning and we appreciate their efforts. Their report offered many strengths including strong learning outcomes and a commitment to measuring learning. We also saw their self‐recommendations were quite strong and reflective of their program goals for student learning.

Some areas that we would like to see enhanced would be

• An articulation of how students participate in the data analysis process and how the results are shared with them • Attaching their assessment instruments to their short form next year as appendices • A discussion of the genesis of their in‐house content exam and how it connects their assessment with their pedagogical and content goals • Explore the potential use of qualitative and/or mixed‐methodological assessment in their next long form; the matrix they provided was helpful but we wonder what evidence is not captured by that type of summary

In summary, the Environmental Science Program did well with their report this year and has rich opportunities to take their assessment efforts to the next level next year.

Graphic Communication Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

This newly revised program needs to provide a comprehensive program assessment plan based on new courses additions. The committee suggests meeting with Pam Pinahs Schultz during May (2008) to review program curriculum criteria.

Health Science Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

First, it is important to note that the Health Science major is not considered a viable major, as it currently exists. Since the major has no upper level courses that are dedicated to the major, only those students entering the DPT program are able to complete the Health Science major. The Assessment Committee suggests the development of upper level courses and instruments to assess their effectiveness. Further discussions will address the implementation of this major for the 2+2 Programs. Once a clear direction for the major is defined, instruments and mechanisms can be designed to successfully assess the Health Science major.

Music Program Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The committee recommends that the next Music program report be a short form completed in 2008. Learning outcomes were clearly articulated and linked to specific courses. Multiple measurement instruments are used and are linked to learning outcomes. Data is summarized to analyze, evaluate, and interpret the success of the learning outcomes for the program. Next steps would be to focus on music education, maybe using Praxis data. Also you could possibly use an exit survey to gather data from students at the end of their program. This is a very good assessment of the Music program and should be continued on its current path. If you have any questions or would like to meet and talk about the report, please contact Greg Schultz at 3945 or e‐mail [email protected].

If you have any questions or need assistance with constructing valid instruments, please do not hesitate to ask the committee for assistance.

Nursing Program Assessment Report 2006‐07 Assessment Committee Comments

The Nursing Program has developed a detailed matrix and explanation of how the Carroll College Pillars, program goals, and learning outcomes are interrelated. A matrix showing the relationship of essentials across the curriculum was also included. With multiple goals outlined—critical thinking goals, 5 essentials of Baccalaureate Education, and 15 outcomes objectives—the assessment committee was unsure of the Nursing Program's prioritization and focus. Areas of growth, identified by the NCSBN were management of care, physiological adaptation, reduction of risk potential, health promotion and maintenance, pharmacological and parenteral therapies, and basic care and comfort. An action plan was outlined in the assessment report.

Outlined are the areas of growth for your program's assessment report: 1) Prioritize the program's learning outcomes. 2) Include a graphic organizer that illustrates the linkages between learning outcomes and evaluation/measurements tools. 3) Include a graphic organizer for the action plan that addresses what and where learning outcomes will be addressed, who will be responsible for the implementation, and how results will be measured and shared with students, nursing faculty, and the college community.

Addendum:

The Nursing Program was emailed the results in April, 2008. A meeting was suggested to discuss the comments.

ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

Recognizing that the major in its current from will be discontinued and that the number of majors in Organizational Leadership has always been relatively small, the assessment recognizes the challenges faced in preparing the 06‐07 report and appreciate the effort put forth. Analysis of the report would have been facilitated, however, if it was clearer where learning outcomes are being addressed, if instruments described had been attached, and if potential areas of growth had been expressed in terms of student learning. It is anticipated that this program will be collapsed into the business major and assessment activities will be reflected in the business report in the future.

Physical Education Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The committee e recommends that the next years assessment report includes more direct evidence ad well as results of the "program review". Recommendation for curricular revision should reflect program level evaluation. This can be submitted in a short form format.

Psychology Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The committee recommends that the psychology department continue development of instruments designed to measure the internship experience and senior survey. Additionally the result from previous years ETS field exams should be included in your next report. There seem to be an over emphasis on indirect evidence of student learning and the program should consider the use of additional instruments to measure direct student learning. Please feel free to meet with the committee if you need clarification or assistance. We were very pleased that the Psychology department provided the college with a repot and look forward to another long form next year with emphasis on direct evidence and recommendations.

Recreation Management Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

The committee recommends that the next Recreation Management report be a long form completed in 2008. Learning outcomes do flow from program goals and reflect what students should know. Next steps include creating measurements that are linked to the learning outcomes. Internship data was hard to understand and relate back to learning outcomes. Some suggestions for measurements include exit and alumni surveys, capstone and student portfolios. The data then needs to be gathered to analyze, evaluate, and interpret the success of the learning outcomes. Evidence needs to be shared with faculty members throughout the program, and that evidence is to be used to identify strengths and weaknesses within the program. Changes should be made based upon the results gathered. If you have any questions or would like to meet and talk about the report, please contact Greg Schultz at 3945 or e‐mail [email protected].

Religious Studies Assessment Report 2006‐7 Assessment Committee Comments

This year's report demonstrated objective growth in assessment related efforts. Learning outcomes were clearly articulated and linked to specific courses. Data needs to be gathered to analyze, evaluate, and interpret the success of the learning outcomes for the program. Current results are linked to specific courses. Content exam and student survey could provide useful information. Next steps would be to gather data from content exams, capstone, and student surveys. Also, the use of student portfolios might help due to the small number of students in the major. Data should be tracked over a three year period of time to get a better picture of student learning. The committee recommends that the next Religious Studies report be a long form. If you have any questions or would like to meet and talk about the report, please contact Greg Schultz at 3945 or e‐mail [email protected]. Theatre Program Assessment Report 1006‐07 Assessment Committee Comments

The Theatre Program identifies Theatre Program Mission Goals and Learning Outcomes areas. Strengths and challenges/goals were identified in relationship to the Mission Goals. An alumni survey was utilized to measure several of the program learning outcomes.

Suggestions for future assessment plans include: 1) Providing evidence that the learning outcomes are being met by Theatre Program majors (course assessments, senior survey, alumni survey). 2) Cleary identify program strengths and weaknesses in relationship to the Theatre Programs' learning outcomes. 3) Developing recommendations for future teaching and learning, in relationships to the identified strength and weaknesses.

Addendum:

The Theatre Program was emailed the committee's comments in April, 2008. A meeting was suggested to discuss the comments.

Writing Program Assessment Report 1006‐07 Assessment Committee Comments

The Writing Program is a new academic area for the College and the report submitted was very helpful in demonstrating the genesis of their assessment efforts. They appear to have a sound structure in place regarding their desired learning outcomes and due to their content area, there is rich opportunity to involve new and creative mixed‐methodological assessment efforts.

Some areas that could be improved with next year's short form include:

• An articulation of how students are involved in data analyses and sharing of results • An exploration of qualitative data analysis and how it can reflect student learning • Attaching the instruments used to collect data to see how they reflect desired learning outcomes and goals • An exploration of longitudinal assessment goals and how they map onto student learning • Exploring the potential for peer/joint review by other faculty as well as students to enhance their assessment efforts

In summary, we appreciate the efforts of the Writing Program in their first assessment report and see great potential. The opportunity to use narrative and peer review in their assessment process can be embraced in a way that sets their program apart from others and we are willing to help in any way.

DEPARTMENTAL ASSESSMENT RUBRIC 06‐07 Departmental Assessments Reviewer

Learning Linkage Results Adequate outcomes between tied to Program summary of Comments clearly measures & changes results? articulated outcomes or goals?

Accounting Yes Yes Yes Yes ModifiedShort form

Actuarial Science No Report submitted need short

Applied Math No report submitted need long

Art Yes No No No Long form next year

Athletic Training No Report submitted need long

Biochemistry Yes Yes No No Long Form for 2007‐2008 report

Biology Yes Yes Yes Yes Modified Short form

Business & Info. Technology No Report submitted need long

Business, Administration & Yes Yes Yes Yes Short form for Economics 2007‐08

* Include copies of new measures

Chemistry Seven core Yes, multiple Yes, program Yes Exceptional repot learning measures has obtained outcomes. meaningful modified form Additional measures learning outcomes specific to 3 emphasis.

Communication Yes No No No Long form next year

Computer Science Six learning Three out of the Yes‐ even found Yes Long form outcomes are sic learning criteria not good clearly stated. outcomes are for both Two assessment currently not components of reports— assessed. the majors. separate out new IT major.

Criminal Justice No Report submitted need long

Education (grad) Yes No No No Long form next year; LC assessment uses indirect measures only will design plan for next year

Education (undergrad) Yes Yes Yes Yes None

English No Report submitted need long next year

Environmental Science Yes, the This was In many ways, Yes Overall solid grouping into sufficient, but but what was effort with each of the somewhat lacking was opportunities to emphases was difficult to evidence of enhance especially discern because shared analyses significantly with helpful the instruments and additional were not interpretation information attached by non‐faculty

Recommend short form next

European Studies Long form needed next year

Exercise Science No Report submitted need long

Graphic Communication No Report submitted need long

Health Science Stated as Successful No No Long form Program completion goals—not based on GPA Assessment will learning data—this is not be easier when outcomes. useful alone. major is no Most longer linked to completed and the DPT Program measured in the professional phase of DPT program.

History No Report submitted need short

Human Biology Curricular Reorganization

Mathematics No Report submitted need short form

Music Yes Yes Yes Yes Modified short form

Music Education Long form for 2007‐08 report Nursing No No No No Long form for 2007‐08 report

* Clarify learning outcomes

Organizational Leadership Yes No No No Too few data to be meaningful; major to be eliminated

Photography Long form for 2007‐08 year

Physical and Health Yes Yes More analysis Yes Short form for Education needed next year

Physical Therapy Yes Yes Plan in place ‐‐‐ No Report submitted need long

Politics & IR No Report submitted need long

Psychology Yes No No No Long form for 2007‐08 year

Rec. Management Yes No linkage No No Long form for 2007‐08 year

Religion & Philosophy Yes Yes Yes, Capstone Yes Long more data data needed

Small Business Management Curricular reorganization

Sociology No Report submitted need long

Software Engineering (grad) No Report submitted need long

Spanish No Report submitted need long Theatre Arts Yes No No No Long form for 2007‐08 report

Writing Five core This is difficult Not clear Functional Although this is a learning to ascertain but room new program, outcomes with without seeing for there is an three tiers of the growth opportunity to exposure instruments; build in many clearly defined also there is a enhancements to strong emphasis their assessment on assessing efforts seniors but prior to that is unknown Recommend long form for next year

Carroll Online Initiatives

Overview: Carroll University offers a variety of fully online and partially online courses to provide a more flexible learning environment for both traditional and part-time adult students. The 2007-2008 academic year was active with online growth, increased evaluation of student satisfaction of online courses, and a variety of faculty development activities. This year marked the highest number of online courses and registrations in Carroll's history. There were 921 student registrations for 53 distinct online courses with 111 sections. Of those courses, 27 courses with 49 sections were taught by 18 Carroll faculty. The balance, 26 courses with 62 sections, was offered through the Online Consortium of Independent Colleges (OCICU). OCICU is an association of colleges and universities that enables members to collaborate and share resources for online programming. To find out how to better support online students, course student course commentaries were reinstated to provide feedback to all faculty who teach online courses. In addition, a variety of workshops, presentations, and individual assistance was offered to faculty who teach online and partially online course. Following are details of Carroll Online initiatives and growth.

Growth of Carroll Online: Carroll Courses and OCICU Courses

Carroll University began to offer online courses in 1997. As of May 12, 2008, there have been 4,817 students registrations (see Table 1 below). This year, the number of online enrollments grew 29% from 715 in 2006/2007 to 921 enrollments in 2007/2008. This growth comes from courses developed by Carroll faculty and courses offered by the Online Consortium of Independent Colleges (OCICU).

Table 1. History of Online Courses at Carroll *Data as of 5/12/2008 – 07/08 academic year/registration not yet completed

Academic Carroll Courses OCICU courses TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Year Courses Sections Enroll- Courses Sections Enroll- Courses Sections Enroll- ment ment ment 1997/1998 9 20 70 9 20 70 1998/1999 8 32 109 8 32 109 1999/2000 15 48 181 15 48 181 2000/2001 23 74 263 23 74 263 2001/2002 25 81 317 25 81 317 2002/2003 26 85 376 26 85 376 2003/2004 25 81 413 25 81 413 2004/2005 43 99 760 43 99 760 2005/2006 31 66 692 31 66 692 2006/2007 15 36 606 18 41 109 33 77 715 *2007/2008 27 49 690 26 62 231 53 111 921 TOTAL 247 671 4477 44 103 340 291 774 4817

Following is a summary of online courses offered by Carroll faculty and OCICU.

Online Courses Offered by Carroll Faculty

This year, 18 Carroll faculty taught 27 distinct online courses, also known as Web-Based courses, with 49 sections resulting in 690 registered students – a 14% increase over last year. During the fall and spring semesters, Carroll faculty taught fully online history and organizational leadership courses and online courses that also had some in-class meetings in business, computer science, education, and economics. Often these in-class meetings were held for orientations, exams, and to clarify questions throughout the semester. There were also mathematics, education, and health sciences courses taught as hybrid/blended courses where there were more in-class meetings so students learn through both online and in-class activities. For summer 08, new fully online Carroll courses are being offered, including in art history, business, education, and English.

Online Courses Offered by OCICU

In spring 2007, Carroll University partnered with the Online Consortium of Independent Colleges (OCICU) to complement and supplement the online and traditional courses already offered by Carroll faculty. This year, 26 OCICU courses with 62 sections were offered resulting in 231 registered Carroll students. This is more than double (112%) the number of OCICU registrations last year. OCICU courses offered this year included a variety of undergraduate accounting, business, communication, computer science, education, economics, history, philosophy, religion, and sociology courses plus graduate software engineering and education courses. OCICU is an association of colleges and universities that enables members to collaborate and share resources for online programming. All of the provider OCICU colleges are private, Christian universities that share similar values as Carroll. While students register at and receive credit from Carroll University, they take online courses developed by other OCICU providers. All OCICU courses are accelerated, eight-week courses that are tailored for adult students. The sole provider for OCICU courses for spring 07 was Regis University, but since summer 07 Carroll offers fully online course from three OCICU providers: Saint Leo University, Southern New Hampshire University, and Regis University. In addition to these three providers, OCICU partners with four more providers for a total of seven that offer a choice of over 780 online courses. Each provider trains their faculty to teach online and have online student orientation materials.

OCICU is a cost-effective way to offer a wide variety of quality online courses and meet the needs of part-time, nontraditional students who seek more flexibility and convenience. That is because Carroll does not need to pay for instructional design or pay for faculty since this is covered in the $625 per undergraduate student and $725 per graduate student registration fee charged by OCICU. Carroll University did need to create the infrastructure to support our students that take OCICU courses, including hiring a part-time Director of Online Programming to coordinate efforts required by the registrar’s office, computer services, the business office, and admissions. Most of these services were one-time needs. As more students have taken these courses, resources from these areas are still needed, but not as extensively as when the policies and procedures were first developed. In addition to these infrastructure costs, Carroll paid a one- time fee in 2007 of $2,500 and now pays $1,000 a year to offer OCICU online courses. Since the providers set the credits earned per course, OCICU courses are 3 credits instead of Carroll’s 4 credits. For the fall and spring semesters, Carroll charged a 3-credit fee of $975 for undergrad OCICU courses and $1,260 for software engineering graduate courses. For summer 08, these 3 fees were increased to $1,005 for undergrad OCICU courses and $1,275 for software engineering courses. Therefore, Carroll makes a profit on OCICU courses, but the goal behind offering OCICU courses is to offer more options for students who cannot attend classes during the day or night during the regular semester or during the summer. Because of the significant workload and accelerated format of the OCICU courses, only part-time students can take OCICU courses during the fall and spring semesters. Full-time students can take OCICU courses during the summer since all courses are accelerated during this semester. As of May 12, 2008, 64% of students registered for OCICU summer courses are full-time students.

Student Satisfaction with Online Courses Taught by Carroll Faculty

With an average 2.96 grade point for the fall and spring semesters, most students have done well with Carroll Online courses. All students who took online courses were sent course evaluation surveys to provide feedback to the instructors, determine satisfaction with online courses in general, and gather feedback on how the college can better support online students. Overall, students liked the flexibility and convenience of Carroll online courses. They liked the "freedom to learn on my own," "learn at own pace," and have "time flexibility." But, it was clear that online learning was not for all students. Most students agreed that the online or partially online format worked for them; however, a higher number of students who took business and computer courses rated this question slightly less favorably (see Table 2 on page 4). One student summarized what many noted: An online course "required a lot of self-discipline." Of students age 17 to 24, a larger percent (22%) would have preferred to have some in-class meetings when a course was fully online than the percent (12%) of students age 25 and over (see table 4 in Appendix A). And the majority of both students age 17 to 24 and 25 and over either strongly agreed or agreed that the in-class meetings were needed for online courses that offered these meetings (see table 5 in Appendix A). One student said, "Online learning is not for everyone but those that enjoy it should get the most out of every online opportunity."

Overall, students rated their experiences with Carroll online courses and instructors as good (see Table 2 on page 4) and their level of course engagement as very good. There was variation in course instructors in regards to responsiveness to students' questions and concerns, accessibility, and the ability of the course instructor to communicate course expectations and stimulate curiosity and interest. The comments were instructor specific; however overall, students rated Carroll faculty who teach online as "very knowledgeable," "encouraging," "motivating," "responsive," "supportive and encouraging," and "very willing to help out." An education student noted that the instructor "walked me through my anxiety about having an online course and I feel more confident in the future to take additional on line courses." Most online instructors were good at providing feedback in a timely manner and "stimulating" online discussions, particularly in education and business courses. While most had good organization of content, it was mentioned often the need to provide clearer expectations, better instructions for assignments, update grades, provide more challenging assignments, and the desire for instructors to be even more active in the online discussions and to share more of their expertise and subject content. Yet, as noted above there were many comments about the knowledgeable faculty and great content, especially in history and computer sciences.

Table 2. Student Satisfaction with Online Courses Taught by Carroll Faculty N=230 total, 60% response fall 07 and spring 08

Question Overall Computer Business History Education Science* (include ECO and LEA) N-230 N=111 N=56 N=34 N= 29 8 courses 5 courses 2 courses 1 course 14 sections 6 sections 4 sections 2 sections 1. Very Good - 2. Good- 3. Adequate – 4. Poor – 5. Very Poor The course overall 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.8 1.3 The course content 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.3 The ability of the instructor to facilitate 1.9 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.2 the course The instructor's ability to stimulate 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.5 curiosity and interest The ability of the instructor to 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.1 1.1 communicate course expectations The accessibility of the Blackboard site 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.3 used for this class The accessibility of the instructor for this 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.8 1.0 class The organization of the course 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.3 The responsiveness of the instructor to 1.7 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.1 your questions and concerns 1. Strongly Agree - 2. Agree- 3. Neutral – 4. Disagree – 5. Strongly Disagree The format of the course worked well for 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.9 1.2 me The online activities contributed to 2.0 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.3 learning Course work is academically challenging 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.6 I would recommend this course to other 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.6 1.2 students 1. Excellent - 2. Very Good- 3. Good – 4. Fair – 5. Poor I would rate my level of course 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 1.7 engagement as

The survey also asked students how the college could better support online learners. Comments were split between wanting more fully online courses to wanting more in-class meetings and more traditional courses at night; however, many noted they wanted more online course options. Most of the students' suggestions revolved around improving communication with more campus office hours, making sure online instructors are "accessible in person," to incorporating more audio or video of the instructor so they could get to hear from and "get to know" their instructor better. Other suggestions included providing more detailed syllabi, a more uniform course organization and course management system usage, and training for both students and faculty on "how online courses are run." Near end of this report is brief summary of how some of these concerns have been addressed.

Student Satisfaction with OCICU courses

With an average 3.39 grade point for the fall and spring semesters, most students who have taken OCICU courses are doing well in these classes. OCICU does have a policy, however, that students can drop a course during the last week and receive a grade of "W," so some student choose this option rather than receiving a failing grade. To increase success, students enrolled in OCICU receive administrative support and orientation to online learning from both OCICU and Carroll so individual attention is maintained. Through letters, e-mails, a Web site, and orientation materials from Carroll and e-mails and an orientation from all OCICU providers, students are well informed about the workload of these courses and what it takes to be successful as an online student. Of those who responded to end-of-course survey sent by Carroll, 89% said they would take another OCICU course and 93% said they were satisfied with the course quality. This is further supported by their response to the question on what they would have done if the OCICU course was not available. The majority (37%) would have waited to take a different OCICU course. These students also preferred more online courses (64%) over more night courses (18%) while 18% were undecided.

Table 3. OCICU Student Evaluations Spring 07 to Spring 08 N-109 QUESTION RATING 5. Strongly Agree - 4. Agree- 3. Neutral – 2. Disagree – 1. Strongly Disagree I would recommend this class to other Carroll students. 4.33 The format of this course worked well for me. 4.30 It was easy to navigate using the course management system. 4.45 The instructor was responsive to my questions and concerns. 4.36 4. Very Satisfied - 3. Satisfied- 2. Somewhat Dissatisfied – 1. Very Dissatisfied How satisfied were you with the overall quality of the OCICU course? 3.75 What students would have done if the OCICU course was not available: Needed to wait another semester to take this course but would have taken a different 37% OCICU course from Carroll Taken this course in the face-to-face format from Carroll 24% Needed to wait another semester to take this course but would have taken a different 16% face-to-face course from Carroll Not taken a class this semester 10% Other (would have taken a different class) 10% Taken this course at another school 3%

As detailed in Table 3 above, Carroll students would recommend OCICU courses to other students, thought the instructor was responsive to their questions and concerns, were satisfied to very satisfied with the overall quality of the OCICU courses, and said the course format worked well for them. There were student comments about specific OCICU courses and instructors needing improvement in these areas, but when several concerns from students are brought up, the Director of Online Programming investigated, provided feedback to the deans, and the deans determined if another OCICU course should be offered from another provider. This year three OCICU courses from one provider were replaced with courses from another provider to improve the quality of specific courses offered to Carroll students. Other complaints included the cost of these courses and that they only count for 3 credits despite that they are a lot of work. 6

Following is a brief summary of student comments about OCICU courses: The nontraditional students enjoy having discussions with other students who share extensive work experience. "It was a great way to share ideas and thoughts with fellow classmates. 75% of the people participating in this class seemed like they thoroughly enjoyed being part of the class and contributing week after week. .. the adult learners who enjoy learning form others and truly want to be in class." Students explained that the fully online, accelerated format allowed more flexibility for nontraditional students' schedules. "Overall the OCICU experience is a good one because I love to have the opportunity to study at home and not have to worry about driving and parking." Some students indicated they missed the face-to-face interaction, but need the online courses because they cannot attend classes during the day or had conflicts with other night courses they needed to complete their degrees. "I enjoyed the flexibility it provided but feel like I need the structure of a classroom and face-to-face instructor." Other students expressed concerns that the accelerated format was very intensive and students had to be really "self-motivated and "organized." One student said: "It was entirely too much material to be covered in 8 weeks. I didn’t mind having the class on-line, but the time frame was overwhelming. It was hard to keep up while working full-time." Some nontraditional students said they would have needed to leave Carroll if flexible options like online were not made available. “I would have had to return for six weeks after walking in May and landing a new job in a different state.” One student summed up what many noted in their comments about OCICU courses: "I am extremely thrilled that Carroll offers OCICU classes. This has allowed me as a part- time adult learner the ability to obtain my degree from Carroll faster. Because of the OCICU classes, summer and winter terms at Carroll I will be able to finish my degree while attending Carroll part-time, in four years! This would have never been possible if Carroll did not offer these classes. I wish to inform the college that I am greatly appreciative of this and believe they should continue to offer these classes to part-time students. It gives us the freedom to augment the classes we take at Carroll with online learning opportunities, giving us freedom to conduct our busy lives while having the opportunity to gain our degree faster. We enjoy this while not sacrificing our quality learning experience."

Faculty Needs and Support

Full-time and adjunct faculty reported mixed results and concerns about teaching online courses during workshops, group discussions, surveys, and during individual consultations with the Director of Online Programming. Faculty who are new to teaching online or hybrid courses and faculty who have taught previously requested both technology and pedagogical support and training on how to develop and teach a hybrid/online courses. This includes how to effectively use the course management system, organize online content, stimulate online discussions, engage online learners, create small group activities, develop audio and video, understand copyright issues, facilitate discussions, create more interactive activities, assess online learning, create secure exams, and evaluate student learning and satisfaction. For students, faculty also wanted orientation materials to help them be successful online. Faculty also wanted to share ideas, resources, and best practices with others who have been successfully teaching online. Many faculty said they prefer to convert some of their courses to a hybrid format and conduct part of their courses online or use online activities to enhance their courses instead of offering fully online courses for undergraduate students.

Based on the needs expressed by faculty, this year the Director of Online Programming focused on helping faculty with developing and teaching hybrid and online courses. Workshops and 7 individual consultations were held to help faculty with online instructional design, developing online assessments, and to understand the differences between online, hybrid/blended, and technology-enhanced courses. A summer workshop series will help faculty develop and teach online and hybrid courses, build an easy-to-navigate course structure, and incorporate interactive activities including audio and video. A number of resources are now available in a central resource site that faculty can utilize when developing and teaching online and hybrid courses. This includes a variety of online student orientations materials and online assessment strategies.

Online Environment and Future

Despite the exploding growth of the adult student population nationwide, part-time enrollment at Carroll University has decreased for several years. There were 771 part-time students (562 undergraduate and 209 graduate) in 2007-2008, which is 23% of the total student population. Online courses offer more convenient options for nontraditional students that can increase retention and help complete degrees faster. Online courses also do not take up classroom space, allowing the college to offer more courses and increase registrations. Students, especially part- time students, noted that by far the single strength of online courses was flexibility. This was confirmed by a part-time student survey administered in August 2006 (see Appendix B) where the following reasons were cited for wanting to take online courses: be able to work around work schedule (78%), work from home (74%), save travel time (66%), and fulfill a requirement (49%). The majority (86%) of the part-time students who responded to the survey Carroll responded that they would like to take at least one or two fully online courses.

A brief environmental scan of online course at selected institutions in Southeastern Wisconsin and one in Illinois (Appendix D) shows that competition is growing for online students at colleges that are in Carroll's neighborhood. These colleges are competing not only for traditional students but for the growing nontraditional student population. Most of these colleges have a significant number of both undergraduate and graduate online courses. Carroll University is competitive when comparing typical costs for undergraduate and graduate courses but has much fewer online graduate course offerings. Carroll is also competitive in the number of enrollments compared to universities of similar or larger size. Appendix D provides a brief analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of Carroll Online. It points out that the competition is growing for both nontraditional and online students. Carroll University, however, has faculty who are dedicated to teach online courses; has liberal and professional studies courses that offer popular online content; and resources and training in place to help faculty design and teach online courses. While the weaknesses point out areas that need improvement to improve technology and train more faculty, there are opportunities to reach new and growing student populations through innovative strategies to utilize of fully or partially online courses.

Carroll University is committed to providing more flexible online options that prepare students to live and work in a global, diverse, and technological society. Carroll is planning to offer more quality offerings that prepare students to communicate and work online along with students from around the world. This will include offering OCICU courses together with working closely with Carroll faculty to develop our own online or partially online courses.

Submitted by Karen Skibba, Director of Online Programming June 10, 2008 8

Appendix A: Details of two questions from Carroll Online Student Commentaries

Table 4. Question: In my opinion, this course would have been more effective if it:

Age Total No Was Had some in- Had fewer Had Had all Had the ans- completing class meet- in-class more in- in-class same wer online if ings if it was meetings class meetings number had in- completing meetings in-class/ class online online meetings No answer 4 2 1 1 17 to 24 143 47 9 32 3 17 8 27 33% 1% 22% .02% 12% .05% 19% 25 and over 80 33 9 10 1 8 4 15 41% 11% 12% .01% 10% .05% 19% Prefer not 3 to answer 1 2 Total 230 82 19 42 4 26 13 44

Table 5. Question: The in-class meeting(s) was/were needed for this course:

Age Total No Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly answer Agree Disagree No answer 4 3 1 17 to 24 143 46 31 28 26 6 6 32% 22% 20% 18% .04% .04% 25 and over 80 13 22 26 11 6 2 16% 27% 32% 14% .07% .02% Prefer not 3 1 1 1 to answer Total 230 63 53 56 38 12 8

Appendix B: Executive Summary of Part-Time Student Survey for Online Classes Administered August 2006

• Survey e-mailed to 1,180 spring & fall 06 part-time students (12 or less credits per semester) • 200 completed the survey, which represents a return of approximately 17% • 70% (n=140) of the respondents are female, 30% (n=60) are male • 58% (n=116) are undergraduate degree seeking, 7% (n=14) are graduate degree seeking, 9% (n=18) are certification seeking, 26% (n=43) are non-degree seeking or other. Initial analysis found that certification and non-degree seeking students would consider taking a higher number of online courses than degree-seeking students. • 36% total receive some (16%), most (7%) or all (13%) of their tuition paid by their employer • 42% said “nothing would discourage me from taking an online course” • 86% would like to take at least 1 or 2 fully online courses

How many fully online courses (no in-class meetings) would you consider taking while attending Carroll College?

Top 5 motivating factors to take an online course (respondents selected all that applied) Rank % Motivating Factors 1 78% Be able to work around my work schedule 2 74% Be able to work from home 3 66% To save travel time 4 60% To complete my degree faster 5 49% To fulfill a requirement in my major

Appendix C: Carroll Online Brief Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis

Strengths: Weaknesses:

• Carroll has offered online courses for ten • Basic course management system that is years. underutilized as an instructional resource. • Have some faculty dedicated to teaching online • Not all faculty are trained to design online or partially online. courses and teach online, and therefore report • Teaching in Technology and Learning limited success and student satisfaction. Committee formed to focus on faculty and • No consistent quality measures for online student needs. course development and teaching. • Director of Online Programming position • Limited number of night and online courses, increased efforts to help faculty learn how to reducing access for nontraditional students. teach online and hybrid courses. • Few majors that can be completed at night. • IT’s willingness to train faculty on Blackboard • Limited technical resources and resources for on request. faculty to use to develop online courses. • Formed strategic alliance with OCICU to offer • Limited IT people and resources for faculty to quality online courses that require minimal receive assistance regarding course resources from Carroll. management system organization and • Strong focus on both liberal and professional developing an online course. studies programs – both popular online • Low part-time enrollment. content.

Opportunities: Threats:

• Innovative use of fully or partially online • Cost of technology and course management strategies can alleviate lack of classroom systems and support space. • Under-prepared students to learn in the online • Significant increase of adult learners who want environment. flexibility in where and how they learn to • Increase of for-profit universities focused on complete degrees and obtain skills and online and adult education – many near the certification to further job opportunities. Carroll campus, which are heavily marketed. • Significant increase in students’ interest to • Increase in private and public universities use learn online at Carroll and nationally. of online/partially online courses and focus on • Significant increase in technologies, the adult learners. techniques, and research to enhance learning online and the quality of the experience. • Interest in online graduate programs; Carroll has several graduate programs that offer the potential for online courses, particularly education and software engineering. • Carroll’s part-time student enrollment is marginal compared to traditional students and therefore is an opportunity for growth • Faculty show interest in learning to teach partially online and online courses.

Appendix D: Brief Environmental Scan of Selected Institutions with Online Courses

(see attached) Appendix D:

Brief Environmental Scan of Selected Institutions Online Courses 2006-2007

Based On Peterson Online Degrees & Distance Learning Programs http://www.petersons.com/distancelearning/code/search.asp?sponsor= & U.S. News and World Report http://www.usnews.com/directories/e-learning/

The schools displayed here have indicated that they offered undergraduate and graduate distance learning programs for credit during the 2006– 2007 academic year. Universities listed are from Southeastern Wisconsin and one from Illinois. Other colleges either do not offer online courses or are not listed in the Peterson or U.S. New and World Report data for online courses and degrees:

Institution # Online Total Typical Online Degrees Undergrad/Certificate Grad Courses Offered Courses Enrollment Costs for a Offered Courses Offered course Carroll 36 728 Undergrad: 0 Business; Accounting and Education, Software Engineering University, $1,040 Related Services; Finance and WI Financial Management Services; Grad: Management Information $1,275 Systems and Services; Marketing; English Language and Literature/Letters; History; Philosophy and Religious Studies; Mathematics and Statistics; Computer and Information Sciences Concordia 270 900 Undergrad: Business Business; Accounting and Master's Degree Courses: University, $990 Related Services; Finance and Business; Education; Health WI Financial Management Services; Professions, Clinical Sciences, Human Resources Management and Social Services; Accounting Grad: and Services; Marketing; Public and Related Services; Finance $395-$480 Administration and Social and Financial Management per credit or Service Professions; Social Services; Human Resources $1,185- Sciences; Theology and Management and Services; $1,440 per Religious Vocations; Management Information course Mathematics and Statistics Systems and Services; Marketing; Public Administration and Social Service Professions; Nursing; Communication, Journalism, and Related Programs; Biological and Biomedical Sciences; Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services; Environmental Engineering and Environmental Health Engineering Elmhurst, IL 16 329 Undergrad: 0 Undergrad Courses: Education; None Listed $2,960 s Visual and Performing Arts; 630) 617- (no extra Foreign Languages, Literatures, 3500 cost for and Linguistics; Liberal Arts and online) Sciences, General Studies, and Humanities; Philosophy and Religious Studies; Theology and Religious Vocations; Physical Sciences; Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services

No Bachelor's Degree Marquette 26 229 Undergrad: 0 Undergrad Courses: Education; Education; Human Resources University, $1,425 Nursing Management and Services; WI Nursing; Communication, Grad: Journalism, and Related $1,875 No Bachelor's Degree Programs Grad

UW-Colleges Milwaukee Not listed Not listed Undergrad: Education; Library Undergraduate Courses: Business; Education; Health $773+275 Science Business; Education; Library Professions, Clinical Sciences, fee= $1040 Science; Public Administration and Social Services; Library and Social Service Professions; Science; Taxation; Public Nursing; Area, Ethnic, Cultural, Administration and Social Grad: and Gender Studies; Foreign Service Professions; Nursing; $990+$275 Languages, Literatures, and Communication, Journalism, and fee= $1,265 Linguistics; Social Sciences; Related Programs; English Parks and Recreation; Language and Literature/Letters; Psychology Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Linguistics; Liberal Arts and Certificate: Business; Library Sciences, General Studies, and Science; Communication, Humanities; Mathematics and Journalism, and Related Statistics Programs Graduate Certificates: Business; Bachelor's Degree: Nursing Taxation; English Language and Literature/Letters Bachelor's –Level Certificate: Education Parkside 26 Not listed Grad: None listed Business; Accounting and $1122 Related Services; Finance and Financial Management Services; Human Resources Management and Services; Management Information Systems and Services; Marketing Platteville 130 1,950 Undergrad: Bachelor's Online Undergraduate Courses: Business; Education; $1,050 Degrees: Business; Business; Legal Professions and Engineering; Legal Professions ($350 per Public Studies; Accounting and Related and Studies; Accounting and credit) Administration and Services; Finance and Financial Related Services; Finance and Social Service Management Services; Human Financial Management Services; Grad: Professions; Resources Management and Human Resources Management $1680 Security and Services; Marketing; Public and Services; Marketing; Public ($595 per Protective Services Administration and Social Administration and Social credit) Service Professions; Security Service Professions; Security Master's Degrees: and Protective Services; Area, and Protective Services; Civil Business; Ethnic, Cultural, and Gender Engineering; Electrical, Engineering; Legal Studies; Communication, Electronics and Communications Professions and Journalism, and Related Engineering; Industrial Studies; Public Programs; Social Sciences Engineering; Manufacturing Administration and Engineering; Communication, Social Service Undergrad Certificate: Business; Journalism, and Related Professions; Finance and Financial Programs; Social Sciences; Security and Management Services; Human Mathematics and Statistics ; Protective Services Resources Management and Psychology; Engineering Services; Marketing Technologies and Technicians

Bachelor's-Level Certificates: Graduate Certificate courses: Business; Finance and Financial Engineering Management Services; Human Resources Management and Master's Level Certificates: Services; Marketing; Public Business; Education; Administration and Social Engineering; Public Service Professions; Security Administration and Social and Protective Services Service Professions; Security and Protective Services Whitewater 115 4,120 Undergrad: Bachelor's Online Business; Education; Legal Business; Education; Legal $732 plus Degrees: Professions and Studies; Professions and Studies; Library $150-$300 Business; Public Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies; Science; Accounting and fee = $932 Administration and Visual and Performing Arts; Related Services; Finance and Social Service Area, Ethnic, Cultural, and Financial Management Services; Grad Professions; Liberal Gender Studies; Human Resources Management course: Arts and Sciences, Communication, Journalism, and and Services; Management $1050 plus General Studies, Related Programs; English Information Systems and $150-$300 and Humanities Language and Literature/Letters; Services; Marketing; Social fee = History; Liberal Arts and Sciences; Psychology; $$1,250 Master's Degree Sciences, General Studies, and Computer and Information Online: Business Humanities; Philosophy and Sciences and Support Services Religious Studies; Social Sciences; Physical Sciences; Graduate Certificate: Library Psychology Science

Master's Level Certificate: No certificate Library Science

Gen Ed Committee 2007‐08

Committee members: Kimberly Redding; Michael Kula; Lara Karpenko; Ellen Barclay; Joseph Dailey; Genee Brukwitzki; David Feil ; James Grimshaw;; Susan Heffron; Janet McClintock; Laura Grace Peek; John Symms; Melvin Vance;

Student reps: Jose G Gutierrez; Sara Lachner; Sara Walschinski;

Summary of Accomplishments

I. Full committee The committee was charged with undertaking a 2‐year review and revision of Carroll's General Education program, and devoted on average 3 meetings/month to that initiative. In general, we've been following Leskes and Miller's General Education. A Self Study Guide for Review and Assessment (AAC&U, 2005).

A. Fall ‐ Reviewed current GenEd programs of local peer institutions ‐ Read/discussed AAC&U best practice literature ‐ Reviewed/discussed LEAP goals and model institutions

o Redding – College of Charleston, o Brukwitzki – Cardinal Stritch, Beloit Fairleigh Dickinson University o Symms – Saint Joseph’s College o Heffron – Edgewood, Portland State (Indiana) University o Feil – Wagner College, Ripon o McClintock – Kalamazoo College, o Jablonsky – Indiana State University, Syracuse University Carthage o Grimshaw – Millikin University, o Vance – Lawrence, Grand Valley UW Whitewater State University o Dailey – University of Delaware, St. Norbert’s

‐ Developed "points of agreement" for future discussion

B. Spring ‐ 3 members attended and reported on AAC&U annual meeting ‐ Organized and facilitated 8+ campus‐wide discussions on Gen Ed learning outcomes and the needs of 21st century students/graduates ‐ Used ½ day retreat to process/condense feedback from campus‐wide discussions and consolidate these into draft outcome statements ‐ Planned Summer Design Team program (expectations of teams, stipends, resources, etc.) ‐ Recruited 14 volunteers to serve on Summer Design Teams ‐ Planned/led orientation meeting for Summer Design Teams

C. Ongoing ‐ Supported Pathways to Success grant proposal ‐ Integrated student committee members more effectively than previously

II. Subcommittees A. First Year Experience: Mel, Bill, Jann, with Ellen and Michael (see separate information provided by Ellen and Michael) ‐ Carried out ongoing assessment of FYS and ENG170 ‐ Provided feedback to Ellen and Michael as requested

B. LSP subcommittee: Dave, John, Lara ‐ Suspended ongoing review of courses in each of the 7 LSP areas ‐ Reviewed/Approved 3 courses for LSP approval

C. Convo/Capstone: Jim, Genie, Joe ‐ Reviewed at least 18 alternative convocation application ‐ Standardized application and review process for alternative convos ‐ Responded to concerns/questions about capstone courses as requested

III. Other Alternative Convocations for 2007-2008 (compiled by Jim Grimshaw, 6/4/08)

• Cultural Interpretations of Health, on September 10, 2007. Dr. Horner-Ibler, Dr. Mushir Hassan. • Monday, Oct. 1, at 4:00 in the Recital Hall. The presentation is called "Images of the Body in Art History: Health to Illness, Ideal to Age." Professor James Slauson is our speaker. • This is for the November 12th event at 7pm featuring Lena Williams. • November 15, 2007 Speaker on second hand smoke control • January 26th, “The Human Face of Health Care in Wisconsin - - A forum.” This was brought to us by Elena DeCosta. • A lecture by Dr. Kilstofte in the Recital Hall at 7 pm on Monday, Feb. 4 (requested by Larry Harper). • This is for the lecture on Tues, March 11th from 5-6:30pm in the Ballroom, with Dr. Nancy Madden Walcyzk. • The UNAFF (the film festival), to be held on Wed, March 26th, and will run most of the day. Deirdre Keenan requested this. • We have now also approved the presentation and discussion of the film Golden Venture on April 1 at 6pm in the Ballroom • This is for the lecture Big Tobacco Marketing to Young Adults on Wednesday, April 2nd at 5-6 pm in the ballroom at the Campus Center. • Two events at the Diversity conference will each qualify for a convocation point: one is on Friday, April 4th at 7:00pm for Allan Johnson (in the Ballroom), • The other event at the Diversity conference is on Sat, April 5th at 7:00pm for Teja Arboleda (Shattuck Auditorium). • The “Provost's Lecture" on the evening of April 10, featuring Stanley Fish. • This is for the Carlos Ojeda event on April 16th, at 5:00pm. • This is for the Library speaker, Camille Guerin-Gonzales, on April 17th from 7-8:30. • Dr. Shlomo Aronson at 8:30 pm on Monday, April 21st • This is for the Carroll University/Carroll College Debate on April 23rd at 3:00pm • This is for the presentation by Raymond Benson on April 24th, 6pm, in the Oak Room of the Campus Center. • Thursday, May 1, 2008: Tobacco Free Coalition: Speaker Robert Shepherd 7-8:30pm in the Campus Center Ballroom. A Report on Student Writing at Carroll College Submitted by Susan Nusser June 11, 2008

Purpose:

This report has been compiled as part of the General Education Committee’s reevaluation of Carroll College’s General Education requirements and Liberal Studies Program. By examining the literature and the practices of similar and model institutions, I have compiled a report that explains the relationship between writing and critical thinking, identifies a variety of models for college writing, and finally, makes recommendations for institution a broad curricular writing initiative at Carroll College.

History:

In July of 2007, the Final Report of the Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress indicated that 45% of incoming freshman at Carroll College were not proficient at Level

Two writing skills, and 72% were not proficient at Level Three writing skills. Those skills are described as follows:

Level Two Proficiency: • Incorporate new material into a passage • Recognize agreement among basic grammatical elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, pronouns and conjunctions), when these elements are complicated by intervening words or phrases. • Combine simple clauses into single, more complex combinations • Recast existing sentences into new syntactic combinations

Level Three Proficiency • Discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of parallelism • Discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate use of idiomatic language. • Recognize redundancy • Discriminate between correct and incorrect constructions • Recognize the most effective revision of a sentence

Students show significant improvement by the time they are seniors. However, with 40% of seniors testing not proficient at Level Two and 63% not proficient at Level Three, the numbers are still discouraging.

The MAPPS testing system also measures reading skills and 54% of Carroll freshman are not proficient at Level Two reading skills. Proficiency at Level Two means that students are able to

• Synthesize material from different sections of a passage • Recognize valid inferences derived from material in the passage • Identify accurate summaries of a passage or of significant sections of the passage • Understand and interpret figurative language • Discern the main idea, purpose, or focus of a passage or a significant portion of the passage.

The MAPPS system classifies Level Three reading skills as Critical Thinking, and 93% of Carroll students were not proficient at this level, which means they were not able to

• Evaluate competing causal explanations •Evaluate hypothesis for consistency with known facts • Determine the relevance of information for evaluating an argument or conclusion • Recognize the salient features or themes in a work of art • Evaluate the appropriateness of procedures for investing a question of causation • Evaluate data for consistency with known facts, hypotheses or methods • Recognize flaws and inconsistencies in an argument.

By senior years, 33% of students were not proficient at Level Two reading skills and 67% were not proficient in their Critical Thinking skills.

Although the report concludes that Carroll students, both as freshman and seniors, “look much like their peers,” they are slightly below those peers in achievement in both reading

2 and writing skills. Additionally, given how low these proficiencies are, Carroll has an

opportunity to not only meet, but to exceed the national averages of achievement among

their peers.

Critical Thinking and Writing

The relationship between critical thinking and writing is well established (Elander 2006,

Kelly-Riley 2003, Lampert 2007, Lavelle 2003). Scholars in both writing and critical thinking fields agree that writing and critical thinking are such integrated tasks, that improvement in either skill is virtually impossible without engaging in both of them simultaneously. This connection provides Carroll with an opportunity to focus on writing, and to improve critical thinking at the same time.

Not all writing is equal. In “Complex Skills and Academic Writing: A Review of

Evidence About the Types of Learning Required to Meet Core Assessment Criteria,” authors James Elander, Katherine Harrington, et al document the connection between writing and the development of deep and complex learning. The student writing they describe has the following “core criteria” for assessment: “critical thinking, use of language, structuring and argument” (71). Elander defines four critical thinking criteria: consistent and logical thinking, controlled skepticism or disbelief, evaluating information for weaknesses, and “freedom from bias or prejudice” (76). While the report identifies a number of activities that promote critical thinking, Elander has found that complex writing assignments are commonly used to assess whether students are engaged in the kind of “deep learning,” that characterizes the development of critical thinking skills.

3 In addition to these distinctions made by Elander, Harrington, et al, Ellen Lavelle and Anthony Guarino, in “A Multidimensional Approach to Understanding College

Writing Processes,” identify the two predominant types of college writing.

The basic distinction has been between deep writing, based on taking a proactive

position geared towards making a new meaning and using strategies such as

complex revision; and surface writing which is primarily reproductive, involving

a listing strategy and a linear outcome of presentation of facts. (Lavelle 296)

The authors use the Structure of Learning Outcomes (SOLO) Taxonomy developed by

Biggs and Collis, to describe how student writers progress towards achieving writing complexity.

Here writers move from incoherent, fleeting words or impressions to sequencing,

to mastery within the framework, and finally (hopefully) to the extended abstract

position….In extended abstract writing the words clearly become the servant of

the message as writers move from the literal or overt, to a more covert position

involving layers of meaning. (Lavelle and Guarino 296)

The SOLO Taxonomy demonstrates that writing can be used to assess the process by which students move from the MAPPS Level I reading skills, (the acquisition of factual knowledge) to the complex, abstract, and relational work that is the hallmark of critical thinking. Lavelle and Guarino extend this linkage in their Inventory of Process in

College Composition (IPIC), in which “five orthogonal factors emerge…” that describe the strategies of student writers. The elaborative strategy, they explains “is marked by a search for personal meaning, self-investment,” and represents a “deep, personal orientation” (297.) It is important for those writers who rely on this strategy to please

4 themselves as well as their audience. Low self-efficacy is marked by “doubt and thinking

about writing as a painful task” (298). Writers in this category, according to Lavelle and

Guarino, don’t have any strategies for completing a writing task and rely on teacher

encouragement. Reflective-revision “describes a deep writing approach based on a

sophisticated understanding of the revision process as a remaking or rebuilding of one’s

thinking” (298). Spontaneous-impulsive, as its name implies, is an approach characterized by a lack of planning or revision. Students relying on this approach report that, “Often my first draft is my finished product” (298). Lavelle and Guarino connect this approach closely to what Biggs and Collis call a “surface restrictive style,” that is located on the writing skills spectrum opposite the deep, reflective, complex processes that are associated with critical thinking. The final factor, the procedural approach is characterized by “adherence to the rules and a minimal amount of involvement” (298).

Writers in this category are more invested in following the rules than in using writing to create meaning and, like the spontaneous-impulsive approach, produces work that is superficial and without complexity or critical thinking.

Clearly, the goal of writing in general education courses should be to move students towards what Lavelle and Guarino describe as the reflective-revision process, because that process is most closely associated with the development of critical thinking skills. Students engaging in this process are likely to take ownership of their work, will identify and pursue the completion of the larger, abstract goals of both the assignment

and the course, and are the most likely to achieve higher order critical thinking skills in which they will use their writing not only to demonstrate what they’ve learned, but also to create meaning, and to extend their ideas beyond the limits of the classroom.

Writing at Carroll:

As described in Carroll’s course catalog, the Liberal Studies Program, “cultivates

attitudes and imparts common knowledge and intellectual concepts that college-educated

persona should possess. In addition, the Liberal Studies Program coursework helps

students improve their written and oral communication skills and their ability to think

critically…” (11). LSP courses cover seven different knowledge-based categories, but

currently there are no specific outcomes that address writing, or any program or course-

based assessment that measure the development of writing skills. Without this

framework, it is unlikely that Carroll students are developing writing skills in a

systematic and cohesive way.

According to a 2004 study conducted by faculty members Dr. Lori Kelly and Dr.

Kimberly Redding, A Survey of Faculty and Student Opinion on the State of Writing at

Carroll College, Carroll faculty report that, despite their assertions about its importance,

they are least likely to assign students long form “term papers.” Although term paper is

undefined, the report assumes the popular definition of term paper: five or more pages,

multiple sources, and a controlling idea. This kind of assignment lends itself well to both

the SOLO Taxonomy’s description of “extended abstract” writing and Lavelle and

Guarino’s “reflective-revision” process.

According to the Kelly and Redding survey, the most frequently assigned writing task at Carroll is the short answer exam question (8). Although it is possible for these

kinds of writing assignments to employ complex and critical thinking, without some kind

of writing assignment that involves revision and attention to process, it is unlikely that

6 faculty are using writing to help students develop their critical thinking skills.

According to the survey, that conclusion is consistent with how faculty use writing

in their classes. According to Kelly and Redding, 71% of Carroll faculty “require students to apply knowledge through writing, and 65% use written work to evaluate student mastery of course content (9).” My own survey, conducted in 2008, is consistent with this finding with 77.96% of faculty reporting that, on a scale of one to five, with one equaling not important and five equaling very important, 77.96% of faculty scored the importance of students demonstrating that they understand the course material with either a four or a five.

Conversely, there is a much lower value being placed on using writing to

demonstrate one of the hallmark critical thinking skills, that of extending the ideas of the course and using them to create meaning. On this measure, 63.79% of the faculty scored

the value with a four or a five.

Other questions designed to ascertain the connection between writing and critical

thinking in the Carroll classrooms indicate that faculty are using writing to develop

critical thinking skills. When asked how important it was that students demonstrate that

they can synthesize ideas in their writing, 79.31 percent of the faculty scored that value

with a four or a five. Measuring the importance of students using their writing to inquire

into the course materials, 61.41 percent of faculty respondents scored that value as a four

or a five. While this data offers a positive view of the use of writing to engage students

in critical thinking, the data was collected from a small sample of Carroll faculty. Only

fifty-nine members of the full and part time faculty who were contacted via the all faculty

listserv completed the survey.

7 Lavelle and Guarino’s IPIC identifies that the reflective-revision approach is the

most effective method for achieving success in critical thinking ability. This approach is

process oriented, with an emphasis on rewriting, reevaluating and revising written work

in direct response to the increasing complexity in student thinking. This conclusion

suggests that the most effective way to reach a writing and critical thinking outcome is to

emphasize process in student writing assignments, yet the 2004 Kelly-Redding study found that less that 40% of faculty “provide an opportunity for students to correct errors in form or content and resubmit the assignment” (26).

Questions in the 2008 survey were also designed to ascertain how faculty evaluate, and thus reinforce the purpose of student writing. At the lower end of importance, with 52.64% of faculty ranking the criteria as a four or five in importance, was whether or not they evaluated student writing for its ability to identify weaknesses in logic or evidence in the source material. Similarly, 61.41% of faculty ranked as a four or a five in importance whether or not students questioned the claims or assertions of their source material. Both of these questions indicate that while faculty expect students writing to be logical, they do not require students to test the logic or accuracy of the source material.

Overwhelmingly, faculty favor precise and logical thinking when evaluating student writing, with 84.48% of responding faculty ranking that criteria as a four or five.

Faculty are also concerned with cohesion. Almost 72% of responses measuring the value of this quality were in the range of four or five.

The question that most directly represents a process approach—the rewarding of evidence-based argument, whether or not that evidence leads to the “right” conclusion—

8 was in the middle range of importance. Les than sixty-eight percent of the respondents

ranked this as a four or five on the scale of importance.

Again, the low response rate, just 58 completed surveys, makes it impossible to draw conclusions from the survey responses. But it’s important to note that fifty-eight members of the Carroll faculty are teaching classes in which evaluation criteria indicate

the use of a reflective revision strategy. Furthermore, although the majority of

respondents rank the demonstration of knowledge as the more important purpose for

course writing, that emphasis has not precluded the expectation that students use writing for the kind of extended abstract writing associated with critical thinking.

For the purposes of electronic distribution of this report, rather than attaching the

overview results in an appendix, the link to the survey is provided here.

http://surveys.cc.edu/ResultsOverView.aspx?SID=M59WL46BG83QJ27#

Effective Practices:

While there are as many flavors to curricular writing initiatives as there are schools to

implement them, there is a similar pattern to programs at both referent and model

institutions. Currently at Carroll, students are required to take one writing course during

their four years here. At no other school that identified writing as an important skill did I

see only one course offering focused on writing. Additionally, although writing skills are

named as an expectation of our general education curriculum, there does not appear to be

an overall assessment of student writing at the college. Currently, only ENG 170, the

First Year Writing Seminar, offers an overall program assessment.

9 Looking at Writing Across the Curriculum, Writing in the Discipline and

programs that have adapted those principals, if not their names, at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison, Ohio Wesleyan University, Susquehanna University in

Pennsylvania, Colorado College, Edgewood College, Carthage College and Portland

State University, a pattern emerges. All of the above programs emphasize the importance

of creating multiple opportunities for students to focus on writing. At the UW, for

instance, students throughout the university take a required sequence of at least two

courses in writing and communications. Departments may, and often do, require

additional writing intensive course work and, to the surprise of the school’s

administrators, students are opting for fill their elective requirements with additional

writing classes (Westphal-Johnson 93). Both Colorado College and Susquehanna offer

writing intensive courses in subjects throughout the curriculum that students can use to

meet a writing requirement. At Ohio Wesleyan, faculty may assign a separate writing

grade for any student whose writing does not meet expectations. For instance, a student

might receive a B for learning the course material and a separate Unsatisfactory grade for

their inability to express that learning in writing. Ohio Wesleyan’s Writing Center is

professionally staffed and it is the tutors there who are responsible for resolving

Unsatisfactory writing grades. Like Carroll, Edgewood College is examining the role of

writing in the general education curriculum and is expecting to create a similar model to

these other schools that includes repeated opportunities for instruction in writing, and a

tiered system to that responds to progressive skills development.

Regardless of how successful ENG170 is at teaching students to write, one

course, as both the research and the best practices review demonstrates, is insufficient for

10 insuring that students will have proficiency at both Level Three Writing skills and

Critical Thinking Skills. Interestingly, although faculty report an expectation that

students write in discipline-specific forms, the Kelly-Redding Survey found that over

50% of the faculty who responded, either disagree or disagree strongly that mastery of

student writing should be the responsibility of the instructors in each student’s major

(26). In short, faculty expect students to write well in discipline-specific forms, but disagree that faculty within those disciplines should be expected to provide that instruction. Not surprisingly, 90% of students in the same survey reported that instructors in their major expect them to develop their writing skills outside of class

(Kelly-Redding 12). Into this gap between instruction and expectation rushes trial and

error.

The Kelly-Redding study also identified a trend they identify as the “Sophomore

Blip.” This “blip” refers to a higher incidence of sophomores, especially those in NHS

and GPS, who are confused about instructors’ expectations about writing, and who see

the evaluation process as more subjective and personal than that used to evaluate other

kinds of assignments (20). Among other things that this finding suggests is that there is

an absence of instruction and support for student writing after freshman year when all

students are taking both FYS and ENG170. The data from the Writing Center reveals a

drop in use by sophomores and a corresponding increase among juniors. For most

students at Carroll, sophomore year is when they make the transition into writing in their

discipline and in discipline-specific forms. Combing the occurrence of the blip, with

faculty resistance to teaching discipline-specific forms, and the drop-off in Writing

Center attendance, suggest that both students and faculty may be avoiding writing

11 assignments in sophomore year—precisely when students are expected to learn discipline-specific forms. That this “blip” seems to smooth out by junior year, with both students and faculty reporting an increase in longer writing assignments combined with an increase in writing center usage, suggests issues about discipline-specific writing have been resolved, possibly through trial and error. Without more specific data and analysis, though, this suggestion is, at best, highly speculative, but, if correct, would indicate that

Carroll students and faculty would be well served by some kind of second year writing initiative. This may also be a good place to look at retention numbers: students confused and frustrated by faculty expectations about writing may drop out of school entirely, and the remaining students are those most likely to intuit their way through their work, and to make use of campus support services like the Writing Center.

Recommendations:

To improve achievement in writing and critical thinking, I recommend that the General

Education Committee consider the following changes to the general education curriculum.

1. Every section of the LSP divisions should offer writing intensive courses, and students should be required to complete at least two, one each at the 100 and 200 level (ENG170 does not count) to complete their general education requirement.

2. One 300-level writing intensive course, taught within the discipline by program faculty, should be required to complete the General Education requirements.

3. All courses designated as writing intensive should be capped at 18.

12 4. The Faculty Development Committee should offer a comprehensive faculty

development program for faculty who are teaching writing intensive course. That

program should include instruction in best practices, course and assignment design, and

writing evaluation.

5. Instructors for writing intensive courses at the 300 level and above should have a well-

developed writing practice as demonstrated by a strong publication record.

6. The General Education committee should publish learning outcomes specific to writing, and addressing those outcomes should be part of course-level assessment in

every class that qualifies as a writing intensive LSP.

7. Academic programs should be required to iterate their writing expectations as part of

their assessment and evaluation process.

8. All faculty who teach at the introductory 100 and 200 level should be advised that they

are expected to provide an introduction to teaching discipline-specific writing forms, that

include teaching appropriate citation style.

4. The Capstone requirement should include an extended and assessable written

assignment within the student’s discipline that emphasizes Lavelle and Guarino’s

reflective-revision process because it is most closely associated with the development of

the kind of extended abstract work that develops critical thinking skills.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Nusser

June 5, 2008.

Appendix A:

Link to the 2008 Faculty Writing Survey

http://surveys.cc.edu/ResultsOverView.aspx?SID=M59WL46BG83QJ27#

Appendix B.

Suggested General Education Learning Outcomes that address writing.

At the 100 level students will be able to use their writing to:

• demonstrate that they have acquired basic factual knowledge from their course

materials.

• demonstrate that they can identify main ideas from their texts

• demonstrate the correct use of evidence in support of a claim

• demonstrate that they can make connections between abstract ideas

• cohesively develop an idea for an assignment that is at least five pages in

length

At the 100 level, student writing will demonstrate:

• correct use of basic grammar

• correct construction of complex sentences

• knowledge of citation style appropriate to their discipline

• correct incorporation of quotations and paraphrases

• appropriate construction of paragraphs

At the 200 level, student writing will sustain 100-level skills and be able to:

• identify appropriate source material using library catalog

• synthesize material from multiple sources

• accurately summarize abstract ideas in source material

• evaluate the use of evidence in and validity of source material

• evaluate the quality of an argument for it consistency and relevancy

At the 200 level, student writing will demonstrate continued mastery of 100-level skills and will also demonstrate:

• sustained grammatical accuracy in sentences complicated by phrases and

clauses

• ability to rephrase abstract ideas for increased clarity

• correct use of parallelism

• appropriate use of idiomatic language

At the 300-level, student writing will demonstrate continued mastery of 100 and 200-

level skills and will also demonstrate:

• the ability to sustain and inquiry into academic source material

• ability to extend the ideas of the course material

• ability to synthesize material to create new meaning as represented by the

originality of the student work.

15 • ability to evaluate source material for its originality of thought, use of evidence

and overall quality

At the 300 level student writing will demonstrate evolving mastery of 100 and 200 level skills.

16 Works Cited

Carroll College. 2007-2008 Course Catalog. Waukesha, WI 2007.

Carroll College Planning and Budget Committee. “Pioneering Our Future: Carroll

College 2007-2012 Strategic Plan.” Carroll College, Waukesha, WI 2007.

Elander, James, Harrington, Katherine, Lin Norton, Hannah Robinson, and Pete Reddy.

“Complex Skills and Academic Writing: A Review of Evidence about the Types

of Learning Required to Meet Core Assessment Criteria.” Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol., 31, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 71-90.

Kelly, Lori Duin, Redding, Kimberly and John Mellen. A Survey of Faculty ad Student

Opinion on the State of Writing at Carroll College. Carroll College, Waukesha,

WI, 2004.

Lavelle, Ellen and Anthony J. Guarino. “A Multidimensional Approach to

Understanding College Writing Processes.” Educational Psychology, Vol, 23,

No. 3, 2003

Westphal-Johnson, Nancy and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick. “The Role of Communication

and Writing Intensive Courses in General Education: A Five Year Case Study at

the University of Wisconsin-Madison.” JGE: The Journal of General Education.

Vol. 51, No. 2, 2002.

17 Bibliography

American Philosophical Association. (1990) Critical Thinking: A Statement of Expert

Consensus for Purposes of Educational Assessment and Instruction. The Delphi

Report Executive Summary: Research Findings and Recommendations Prepared

for the Committee on Pre-College Philosophy.

http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/DEXadobe.PDF

Bers, Trudy. “Assessing the Achievement of General Education Objectives: A College-

Wide Approach.” JGE: The Journal of General Education, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2000.

Campbell, Jennifer; Smith, David and Ross Brooker. “From Conception to Performance:

How Undergraduate Students Conceptualize and Construct Essays.” Higher

Education 36: 449-469, 1998.

Cargill, Kim and Beth Kalikoff. “Linked Psychology and Writing Courses Across the

Curriculum.” JGE: The Journal of General Education, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2007.

Facione, PA, Sanchez (Giancarlo) CA, Facione, NC, and J Gainen. “The Disposition

Toward Critical Thinking.” Journal of General Education. Vol. 44, No.1. 1-25,

1995.

Fitts, Karen. “Ideology, Life Practices, and Pop Culture: So Why is This Called Writing

Class?” JGE: The Journal of General Education, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2005.

Flateby, Teresa. “Maximizing Campus Responsibility for the Writing Assessment

Process.” About Campus, January-February 2005.

Giancarlo, Carol Ann and Peter A. Facione, “A Look Across Four Years at the

Disposition Toward Critical Thinking Among Undergraduate Students.” JGE:

18 The Journal of General Education, Vol 50., No. 1, 2001.

Halpern, Diane F. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Critical Thinking Instruction.” JGE:

The Journal of General Education, Vol. 50., No. 4, 2001.

Ishler, Jennifer L. Crissman, “Laying the Foundation for General Education: The Role of

First-Year and Short Seminars.” JGE: The Journal of General Education, Vol.

52, No 2., 2003.

Kelly-Riley, Diane. “Washington State University Critical Thinking Project: Improving

Student Learning Outcomes Through Faculty Practice.” Assessment Update, Vol

15. No. 4. July-August 2003.

Kerrigan, Seanna and Sukhwant Jhaj. “Assessing General Education Capstone Courses:

An In-Depth Look at a Nationally Recognized Capstone Assessment Model.”

peerReview, Spring 2007.

Krause, Kerri-Lee, “Supporting First-Year Writing Development Online.” JGE: The

Journal of General Education, Vol 55, Nos. 3-4, 2006.

Lampert, Nancy. “Critical Thinking Dispositions as an Outcome of Undergraduate

Education”. JGE: The Journal of General Education, Vol., 56, No. 1, 2007.

Lavelle, Ellen and Nancy Zuercher. “The Writing Approaches of University Students.”

Higher Education 42: 373-391, 2001.

Tetreault, Mary Kathryn and Terrel Rhodes. “Institutional Change as Scholarly Work:

General Education Reform at Portland State University,” JGE: The Journal of

General Education, Vol 53, No. 2, 2004.

Torrance, Mark; Thomas, Glyn V. and Elizabeth J. Robinson. “Individual Differences in

Undergraduate Essay-Writing Strategies: A Longitudinal Study.” Higher

19 Education 39: 181-200, 2000.

Turner, Haley C.; Bliss, Stacy L., Briana Hautau, Erin Carroll, Kathryn E. Jaspers, and

Robert L. Williams. “Brief Daily Writing Activities and Performance On Major

Multiple Choice Exams.” JGE: The Journal of General Education. Vol. 55, Nos.

3-4, 2006.

Tsui, Lisa. “Faculty Attitudes and the Development of Students’ Critical Thinking.” JGE:

The Journal of General Education, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2001.

Wilner, Arlene. “Fostering Critical Literacy: The Art of Assignment Design. New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 103, Fall 2005.

20 FYS Fall 2007

Overview Staffing In Fall 2007, an all-time high number of 34 sections were offered (the previous high had been 33 sections in Fall 2006), with an average of 18.4 students per section. Of that 34, 22 sections were taught by full-time faculty, 3 by full-time staff, and 9 by part-time faculty. Because of scheduling difficulties inherent in offering all sections at the same time, we moved to three separate times for FYS—11:00am (16 sections), 12:00pm (14 sections), and 1:00pm (3 sections). Four instructors (three full-time and one part-time) taught 2 sections each and one full-time instructor taught 3 sections.

Peer Mentoring The Peer Mentor Program was implemented with peer mentors in two FYS sections in 2004. In 2007, we recruited 13 peer mentors (up from 11 the previous year but still not meeting our goal of 15). We were pleased with the informal comments from the peer mentors and instructors involved in the program.

Instructor Teams These teams of 5-6 FYS faculty members, made up of a mixed group of experienced and new instructors, were implemented in Fall 2006 as a means of encouraging better communication among FYS instructors once the semester begins. The teams were required to meet at least four times during the semester. Some teams met more than that. Unfortunately, most teams met less than the required number of times.

The FYS games Although the instructor who oversaw the FYS games resigned in July and several key aspects of the program that had been planned for (i.e. a kick-off carnival) did not happen, participation nevertheless increased dramatically in the second year of the program.

FYS survey A paper survey was administered in the last two weeks of class with an 87% return rate. The significant change this year was asking a different set of questions. The First Year subcommittee of the General Education Committee determined that the consistent set of questions administered from 1998-2006 showed only minor fluctuations in results. So, the committee decided to administer those survey questions on a recurring basis (every three years) and to ask a different set of questions for Fall 2007 to provide information that was deemed to be missing in the big picture. The committee has not yet decided whether the 2007 questions provide useful information. The results are summarized below.

Overview The new questions for the survey focused more on the social aspects of FYS and the college transition than previous surveys. The responses were encouraging overall, but two areas were singled out for greater attention in 2008: 29% of respondents said that their section participated "Not at All" in special events, trips or speakers and 31% of respondents said that their section participated "Not at All" in the FYS games. This is significant in light of the fact that 87% of respondents reported that "unique experiences" (a question from the original survey) had a very positive or somewhat positive impact on their FYS experience, so clearly the games and the other opportunities are an important aspect of FYS. When we look at the three year trend on this question, we see that the year we offered all FYS section at the same time (2005) we had more sections involved in special events and activities. Unfortunately, as we increased the number of sections, we can no longer find enough classrooms at a single common time. The committee wants to investigate other ways this can be emphasized.

Another area that concerned the committee is that fact that 10% of respondents said that they would be "Not at all Likely" to seek out their instructor for help if they were having academic problems and 19% of respondents said that they would be "Not at all Likely" to seek out their instructor for help if they were having social or personal problems.

Survey particulars Question % responding very important or % responding not at all somewhat important important How important has the student community in your 74% 3% FYS section been to your experience at Carroll this fall? % responding very well or % responding not at all well somewhat well How well do you feel you know your classmates? 76% 1% How well do you feel you know your instructor? 84% 3% % responding very likely or % responding not at all somewhat likely likely If you were having an academic problem at 72% 10% Carroll, how likely is it that you would seek out your FYS instructor for assistance? If you were having a social or personal problem at 46% 19% Carroll, how likely is it that you would seek out your FYS instructor for assistance? % responding more than 4 or 3-4 % responding not at all How many special events, trips, or speakers did 33% 29% you experience with your class? % responding to a great extent or % responding not at all to some extent Did you class participate in the FYS games? 39% 31% % responding very positive or % responding very negative somewhat positive How did the unique experiences you had in FYS 87% 4% (the games, speakers, trips, community service, etc.) affect your FYS experience?

The question about special events in FYS is a question we have asked before. How many special events, trips, or speakers did you More than 4 3-4 2 1 Never/ experience with your class? none 2005 17% 23% 19% 21% 20% 2006 5% 24% 24% 17% 30% 2007 8% 25% 22% 16% 29%

Once again, several survey questions addressed the use of Peer Mentors in the FYS class:

Question 2005 2006 2007 How did your peer mentor 75% responded positive or 70% responded positive Not asked impact your FYS experience? very positive or very positive Having a Peer Mentor in the 74% responded very 67% responded very 69% responded very class was… helpful or helpful helpful or helpful helpful or helpful Meeting outside of class with 64% responded very 58% responded very 50% responded very the Peer Mentor was… helpful or helpful helpful or helpful helpful or helpful The Peer Mentor’s class 54% responded very 64% responded very 67% responded very presentation(s) were… helpful or helpful helpful or helpful helpful or helpful Do you recommend having a 77% said Yes 75% said Yes Not asked Peer mentor for all sections?

Senior Survey This year, for the first time, the senior survey was administered in spring. There were several FYS- related questions on this survey as well as written comments. Unfortunately, the response rate was disappointingly low (for more information see the section on the Senior Survey in the Institutional Assessment Report).

Overview The thing that was particularly apparent from this survey is that students who had a negative FYS experience in their first semester remain bitter about it throughout their college career. There was one question that invited comments: How did FYS help you with your academic career? Several responses referenced one particular FYS course offered in fall 2004 by an instructor who was not rehired.

Survey particulars The written comments regarding FYS were evaluated as mostly positive, mostly negative or neutral. Of the 48 total responses to the questions about FYS, 25 were mostly positive, 15 were mostly negative and 8 were deemed neutral. This gives us 52% positive responses of those who chose to respond. Some of these were very positive as the following excerpts indicate: • Eased the transition of finding and making friends, being introduced to college-level work, overall understanding of the academic experience and process. . . • Made a learning community and a comfortable place (for freshmen) • I had a great professor that really pushed us to develop both our writing and our oral presentation skills • It helped me use the resources offered in the library with more comfort and it gave me lots of tools to help my writing • FYS exposed me to college writing and gave me a place to ask "freshman" questions without feeling stupid. . .also my prof made sure to expose us to extra things going on around campus

There was one other question in the senior survey regarding FYS: Do you still have friends from FYS? 38% said yes, 62% said no.

The FYS Portfolio Review One of the goals of the First Year subcommittee of the General Education Committee this year was to develop a new rubric for writing. This rubric was then used as the basis for an FYS portfolio review which is intended to give us some benchmarks and indicate areas for future improvement. 100 names were randomly selected and 90 portfolios were reviewed by a group of 4 instructors with experience teaching English 170 and other English courses. Two of them also had FYS teaching experience. The rubric can be found in Appendix C.

Overview The four areas identified on the rubric (argument and structure, content and focus, grammar and syntax, convention and citation) were rated on 6 point scales with a 1 as the lowest possible score and 6 as the highest possible scores. Each portfolio was read by two readers, and, if the scores differed by more than 1 point, the portfolio went to a third reader. The highest average score, 4.4 overall, was in the area of grammar and syntax. The lowest average score, a 3.2, was in the area of argument and structure. In discussion after the grading, graders speculated that part of the problem that students seemed to have with creating a strong argument might lie with the assignments themselves, some of which did not seem to lend themselves to good arguments. Although the assignments were not available to view, the group suggested that additional training be offered to the FYS instructors on crafting good assignments. This is on the agenda for the annual FYS retreat for fall 2008 FYS instructors and will be an area of instruction targeted for improvement in 2008.

Portfolio review particulars Rubric area Average overall score argument and structure 3.2 31% rated as adequate 16% rated as good or compelling content and focus 3.8 38% rated as adequate 29% rated as good or compelling grammar and syntax 4.4 42% rated as adequate 47% rated as good or masterful convention and citation 3.4 33% rated as adequate 22% rated as good or superior

These results give the FYS faculty some very specific goals to work towards for the next portfolio review.

BCSSE The First Year subcommittee of the General Education Committee spent time in 2006-2007 looking at several first year surveys. Ultimately, the committee recommended to the Assessment committee that we use the YFCY in the same year we administer the CIRP and the BCSSE in the same year we administer NSSE. Because 2007-2008 was a year already scheduled for the NSSE (spring), the BCSSE (Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement) was administered the first week of fall classes to 300 students in paper form with a 100% response rate. Institutional results were made available in the fall and comparison results were made available in spring. In fall 2008, direct comparisons of the BCEES and NSSE will be made available.

Overview The BCSSE results were extremely interesting. Unfortunately, because the General Education Committee was deeply involved in planning for the revision of Carroll's General Education Program, the First Year subcommittee of the General Education Committee was unable to spend time analyzing and discussing the results at any length. However, the group did find the comparison data particularly interesting. While we are aware from the previous offering of the NSSE that Carroll students tend to rank below the national average on most of the key indicators of engagement, what we did not realize is that Carroll students tend to come to college with below- average scores in many key areas affecting engagement. It is clear from the results that this is most notable in first generation college students and Carroll has more of these students than average: 57% of Carroll students report that neither parent graduated from a four year institution. The average of all institutions is 39% and the average at our comparable institutions is 31% (private baccalaureate) and 36% (private masters). Individual questions are broken down by gender and by first generation, and the latter is clearly a highly significant factor in the overall lower engagement scores.

Some survey particulars Engagement clusters Item Carroll students All private baccalaureate students Student perception that they engaged in educationally relevant 4.98 5.42 behaviors during high school Expected engagement in educationally relevant behaviors in first 5.74 6.21 year of college Student certainty that they will persist in the midst of difficult 6.96 7.16 circumstances

What does this tell us? Our students are coming in less engaged in high school and expecting to be less engaged in college; they are also less confident that they will persist. This is much more true of incoming male students than female students, but the difference is most marked with first generation college students who report to a highly significant degree that they are less engaged in high school and less likely to persist in the face of difficulty.

Student academic preparation and behaviors Item Carroll students All private baccalaureate students Students reporting they took 4 years of Math in H.S. 66% 73% . . .took 4 years of history/social science in H.S. 46% 63% . . .did very much or quite a bit of the assigned reading in H.S. 58% 67% . . .did very much or quite a bit writing (short papers) in H.S. 67% 71% . . .did very much or quite a bit writing (long papers) in H.S. 25% 29% . . .studied more than 10 hours a week in H.S. 20% 36% . . .worked between 6 and 25 hours a week in H.S. 57% 36% . . .asked questions in class very often or often in H.S. 67% 77% . . .discussed grades or assignments with the teacher very often or 41% 51% often in H.S. . . . worked with other students on projects in class very often in 9% 17% H.S. . . .worked with other students on projects out of class very often or 20% 31% often in H.S. . . .had serious conversations with students of a different race or 37% 50% ethnicity very often or often in H.S . . .had serious conversations with students who are very different 39% 52% in terms of religious, political, or personal values very often or often in H.S . . .discussed ideas from reading or class with teachers outside of 16% 31% class very often or often in H.S . . .discussed college or career plans with a counselor very often or 46% 58% often in H.S

It is clear from the above figures that Carroll students come in working more than the average, studying less, taking less math and significantly less history/social science than their counterparts. Additionally, they are less like to do the reading, discuss ideas and work on projects with other students. They also have less experience interacting with students who are different from themselves. And they have less experience interacting with their teachers outside of class. Again, these differences are even more pronounced among first generation college students.

Work of the FYP sub-committee of the General Education Committee • The committee developed a new writing rubric, planned and executed a portfolio review. • The committee decided upon new survey questions and discussed the results, as well as the results of the BCSSE. • The committee discussed ways to internationalize FYS. Ideas were gathered from the larger Carroll community and discussed. • The committee discussed the implementation of FYS Living/Learning Communities.

New for Fall 2008 • We have one global FYS that is exploring ways to make connections to students in other countries. It is hoped that some models can be developed for future FYS classes. • We have planned two FYS Living/Learning Communities.

Goals for the FY sub-committee for 2007-2008: • The committee will implement a new portfolio review and develop a new writing rubric. Status: completed • The committee will develop new survey questions. Status: completed • The committee will conduct an audit of FYS syllabi to ensure that all posted syllabi meet the FYS and general college requirements and to determine how much variation there really is in terms of meeting the FYS student learning outcomes. Status: on hold because of Gen Ed revisions. • The FYP sub-committee will continue to assess and address the perceived areas of weakness as indicated by the FYS survey. Status: on-going

Goals for the FY sub-committee for 2008-2009: • Develop a rubric for collaborative work. • Explore ways to create meaningful and authentic assessment of oral communication and collaborative work at the program level. • Continue to explore new models for FYS. • Provide support for instructors as we try to address some of the perceived weaknesses identified in the portfolio review. • Join in a wider discussion about BCSSE/NSSE results and identify strategies for addressing some key areas of concern.

Appendix A FYS Goals Writing FYS will facilitate student development of written arguments. Learning Objectives: Upon successful completion of FYS, the student will be able to… • Demonstrate an awareness of writing as a process by working through the stages from planning through completion. • Develop an arguable position and support that position with evidence.

Critical Reading FYS will facilitate student development of skills that will enable students to read and comprehend texts in a variety of styles and varying levels of complexity. Learning Objectives: • Upon successful completion of FYS, the student will be able to… • Read a text closely, annotate that text, and accurately summarize key information presented in that text. • Use the text as a source for class discussion, including asking and answering thought and idea-provoking questions (as opposed to detail/fact questions). • Use the text as a source for written work, including evaluating the text, placing the text within the context of other course texts, and reflecting upon the text.

Oral Communication FYS will facilitate development of skills that will increase student comfort level in oral communication. Learning Objectives: Upon successful completion of FYS, the student will be able to… • Participate in class discussion actively and responsibly. • Prepare and give a presentation, giving attention to effective use of voice, body and language. • Keep the audience actively involved in the presentation. Collaborative Work FYS will facilitate development of skills that will enable the student to work effectively as part of a small group. Learning Objectives: Upon successful completion of FYS, the student will be able to… • Participate actively and responsibly as a member of a small group. • Develop an awareness of group dynamics. • Recognize problems and seek solutions through compromise and conflict resolution.

Information Literacy FYS will facilitate development of skills necessary for effective use of information sources. Learning Objectives: Upon successful completion of FYS, the student will be able to… • Use appropriate technology to solve information problems • Execute online database searches to find information appropriate for academic work • Find, evaluate and effectively use information sources. • Develop an appreciation of the research process from the development of research questions to the completion of course-specific projects.

Appendix B FYS Survey

1) What is your section?

2) How important has the student community in your FYS section been to your experience at Carroll this fall? Very important, somewhat important, not very important, not at all important

3) How well do you feel you know your classmates? Very well, somewhat well, a little, not at all

4) How well do you feel you know your instructor? Very well, somewhat well, a little, not at all

5) If you were having an academic problem at Carroll, how likely is it that you would seek out your FYS instructor for assistance? Very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, not at all likely

6) If you were having a social or personal problem at Carroll, how likely is it that you would seek out your FYS instructor for assistance? Very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, not at all likely

7) How many times did you meet with your instructor outside of class? More than 4, 3-4, twice, once, not at all

8) How many special events, trips, or speakers did you experience with your class? More than 4, 3-4, twice, once, not at all

9) Did you class participate in the FYS games? To a great extent, to some extent, hardly at all, not at all

10) How did the unique experiences you had in FYS (the games, speakers, trips, community service, etc.) affect your FYS experience? Very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, very negative

Did you have a peer mentor in your class? If so, please answer the following questions:

11) Having a peer mentor in class was 12) Meeting outside of class with the peer mentor was 13The peer mentor's class presentations were Very helpful, helpful, neutral, not very helpful, not at all helpful

Appendix C FYS Essay Scoring Argument and structure Essay uses as its organizing principle a strong clear thesis or point that makes a debatable claim about its subject. This claim is developed through a logical progression of ideas and makes explicit connections between the thesis and supporting materials. The author employs strong clear supporting materials drawn from a variety of texts and/or experience/observation. Author considers and engages alternate or opposing points of view and establishes ideas within a larger context.

3.2 1 (9.1%) 2 (21.7%) 3 (22.2 %) 4 (30.9%) 5 (14.0%) 6 (1.9%) Argument is: Nonexistent Minimal Marginal Adequate Good Compelling

Content and focus Author's focus is clear and consistent throughout. Essay demonstrates thorough and nuanced understanding of subject. Essay demonstrates some analysis of concepts central to argument. Not only are ideas explained and placed in a larger context, but ideas build upon and deepen argument. Essay offers satisfying introduction and conclusion.

3.8 1 (2.4%) 2 (13.5%) 3 (17.4%) 4 (37.7%) 5 (25.6%) 6 (3.4%) Content is: Inadequate Minimal Marginal Adequate Good Compelling Grammar and Syntax Author's statements are clear and logical. Ideas are communicated effectively and efficiently. Essay is free from egregious errors in spelling, sentence structure and word choice. Sentences are varied in form and length and appropriate to the material. Essay demonstrates a knowledge of appropriate mechanical and grammatical conventions and shows signs of proofreading.

4.4 1 (0%) 2 (1.4%) 3 (9.1 %) 4 (42.0%) 5 (46.4%) 6 (0.9%) Grammar is: Incomprehensible Unacceptable Marginal Adequate Good Masterful

Convention and citation Essay demonstrates revision of form and content over drafts. Author not only uses sources accurately and fairly but engages with sources material to strengthen argument. Author makes an effort to place source material into an appropriate context. Sources are accurately cited. Author demonstrates an awareness of audience and a consideration of what readers might want or need to know.

3.4 1 (14.9%) 2 (13.5%) 3 (15.9 %) 4 (33.3%) 5 (19.3%) 6 (2.9%) Convention is: Inadequate Minimal Marginal Adequate Good Superior Writing Seminar Assessment and Year End Report: 2007-2008

Holistic Scoring:

As part of the ongoing assessment of ENG 140/170, this year marked the second installment of the biannual, holistic scoring of student essays—first created and completed in May 2006 (for the 2005-2006 AC). This process is designed to assess the course’s work toward accomplishing the second main goal: that of academic argumentation.

Summary and Procedure Overview: Similar to the first assessment, the basic procedure was as follows:

• Five names were randomly selected from EACH section of ENG 170 during the Fall semester and faculty were asked to submit an ungraded, unmarked copy of the final essay draft from that student’s academic argument assignment. • These essays were submitted to the director and assigned a number sequence which removed any/all marks which might have identified either the student or the section from which the essay came. • All instructors complied with the request and submitted their essays, which resulted in a pool of 80 essays (reduced from the previous sampling size). Unlike the first HS, this year we didn not include tracking essays from FYS but we did, for the first time, include essays from ENG 140. • On Monday May 12, seven instructors (three fulltime faculty, and four adjuncts) met to read and score the essays • To begin the scoring procedure, instructors were “normed” by reading the scoring rubric created after the previous HS session, and then as a group we read two “live” essays and discussed our scories of them. The group fell into close alignment immediately. • During the assessment session, each essay was read by two instructors (neither of whom could be the student’s instructor) and each reader assigned a score corresponding to the 1-6 norming scale. Neither instructor knew how the other reader had scored the essay. • In compiling composite scores for each essay (the sum of the two readers’ scores) any essay which had been given noncontiguous scores (i.e., a 2 and a 4, 1 and 3, etc…) was read by a third reader whose score settled the discrepancy. Therefore, in reading the attached table of composite scores, all scores are the combined result of only contiguous scores (i.e. a 7 can only be the result of an essay having been given a 3 and a 4, not a 5 and a 2, or 6 and 1). • The entire reading session lasted from approximately 12:30 to 3:20, after which faculty informally reflected on any anecdotal impressions

Raw Scores and Results: 2008 Scoring results--Cumulative: SCORE: # of Essays Percentage 2 0 0% 3 0 0% 4 9 12% 5 5 7% 6 10 13% 7 20 27% 8 13 17% 9 11 15% 10 6 8% 11 0 0% 12 1 1% Total 75 99%

ENG 140 Essay Scores: SCORE: # of Essays Percentage 2 0 0% 3 0 0% 4 5 24% 5 3 14% 6 2 10% 7 5 24% 8 4 19% 9 2 10% 10 0 5% 11 0 0% 12 0 0% Total 21 99%

Comparison Data with 2006 results—2006 Statistics in ( ) SCORE: # of Essays Percentage 2 0 (2) 0% (1%) 3 0 (6) 0% (4%) 4 9 (10) 12% (6%) 5 5 (18) 7% (11%) 6 10 (23) 13% (14%) 7 20 (34) 27% (21%) 8 13 (24) 17% (15%) 9 11 (20) 15% (12.5%) 10 6 (12) 8% (7.5%) 11 0 (8) 0% (5%) 12 1 (3) 1% (2%) > 7 51/40 (101) 68%/74% (63%)

Summary of Impressions Overall the results of the assessment were both promising and telling about the state of work, exclusively the academic argument assignment, being produced in Writing Seminar sections. If we use the composite score of 7 as the “average” mid point, we see that 68% of ALL students score at or above this point, which is up from the 63% in 2006. Considering that the bulk of scores below this point come from essays produced in ENG140, the increase is even more impressive. If we remove the ENG 140 scores from the percentages, then we see that 74% of total ENG 170 essays scored at or above the average of "7", an increase of 11%. Not only does this seem to indicate successful improvements in the delivery of the course’s new goals since the last installment, it also seems that overall if three-quarters of the students are at or above average, then the course is succeeding. (This well exceeds the goals stated in the 2006 assessment report: “As a goal to raise expectations, set 70% as the goal for next year’s students scoring at or above a “7.”

Two points of concern again remain constant from the 2006 report: we still have a sizeable amount of essays scoring at the very bottom of the range (<6) and a less than sufficient amount of essays scoring in the very highest range (10+). See below for 08-09 goals meant to address these facts.

Reflections and Conclusions for 08-09: Based on all of the above data, I believe the ENG 170 faculty as well as the FYE Subcommittee of Gen Ed need to explore several issues/questions during the coming academic year. I believe the following points should be addressed:

• Begin a discussion exploring why the diverse scoring range for ENG 140 essays. The amount of essays scoring at comparable levels to those in ENG 170 would seem to indicate that those students who scored so successfully after just 140 either improved at a greater than expected rate or perhaps were misplaced in ENG 140 to begin with. I would hope to continue previous discussions with Admissions and Ellen Barclay to see what aspects of the placement might need to be addressed.

• Begin to work with faculty to see what improvements can be made to reach those students scoring in the lowest range of the assessment scale. Likely we might see what relationships might be possible between these students and the Writing Center support system. I would like to speak with Ellen, Susan Nusser, and any new Student Support/Learning Commons staff interested in reaching out to these lower-scoring students.

• Similarly, because the Writing Center and Learning Commons are equally able and interested in serving high-achieving students, I would like to host similar discussions with Susan Nusser and Learning Commons staff about ways we might be able to reach out to the students scoring at the highest range of the scale, yet not at the upper most range of the scale. I believe given the bulk of students in the middle, it is likely that we can aim for a more sizable increase in essays scoring 10+ in future holistic readings. While some of this can be achieved in isolation, meaning just through continued attention to ramping up ENG 170 expectations with instructors, some might require outside venues to buttress the work being done in the class. Learning Commons May 31, 2008 2008 Institutional Assessment Report Allison M. Reeves Associate Library Director & Learning Commons Director Learning Commons: Year Three 2007-2008

Mission: The mission of the Learning Commons (LC) is to promote excellence by providing academic support to currently enrolled students wanting to develop higher-level learning competencies to achieve their academic goals and become life long learners.

LC Renovation Project: Dr. Hastad graciously selected the LC as the focus for his May 2007 inauguration donations. I worked with Debra Jenkins, Josie de Hartog, Karla Strand, Susan Heffron, Laura Grace Peek in planning sessions during the summer of 2007. Three goals were identified for this project: a permanent LC desk, access to an existing storage room off the LC and new lighting. Once goals were set, I continued to work with Debra Jenkins and Josie de Hartog to find contractors and facilitate the project. 1. Desk - A permanent LC desk was identified as an important fixture for the LC. It provides an obvious point of customer service and a way to observe the entire area. a. A custom desk was built and installed during Fall Break 2007 by Buckstaff. The LC desk features a counter height customer service area, an ADA accessible area and built in drawers for storage. The desk easily accommodates two student workers with the option of adding a third person at the ADA desk. 2. Storage Room – The LC Desk circulates textbooks, laptops, dry erase boards and markers and other supplies to subject tutors, writing assistants and SI Leaders. The project was completed in August of 2007. This room securely houses our laminating and binding machines, tutor laptops and all LC related items. a. Campbell Construction was hired in June 2008 to renovate the storage room. A doorway was cut into the room giving access to the LC. A new door was installed, new lighting, new flooring and the room was painted. b. Physical Plant (under the direction of Sodexho) installed new locks on both storage room doors and a threshold in the new doorway. 3. Lighting – The lower level of the library housed the periodical collection until the summer of 2006. Existing lighting reflects this past use with rows of bright fluorescent lights that were installed in the 1970's. Some of the lighting was updated with new fixtures during the library's 1999/2000 renovation to make room for study tables but the room at large remains unwelcoming with harsh lighting in warm and cool tones. The lighting phase of the project involves three contractors and will not be completed until July 15, 2008. a. Lynn Howard of LMH Lighting was hired in August of 2008 to develop and design a lighting plan with input from our planning committee. Her responsibilities include selecting fixtures, providing a cut sheet, estimating material costs, revising the plan, working with electrical contractors. At this point, she makes all decisions regarding the lighting plan in working with Pieper Power.

8/29/2008 Reeves 1 b. Pieper Power was hired in the spring of 2008 by Ken Lesnik. Pieper Power is contracted to remove old fixtures and order and install new fixtures as dictated by Lynn Howard's design by July 15th. c. Lakeside painting was hired in April 2008 by Ken Lesnik to patch and paint the ceiling after old fixtures were removed and before new fixtures were installed. This phase of the project should be completed by June 4, 2008.

LC Furniture: An additional wall mounted white board was added to the LC area in August of 2007. Four additional white boards, four soft chairs and two couches were purchased at the end of spring semester to accommodate increased student traffic.

Technology: Laptops Tutors (subject tutors, writing assistants and SI Leaders) checked out the 6 laptops on reserve at the LC desk 909 times during the academic year. The Kurzweil laptop circulated 33 times to students identified by Andrea Broman, Disability Coordinator. A request was sent to the Budgeting Committee/ITS for 40 additional laptops to circulate to students within the library. Ten laptops were granted and this service will be available at the end of August 2008.

An AV cart complete with projector and desk top set up was purchased to provide support for LC workshops and Library events.

Website The LC website is updated on a daily/weekly basis and provides information on LC services. Work on a new design has started with Terri Serio and the campus Web Committee.

Tutor Training: Fall 2007 All subject tutors (includes nursing tutors) and math tutors were required to attend a 2-hour tutor training session scheduled for 9/14/08 or 9/15/08. An in–house tutor manual was created and distributed to participants and topics focused on campus diversity, FERPA, services of WYC, client’s self esteem, learning styles and tutor strategies. The training session was facilitated by me, Heather Evans (Director of Math Help Center) and Brittany Bayer (former writing assistant/Library ½ time supervisor). SI Leaders and Writing Assistants were trained separately for the fall 2007 semester.

A subject tutor meeting was held on 10/21/07 to address concerns and generate feedback regarding the program. Directors of the Writing Center, Math Help Center and SI ran meetings independent of the LC.

Spring 2008 In an effort to combine training opportunities and streamline workflow, a decision was made to offer tutor (SI Leaders, writing assistants, math tutors, nursing tutors and subject tutors) training to all by providing several opportunities though out the

8/29/2008 Reeves 2 semester for enrichment. Separate meetings continued for math tutors, writing assistants and SI Leaders. • March - Roger Smith, Assistant Director of Cultural Diversity, led two workshops on tips for public speaking. • March – Margaret Kasimatis, Assistant Professor Psychology, led a workshop on how to resolve conflict within a group of students. • April - Jennifer Maney, Director of Career Services, led two sessions on leadership skills.

*Two history tutors participated in SI spring training to prepare them to facilitate a conversation hour for international students.

LC Student Employees: Fall 2007 LC Desk: Eleven students were hired to work at the LC Desk. Hours were set as follows: 9am to 8pm M-R, 9am to 1pm Friday, and 5 to 9pm on Sunday. At the end of fall semester, 2 students didn't indicate and interest in returning and 2 students were dismissed for falsifying time sheets.

Tutors: • Math Help Center – 10 math tutors covering 47 hours a week • Subject tutors – 10 tutors (4 - ACC 100 through 206; 1 - CHE 101, 109, 203; 1 - BIO 150, 250, 260 + environmental science; 1 - ECO 212; 2 - MUS 111, 113, 211, 213; 1 - POL 275) • Supplemental Instruction – 20 leaders (BIO 130, BIO 150, CHE 101, PHY 101) • Writing Center – 11 writing assistants covering 36 hours a week

*Chemistry hired and supervised 4 tutors for CHE 101, 109. An agreement was reached with the LC to fund an additional tutor selected by the CHE faculty. *HNP Coordinator Dee Dee Wallace hired and supervised 5 tutors for HSC 300, NUR 230, 236, 416 *MLA hired and supervised 1 French tutor

Fall Subject Tutor Statistics – Statistics from the Math Help Center, SI and the Writing Center will be included in a separate report.

Tutor-Client Record FA '07

Visits Course Repeated Visits Accounting: 38 ACC 205 28 14 ACC 206 8 1 ACC 207 0 Totals: 53 36 8/29/2008 Reeves 3 Biology: 1 BIO 150 0

Totals: 1 0 Chemistry: 22 CHE 0 17 CHE 101 6 43 CHE 109 20 10 CHE 203 0 Totals: 92 26 Concert Choir: 2 Concert Choir 0 Totals: 2 0 Economics: 62 ECON 212 53 Totals: 62 53 Environmental Science: 1 ENV 120 0 Totals: 1 0 French: 1 French 0 6 FRE 201 4 1 FRE 301 0 Totals: 8 4 Music: 3 MUS 0 1 MUS 111 0 1 MUS 113 0 10 MUS 211 8 Totals: 15 8 Nursing: 9 NRS 230 4 33 NRS 236 24 5 NRS 300 0 Totals: 47 28 Physics: 7 PHY 203 6 Totals: 7 6 Spanish: 2 SPA 201 1 8/29/2008 Reeves 4 Totals: 2 1

Total Visits: 290 Total Repeated 162 Visits:

Spring 2008 LC Desk: In response to student requests, hours for Sundays were adjusted. The LC Desk opened at 4pm and closed at 8pm. Five new students were added to the schedule. One student quit mid semester because of a conflict with a second campus job, two expressed no interest in returning, one transferred and three graduated.

Tutors: • Math Help Center – 9 math tutors covering 53 hours a week • Subject tutors – 10 tutors (3 - ACC 100 through 206; 1 - CHE 101, 102, 110, 204; 2 - BIO 160, 250, 252, 260 + environmental science; 1 - ECO 212; 1 – French; 2 – international student conversation facilitators) • Supplemental Instruction – 17 leaders (Bio 140, BIO 160, CHE 101 & 102, PHY 102) • Writing Center – 10 writing assistants covering 36 hours a week

Spring Subject Tutor Statistics – Statistics from the Math Help Center, SI and the Writing Center will be included in a separate report.

Tutor-Client Record SP '08

Visits Course Repeated Visits Accounting: 2 ACC 105 1 28 ACC 205 13 10 ACC 206 6 6 ACC 208 3 Totals: 46 23 Biology: 1 BIO 160 0 1 BIO 250 0 3 BIO 260 1

8/29/2008 Reeves 5 Totals: 5 1 Chemistry: 11 CHE 102 7 1 CHE 104 0 92 CHE 110 73 1 CHE 204 0 Totals: 105 80 Communication: COM 4 207 3 Totals: 4 3 Economics: ECON 1 124 0 ECON 50 212 33 Totals: 51 33 English: 1 ENG 170 0 Totals: 1 0 French: 1 French 0 10 FRE 202 5 4 FRE 307 2 Totals: 15 7 Genetics: 1 Genetics 0 Totals: 1 0 Health Sciences: 2 HSC 300 1 Totals: 2 1 Nursing: 1 NRS230 0 10 NRS 236 4 11 NRS 416 4 Totals: 22 8 Physics: 2 Physics 0 10 PHY 102 7 Totals: 12 7 8/29/2008 Reeves 6 Sociology: 9 SOC 101 8 Totals: 9 8

Total Visits: 273 Total Repeated Visits: 171

LC Traffic: In January of 2008, students using study rooms were counted hourly and were added to the general LC count.

Counts for Library vs Learning Commons **How many patrons that enter the library go to the LC?**

2007-08 Academic Year Month Total Library Patrons Total LC Patrons Difference Percentage Sep-07 36,777 1,573 35,204 4.28% Oct-07 43,292 2,497 40,795 5.77% Nov-07 38,535 1,959 36,576 5.08% Dec-07 22,434 680 21,754 3.03% Jan-08 14,944 907 14,037 6.07% Feb-08 35,547 3,269 32,278 9.20% Mar-08 28,489 2,982 25,507 10.47% Apr-08 43,080 3,157 39,923 7.33% May-08 7,830 0 7,830 0.00% Jun-08 0 0 0 - Jul-08 0 0 0 - Aug-08 0 0 0 - TOTAL 270,928 17024 253,904 6.28%

Service to Campus: Goals for 07/08 • Dr. Hastad graciously selected the LC as the focus for his inauguration. o This project should be finished by July15, 2008 leaving a small amount of money to be spent on signage. • Provide a calendar of academic support services to faculty & students to encourage participation o An academic support calendar was created in collaboration with all LC directors, the library staff, Margaret Kasimatis, Jennifer Maney and Andrea Broman. o FYS instructors were given a draft at their May 2007 retreat o Final drafts were given to faculty, parents and new students at campus orientation sessions, all incoming freshman o Participation in workshops increased dramatically for fall semester but fell off sharply for spring semester. In the future, we will present the majority of

8/29/2008 Reeves 7 our workshops in the fall leaving the spring as a time to try out new ideas. Statistics were kept for some of the workshops and are noted below. Name of Workshop Date Time Number of Attendees Time Management Thursday, Sept 20, 2007 4‐5 pm 25 Developing Your Argument Thursday, Oct 11, 2007 4‐5 pm 17 MLA/APA Citation Thursday, Oct 18, 2007 4‐5 pm 24 11:00 Web Registration Wednesday, November 07, 2007 AM 26 Becoming A Better Math Student Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4‐5 pm 4 Developing Your Argument Thursday, February 28, 2008 4‐5 pm 0 MLA/APA Citation Thursday, March 06, 2008 4‐5 pm 0

• Apply for the first level of CRLA certification during spring semester o I attended the 2007 CRLA conference in Portland, OR o The application process for the first level of certification is now planned for summer 2008 • Update the look of the LC webpages o Assigned to work with Terri Serio by the web committee during spring semester o Plans include a basic overhaul of the website during summer 2008 • Require tutors working out of the LC to use WC Online for better data collection o Math tutors will start working with WC Online in fall 2008 o Subject tutor statistics were kept using an Excel spreadsheet • Survey LC clients mid semester to assess satisfaction o Subject tutor clients were surveyed every time they participated in a session with a general feedback form. Participants indicate high approval ratings of their tutors. Average Scores for Tutor Evaluations

The LC My tutor My tutor I would Average provided My tutor treated helped recommend score Subject an effective knew me with me LC tutors for the learning the subject respect and understand for other subject environment matter well patience the material students Accounting 4.52 4.80 4.92 4.92 4.88 4.81 Biology 4.33 5.00 4.75 4.67 4.67 4.68 Chemistry 4.98 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 Communications 5.00 4.67 5.00 4.67 5.00 4.87 Economics 4.90 4.71 4.81 4.76 4.81 4.80 English 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Physics 5.00 4.86 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.97 Average Score 4.82 4.86 4.92 4.86 4.91 for the question

8/29/2008 Reeves 8 Additional Accomplishments: • The LC received several requests during fall 2007 for ESL support. The LC is not an ESL resource but in response to student need I created a program to support international students on campus in lieu of an ESL program. Two history tutors were trained and held a weekly conversation hour to improve command of the English language through hearing, speaking and reading. Most weeks, 2 to 5 students attended the conversation hour and indicated it was a positive experience. • Mount Mary administrators visited the LC on 2/21/08. As of June 2008, Mount Mary has decided to use our library LC as the model for their proposed learning commons. I've met with the associate library director at Mount Mary and have agreed to serve as mentor. o In addition, we will host administrators in the LC from Augustana College, Rock Island IL. Attracted by the information presented in our WAAL presentation, this group contacted me for a site visit scheduled for 7/16/08. • Karla and I presented at WAAL (Wisconsin Association of Academic Librarians) on 4/17/08. The title of our presentation was Expanding the Role of the Academic Librarian and focused on what we've accomplished in the Carroll Library Learning Commons. Our model is the first such model to combine library services with academic support services. While it is fairly common to house academic support services in an academic library, we are the first library to absorb academic support services as part of our librarianship. • Hosted fellow learning assistance administrators from UW and WAICU schools in the LC on 5/13/08. A total of 34 people participated and the group agreed to organize more formally and adopted the name Wisconsin Learning Assistance Network (WLAN).

Future Service to Campus: Goals for 08/09 • Successfully finish the LC renovation project • Expand the conversation hour program to support international students for fall 2008 • Finish applying for the first level of CRLA certification by December 2008. • Organize a large scale tutor training conference scheduled for 8/29/08. o Participants will include SI Leaders, writing assistants, math tutors, nursing tutors, HNP mentors, nursing mentors, FYS mentors and subject tutors.

8/29/2008 Reeves 9 Carroll College Writing Center Report on 2006-2007 academic year.

May 15, 2008

Accomplishments 2007-2008:

Physical Space

The Writing Center has little control over the physical space in the Learning Commons. This past year, we made use of the large alcove on the other side of the Assistant Library Director's office, and have subsequently recommended that some kind of soundproofing be installed to both contain the sound the workshops, and to muffle the noise from the HVAC system overhead. There were problems on and off all year with wireless connectivity to the laptops. While some were tutor errors, others appear to be problems with our wireless system.

Tutor Training

Six new tutors and four returning tutors participated in our fall training. Training sessions were focused on ESL, peer-tutoring pedagogy, and the use of WC Online. Professor Julie Rapps from Natural Sciences, and Kay Maedke from the Education program offered presentations to the tutors on expectations for writing in the sciences and in education. Ongoing training continues to be a challenge because of the tutors' schedules, and because of my teaching schedule and the location of my office in MacAllister. Once again we attempted bi-weekly 7 a.m. staff meetings that, although they were well attended, were neither lively nor particularly engaged. Due to maternity leave, there were minimal staff meetings during the second semester.

One tutor took a leave from the Center in the spring and has not yet contacted me about returning in the fall.

Tutor observation has also proved challenging. After three years of intermittent requests for assistance, we finally have audio software installed on the Writing Center laptops that will enable students to create audio files that can be transferred either to my computer or to disc so that I can listen to and evaluate their tutoring.

In the fall, three tutors presented their paper: "At the Crossroads: The Writing Center Moves into the Library," at the Midwest Writing Center Association's annual conference. Those tutors have graduated and none of next year's seniors have indicated a desire to prepare and present a paper at the regional conference.

This year the Writing Center saw the graduation of four of its senior tutors, two of whom have been with the center since it first opened. Of the four graduating tutors, three graduated magna cum laude, and one graduated cum laude. Additionally, this year's English Department Award was given to a writing center tutor. Of those four students, two are attending graduate school in their fields, one has been accepted at (but may not attend) law school, and the fourth is looking for a teaching job. These indicators are consistent with national research that has found that campus writing centers increase engagement and success both for the students using the center and for those students who work in the center.

Service to Students:

In 2007-2008, the Writing Center was open from 4-8 on Sundays, and 9-6, Monday through Thursday. Last year's experiment with evening hours did not prove fruitful, and so we moved back to day time hours. Overall usage in the center continues to be low, but it's not clear why. In the fall of 2007, only 11% of the center’s total available hours were used and in the spring of 2008, that dropped to 7.76%.

Usage Period Total Available Hours Percentage of Hours Used Fall 2006 958 12.12% Spring 2007 1,246 6.39% Fall 2007 106.5 11% Spring 2008 747 7.76%

The writing center may be overstaffed in relation to demand, but reducing the number of tutors creates staffing and availability problems because I would then have to shorten the Center's hours, which would make the drop-in option both unattractive and unworkable.

The increase in first semester numbers appears to reflect use of the Center by FYS students. Next fall I will be revising the way students interface with the scheduling function of WC Online. That should enable me to add an FYS indicator for class, as well as to modify the student survey.

Based on an average FTE of 2,872 students, of whom 731 are freshmen, the Writing Center served 5.1% of the total population and 12.8% of freshmen students in 2007-2008.

2006: Class standing # of students Freshman 105 Sophomore 22 Junior 16 Senior 16 Grad students 2 Staff 1 TOTAL 162

2007: Class standing # of students Freshman 94 Sophomore 23 Junior 10 Senior 10 Other 10 TOTAL 147

FTE students total # % visiting the Writing Center All Carroll students 2,872 students 5.1% Freshmen 731 12.8%

Again, using data from Neal Lerner at MIT, average usage of Writing Centers is typically about 10% of the student population overall.

Percentage of students visiting the Writing Center

Category of Students 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Freshman 7.8% 13.4% 12.8% Total student body* 6.9% 5.6% 5.1% * in ’05-’06 this was calculated as undergraduates; in ’06-’07 it was calculated as FTE

Writing Center usage continues to be below national norms. While this is disturbing, the reasons for low usage are not clear. Overall, students appear to be very satisfied with the help they receive at the center. Of the 36 students who responded to a client satisfaction survey, 23 reported that they found the tutors extremely helpful, or very helpful, with 9 reporting that the tutors were at least somewhat helpful and only 3 respondents reported that the tutors were not helpful. 33 students reported that they would return, and 31 reported that they would recommend the Writing Center to other students. The 147 students who used the center created a total of 240 appointments, so the students who are using the center appear to be using it repeatedly. Nevertheless, those 240 appointments mark a significant decrease from the 373 appointments in the previous year.

It is not clear whether the group workshops that we offered this year, for which we did not track attendance, affected the usage numbers.

Submitted Surveys Period: from 2007-9-4 - to 2008-5-15

How Helpful? Return? Recommend? Aspect? 1 - 1 - 2 - 20 - mechanics 9 - Extremely Helpful 2 - No 3 - No 4 - organization 3 - Not Helpful 33 - Yes 31 - Yes 1 - pre-writing/brainstorming 9 - Somewhat Helpful 5 - sentences and clarity 14 - Very Helpful 6 - thesis and development

The following comments are typical of those students who have found the Writing Center helpful. i thought it was very helpful and i got a lot of great feedback to help me improve on my paper!

The writing help center was very helpful and I appreciate my writing assistant. (even though I forgot her name) Thanks a lot for helping students like me try to get better in my writing!!!!!!!

The two people who helped me today did a great job at going out of their way to help me. They were also willing to put time in outside of their work hours to help complete my writing assignment. They were amazing and glad to have had them to help with sentences clarity.

Dissatisfaction with the Center seems to stem from misunderstandings about what the Center can provide. Despite outreach efforts, students still expect writing tutors to correct their papers for them. There was more than one incident this year in which a student attempted to drop off for correction a paper that they had not written, or had only partially written. In the latter instance, the absence of a Writing Center policy about group work led the tutor, who was unsure about the paper's authorship, to suggest that the student return with the other members of her group.

Next year I will continue to improve the Center's outreach effort in the hopes that usage in the Center will increase. I am still concerned that the reason the center sees so little use beyond freshman year is due to a significant drop-off in writing assignments after FYS and ENG170.

Service to Faculty:

Tutor schedules continued to be a major obstacle to conducting outreach and faculty service in the 2007-2008 academic year. Due to previous failures to fulfill faculty requests for in-class tutors, requests dropped off significantly this year. We were able to fill every request we received, but did not track those numbers. Next year I will be implementing a scheduling function that allows faculty to access the Writing Center schedule and directly request a tutor to come to their class during the Writing Center's regular hours. Although we run the risk of not having tutors in the Learning Commons for drop-in hours, usage is low enough that I don't expect this to be a major problem. Using WC Online's central scheduling function will also allow me to collect data on classroom visits.

Faculty attendance at the Creating Effective Writing Assignments and Student Writing Roundtables is small, but consistent. Between 3 and 6 faculty from programs throughout the campus attended every one of the faculty sessions. Next year I hope that offering multiple times for the faculty sessions will allow those faculty with classroom or committee conflicts to attend. Additionally, Lilly Goren and I will be conducting a workshop on writing book proposals.

Informally, I continue to serve as a campus resource for advice about teaching writing, but this kind of contact is anecdotal and difficult to quantify. I expect this role to expand after I make the writing recommendations to the gen ed committee next fall, and after I provide the writing assignment training for FYS instructors.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Nusser Assistant Professor and Writing Center Director Carroll College

To: Elizabeth Towell, Vice Provost From: Karla Strand, Learning Commons Librarian and Supplemental Instruction (SI) Supervisor Date: June 9, 2008 RE: Summary Report for SI, 2007-2008 Please refer to the accompanying Excel workbook for more detailed information.

During the fall of 2007, the Carroll College Library Learning Commons ran a Supplemental Instruction (SI) program for the students in all sections of four courses in the Division of Natural and Health Sciences: Biology 130, Biology 150, Chemistry 101, and Physics 101. 17 students who had previously taken the courses and were recommended by their faculty served as SI Leaders. These Leaders were trained over two days before fall semester began. The SI Leaders began holding SI sessions during the second week of the semester. Leaders held weekly office hours in the workroom of the Learning Commons in order to meet with enrolled students and prepare for future sessions. In addition, regular meetings of all Leaders and the SI Supervisor were held throughout the semester in order to provide further support and training.

The total graded enrollment for the fall courses was 789 with 416 students participating in SI (53%). Participation rates in the individual sections ranged from 37 to 65 percent. The total number of sessions offered was 265 and the number of student contact hours totaled 2042.

The combined mean course grade for the SI participants was 2.42 as compared to 2.00 for the non-participants. The rate of D, F, and W’s in the SI participant group (20%) was lower than for the non-participant group (39%). In ten of the eleven individual sections, the data analyzed by clustered attendance (0, 1-4, 5-8, 9+ sessions attended) show that those students who participated in nine or more SI sessions received better grades than those who attended fewer or no SI sessions.

During the spring of 2008, SI was offered in all sections of Biology 140, Biology 160, Chemistry 101, Chemistry 102, and section A of Physics 102. An SI Leader couldn’t be found for section B of PHY102, so unfortunately SI was not offered in that section. The existing Leaders covered all sections except CHE101 for which one new Leader was hired. This Leader received a day-long training session and a half-day training session was held for all Leaders in January right before the beginning of the spring semester.

Again during spring semester, regular in-service trainings and meetings were held for the SI Team. At the suggestion of the SI Leaders, I worked to make the trainings more creative and fun; I invited several colleagues to our meetings to talk about their areas of expertise. For instance, Peggy Kasimatis discussed conflict resolution and Roger Smith talked about effective public speaking. I also incorporated more hands-on team-building activities into the meetings as well. I received positive feedback from the SI Team about the new format of meetings and so I will continue this in the future.

The total graded enrollment for the spring courses was over 250 with 86 students participating in SI (33%). Participation rates in the individual sections ranged from 19 to 77 percent. The total number of sessions offered was 165 and the number of student contact hours totaled 495. [Note: These figures do not include data from one section for which the data was not yet available at the time of this writing.]

The combined mean course grade for the SI participants was 2.62 as compared to 1.95 for the non-participants. The rate of D, F, and W’s in the SI participant group (11%) was lower than for the non-participant group (20%). These data indicate that those who attend SI sessions can achieve higher course grades and have lower unsuccessful enrollment rates than those who do not attend. In nine of the ten individual sections, the data analyzed by clustered attendance (0, 1-4, 5-8, 9+ sessions attended) show again that the more SI sessions a student attended, the better they scored in the course.

These data suggest that SI can make a difference in student learning. When students learn and achieve higher course grades for their learning, we know that they tend to stay in higher education at a higher rate, thus affecting retention on campus. Overall, the results for our first full year of SI were very good and show an improvement on our pilot semester. Improvements will continue to be made to the SI program at Carroll in order to assist in the success of our students.

The faculty involved in the SI program this year were enthusiastic and supportive, as was Dean Hopp and others, and so far, the faculty who will be involved in 2008-2009 have expressed excitement and encouragement that is much-appreciated. During the last year, several improvements were made to the SI program as a direct result of collaboration with other faculty across campus. For example, in order to address the difficulty that many students have with the math component of Chemistry 101, a Math Help Center Assistant sat in on a Chemistry 101 SI session this spring. While this only occurred once this year, it was well-received by students and I would like to continue this collaboration if needed in the future. Allison Reeves indicated interest in having content-area tutors invited to attend some of the SI in-service trainings during which outside guest were speaking. So during spring semester, we had Math Help Center assistants, writing assistants, and tutors join SI Leaders for these presentations. For fall training of Learning Commons Student Employees, I will collaborate with Allison Reeves, Heather Evans, Susan Nusser, and Peggy Kasimatis. This year we will all hold an initial day-long training session for all of our student employees in hopes that we can draw upon each of our strengths but also so that students will get to know one another better. This day will be paired with at least one other day of SI training for new and returning Leaders. These collaborations and improved training sessions for Leaders will certainly improve the efficiency and efficacy of the SI program.

For 2008-2009, the SI program will include Biology 130/140, Biology 150/160, Chemistry 101/102, Physics 101/102, and will expand to include Chemistry 109/110. Total enrollment in the thirteen sections is currently over 900 so the program has the potential of reaching many students. Sixteen SI Leaders from spring semester will return in the fall (two Leaders graduated in May) and will be joined by seven new Leaders. Among the returning Leaders, one student will serve as an SI Student Assistant and two will become New Leader Mentors in the fall. The New Leader Mentor program is only in its beginning stages but the goal is to have these seasoned Leaders assist new Leaders in session planning, scheduling, marketing, and more. The mentors will model positive SI Leader behavior and will assist in growing the new Leaders' knowledge and skills. The assistance of these student positions will be very helpful and will aid in the continued success of the program.

A positive reputation of the SI program has developed; students are becoming aware of the program and its benefits, not only as attendees, but as Leaders. Evidence of this can be seen on surveys distributed to students enrolled in SI courses this year: on average, students who attended SI rated their satisfaction with the SI Leaders a four of five (five being the highest).

Your support of the program is greatly appreciated. I am thankful for the opportunity to work so closely with the students and assist them in making the most of their Carroll experience.

Carroll College Math Help Center/Math Commons Report on 2007-2008 Academic Year

Accomplishments 2007-2008:

Physical Space The Math Help Center is located on the third floor of Maxon. This location does not have the exposure of a more highly trafficked area and is not wheelchair accessible. While the location has drawbacks, the adjacent director's office facilitates easy supervision and centralizes math support services for tutors, clients, and faculty in the building that houses most of the mathematics courses and instructor offices.

To attract students that could benefit from the Math Help Center, our services were publicized at student orientation, at the Summer Institute, at RA training, and on the Learning Commons website. Furthermore, the Math Help Center regularly updated the mathematics instructors so that information could be passed to their students. Along with word-of-mouth recommendations from past clients, this outreach brought in many more students than the Math Help Center saw previously in the Maxon 305 location, particularly at the start of the fall semester—on the first morning of classes there was group of students lined up outside the door.

Maxon 305 has a wall lined with windows that provide natural lighting as well as two small bulletin boards, but in general, the room is not very inviting. It has stark, empty walls, two awkwardly placed chalkboards, mismatched furniture, harsh lighting, an unfinished and exposed ceiling, and an AC unit patched with scraps of plywood and plastic. Equipment includes four computers, a printer shared with two instructors, four long tables, and cabinetry along two walls. In May, the Math Help Center received wall-mounted bookshelves, mailboxes, some general office supplies, calculators, a lock box for surveys, and supplies for maintaining our various bulletin boards and display cases.

With the dramatic increase of clients this year, usable space and the computer equipment are sometimes at or past capacity. Often, all computers are being used, and students who bring laptops are unable to connect to the network wirelessly or through LAN.

The Math Help Center has also served as a space for Ciphers Club meetings and for majors to congregate.

Tutor Training

Prior to the start of the fall semester, the Math Help Center was seriously understaffed due to an increase in service-level courses being offered and a shortage in mathematics majors that qualified for campus jobs or work-study. Previously, students were required to be majors in mathematics or a related field and to qualify for campus jobs or work-study before they could be considered for tutoring positions. They were then hired if they could obtain a faculty recommendation. Prompted by the shortage of tutors for fall, the Math Help Center adopted the Learning Commons policy that did not require students to have work-study or campus employment. Majoring in mathematics or a related field and faculty approval remained requirements. The Math Help Center was able to increase the tutors for the fall semester from five tutors to twelve weekly-scheduled tutors, allowing it to satisfy many client requests to increase early morning and evening availability. Weekly hours jumped from 44 hours in 2006- 2007 to 51 in Fall 2007 and 56 in Spring 2008.

During the first week of classes, ten potential mathematics tutors attended the two-hour Tutor Training Workshop provided by the Learning Commons. Tutors that missed training were encouraged to read through the tutor training manual and meet with the Math Help Center’s director individually. Tutors that completed training session or reviewed manual were paid at a higher hourly rate. Experienced tutors also paid a higher rate.

For additional professional development for the fall semester, tutors were encouraged to attend Learning Commons workshops on test anxiety, time management, and study skills as these are common challenges for our clients. Staff was also required to attend the Tutor Training Conference at Alverno with other Learning Commons tutors, but this requirement was waived when the conference was canceled.

Two required staff meetings/in-service training sessions were held in the fall semester, but were not well-attended. Finding a time that worked for a staff this large and not having a regularly scheduled meeting-time proved to be an ongoing challenge. The Math Help Center’s director spent considerable time accommodating the schedules of those who could not attend meetings to train them individually or in small groups.

Two freshman tutors were terminated after the fall semester after unsatisfactory reports from two mathematics faculty members. To catch problems earlier, the Center decided that math faculty would need to re-approve all tutors at midterms, and more often than that for freshman. The Math Help Center would like to continue to allow freshman to tutor as this is usually not a problem.

In the spring semester, the Math Help Center employed nine tutors. This loss was the result of two graduations and one internship. Tutors were required to attend one of six in-service training sessions either on public speaking or leadership. In addition, Math Help Center tutors were required to attend one Math Help Center staff meeting and in-service training. Attendance at meeting again was poor, so many tutors met with the director individually.

With the director’s office located adjacent to the Math Help Center, frequent, informal observations of tutoring sessions were natural. Clients seemed comfortable. Tutors for the most part seemed to be working sincerely and patiently with students and encouraging understanding through active participation from clients.

While the majority of clients using the center report that they are satisfied with the Math Help Center tutors, there are opportunities for continued growth and improvement.

Administration

This past fall, the Math Help Center was subsumed by the Learning Commons for budgeting and administrative purposes. This was a natural fit and allowed the Math Help Center to improve and standardize tutor hiring practices, share administrative responsibilities, better advertise available services, and collaborate on growing a stronger and more unified service to faculty and students.

This was the first year that tutors were required to attend tutor training to remain on Math Help Center staff. The tutors responded to this with positive and professional attitudes.

In the fall semester, the Math Help Center began formalizing hiring and usage tracking practices. New tutors were required to fill out a comprehensive employment application and contract that the Center created. Staff maintained and analyzed the Center’s usage data on an electronic spreadsheet. They also created a feedback survey for clients to complete. The Math Help Center sent updates monthly to the Academic Support Team and periodically to the Math Program faculty. In the spring semester, the Center began creating richer and more detailed analyses.

In efforts to promote the center to students that could benefit from our services, the Learning Commons website added the Math Help Center’s information. Also, the staff created a brochure for the Math Help Center.

At the end of April, the Math Help Center was able to plan in advance for the upcoming fall semester. Staff were recruited and hired. From there, tutors' weekly schedules were finalized. A comprehensive tutor-training schedule, Secrets to Success in Math Workshop, and MAT 101 review session dates were set and sent to tutors. The Center hopes this will improve attendance at training sessions and staff meetings. In conjunction with the other Learning Commons directors, Allison Reeves incorporated dates into a master calendar for the Learning Commons and will disseminate information to appropriate groups as needed.

To further unify the appearance of services, the Math Help Center was renamed the Math Commons, effective May 1, 2008.

Service to Students

The Math Help Center provides drop-in tutoring by trained peer tutors for the courses listed in the table below. If students need support in higher-level courses, they may put the request in to the Math Help Center or the Learning Commons directors. The Math Help Center director will work with mathematics faculty and the Learning Commons director to place students with a one- on-one tutor if a qualified tutor is available. The same procedure is used with the director of Outreach Programs for placing Carroll Academy tutors within the local community.

Courses Supported by the Math Help Center MAT 091/098 Mathematics Review/Pre-Algebra MAT 101 College Algebra MAT 104 Foundations of Elementary Mathematics I MAT 106 Math of the Liberal Arts MAT 112 Introduction to Statistics MAT 130 Elementary Functions MAT 140 Calculus & Its Applications MAT 160 Calculus I MAT 161 Calculus II MAT 201 Foundations of Elementary Mathematics II

In fall of 2007, the Math Help Center was able to increase hours of operation from 44 hours per week to 51 in the fall and 56 in the spring. This increase was the result of client requests to expand hours and ability to staff these hours.

Math Help Center Hours of Operation per Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Hours 06-07 9:00a-8:00p 9:00a-8:00p 9:00a-6:00p 9:00a-6:00p 9:00a-1:00p 44 FA 07 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-6:00p 8:00a-1:00p 51 SP 08 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-6:00p 56 (no 9:00-10:00) (no 9:00-10:00)

In the fall of 2007, the Math Help Center had over 265 client contacts and provided over 322 hours of tutoring during 612 hours of operation (actual numbers are slightly higher as some students chose not to sign in). This was a usage of almost 53% of available hours. This does not take into consideration that tutors commonly worked with more than one client. During downtime, tutors worked on various administrative tasks.

The Math Help Center averaged about five contacts a day with highest volume on Mondays and Wednesdays. It should also be noted that there were fewer hours of operation on Thursdays and Fridays. Courses served included: MAT 091-201 (260), MAT 210 (1), CHEM 101 (1), and CHEM 109 (1). MAT 101 had 105 contacts and MAT 130 had 60 contacts. The single section of MAT 091 (7) and four sections of MAT 101 courses offer extra credit for utilizing Math Help Center tutoring services.

In the fall, Math Help Center tutors led three review sessions for two of the MAT 101 unit exams and one session for the final exam. For probably the first time, the Math Help Center offered hours during finals week, providing students with 20 additional hours of service. These client contacts were not recorded, but the director observed at least a handful of students taking advantage of this opportunity.

In the fall, general tutor evaluation forms were posted outside of the Math Help Center for clients to provide feedback. While location of forms allowed for anonymity, the location may not have been opportune enough to solicit enough responses to draw meaningful conclusions. Only one form was submitted, and it was an outstanding review. However, more telling of client satisfaction, thirty-eight of sixty-six clients, or 58%, were repeat clients.

In the spring of 2008, the Math Help Center added five more hours per week. However, there were fewer sections of mathematics courses offered of those that the center serves, and many of these had smaller class sizes. The Center had more than 214 client contacts and provided over 371 hours of tutoring during 710 hours of operation. This is a usage of just over 52% of the available hours. Maintaining almost the same usage with fewer students taking mathematics courses suggests an increase in the percentage of students utilizing tutoring services from fall to spring. We were also able to maintain nearly the same usage percentage while increasing the hours offered per week. As improvements continue to be made, it will be interesting to compare this year’s data to respective semesters next year.

The Math Help Center averaged between 3-4 contacts most days Monday through Friday. Four clients were served during the extra two hours on Thursdays and fourteen clients were served during the extra five hours on Fridays. However, only one of these clients was served during the last hour of operation on Fridays.

Courses served for Spring 2008 include: MAT 091-201 (200), Physics 102 (2), PSY 205 (2), PSY 212 (1), BUS 314 (1). MAT 101 had the most clients with 97 contacts while MAT 160 followed with 28 contacts. The four sections of MAT 101 courses offered extra credit for utilizing Math Help Center tutoring services.

In the spring, Math Help Center tutors led three review sessions for two of the MAT 101 unit exams and two sessions for the final exam. Due to fall feedback, the Math Help Center offered 18 hours of drop-in tutoring during final’s week. Again, these contacts were not recorded, but the director observed at least a handful of students taking advantage of this opportunity. Several students expressed their thanks.

Under the direction of the Math Help Center director, two of the Math Help Center's tutors researched the challenges that many mathematics students have. These tutors then created and presented a two-part workshop on strategies for success in mathematics. This workshop was offered to students and faculty through the Learning Commons. Due to a snowstorm, one workshop date was changed. Enough people attended each week to make discussion easy. Student evaluations were positive. For a first-time offering, it went well. A more concise title, varied approach, and better advertising by faculty would improve this workshop.

A mathematics tutor assisted a physics Supplemental Instruction (SI) leader in one session per the request of the SI director. The SI group, SI leader, and math tutor reported that this was a positive experience.

In the spring, the Math Help Center tutors created its own survey for clients to evaluate their experience. Paper copies were available in the center and an electronic version was posted on our website. Signage in the Math Help Center encouraged students to participate. Six clients submitted paper surveys. Overall, respondents had a good experience. Improvements could be made in tutors welcoming clients upon arrival and in providing tutoring during peak times (no tutors were available at 9:00 on Mondays and Thursdays). Anecdotally, students continue to request more weekday hours and weekend hours. These are both issues the Center continues to address.

Math Help Center Survey Responses in Spring 2008 The tutors The tutors The tutors seemed I would demonstrated a explained sincerely recommend The tutors good knowledge things in a interested the Math helped me Course and understanding way I in helping Help Center learn Number of material. understand. me. to others. mathematics. MAT 112 4 4 3 3 4 MAT 101 4 5 5 5 5 MAT 101 5 5 5 5 5 160/161 4 4 5 5 5 Mean 4.25 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.75 Two respondents did not answer these questions

KEY: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3= Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree

What good things did you notice in the Math Help Center? Did someone or something particular standout as a helpful influence? • No not really but I have used the center often and it do help. • Not really

What could the Math Help Center do better? How do you think students would be better served? • The tutor could ask if help is needed and maybe more than one tutor in the center at every hour. • Provide Math tutors at every hour. 9:00 on Monday and Thursday. It is very hard to receive help when my only free period is 9:00am. • Have a tutor at 9:00 am on Thursdays

Because of the small amount of feedback, the Math Help Center director created another survey to administer to three of the four MAT 101 sections. Of the 37 that submitted the optional survey, twenty- two responded that they used the Math Help Center. These evaluations were still positive, but the mean was lower than the previous results. Responses may also be affected by students that only went to the Math Help Center to receive extra credit.

MAT 101 Survey Responses for Math Help Center in Spring 2008

The tutors provided The tutors I would The tutors The tutors useful information on The tutors seemed recommend asked me if I demonstrated a study techniques, test- explained sincerely The tutors the Math needed any good knowledge taking strategies, things in a interested helped me Help help when I and understanding and/or other available way I in helping learn Center to arrived. of material. resources on campus. understand. me. math. others. 3.73 3.71 3.48 3.50 3.75 3.55 4.00

For the spring semester, 28 of 54 total clients were repeat clients. Many of these repeat clients were clients that used the Math Help Center in previous semesters.

The Math Help Center has also served as a place for majors to meet for group projects and build camaraderie within the discipline as well as the meeting location for Ciphers Club.

Service to Faculty/Carroll

The director presented study strategies and marketed the Math Help Center’s services at the Summer Institute and RA training. She also served as a guest speaker on Learning Strategies and Challenges for the general tutor training, a member of the Academic Support Team, and the math liaison for the Hispanic Nursing Grant.

During the fall semester, the Math Help Center staff and its director met periodically with chemistry and physics instructors and the SI director to discuss placement criteria and how to address mathematical challenges of science students.

Goals 2007-2008:

Physical Space

The Math Commons, formerly the Math Help Center, would like to make significant improvements to Maxon 305 for 2008-2009. The addition of carpet, ceiling tiles, and a fresh color of paint will create a more inviting and comfortable place for students to tackle their mathematics.

With the growing use of technology and the increase of the hybrid MAT 098 and MAT 101 sections in the next two years, the Math Help Center will need two or more additional computers to accommodate students. It will also need a computer dedicated to maintaining the WC-Online database for tracking appointments, documenting client sessions, and reviewing client sessions. Three laptops would be ideal so we can flexibly utilize the limited space. However, several more workstations could be created by removing the unnecessary cabinetry. The room also needs wireless capabilities or additional network drops for students that bring their own laptops to the space. Currently, students are disconnecting stationary desktops to connect their own computers.

Tutor Training

The Math Commons’ tutor training will be higher quality and become more comprehensive. Conditions for employment will include attending six hours of general tutor training and three hours of math-specific training during orientation week. In addition, tutors will be required to attend two in-service training sessions and three staff meetings each semester. Training sessions will feature guest experts and focus on the skills needed to support students taking hybrid mathematics courses, content-specific study strategies, and maintaining the WC-Online database.

Tutors will reflect on sessions while documenting and reviewing them on WC-Online. This will improve tutors’ effectiveness in working with their clients.

Math Commons will encourage tutors to attend the Alverno Tutoring Conference reimburse them for fees and travel expenses.

Tutors will meet annually with math faculty and adjuncts to build rapport, align expectations, and promote our services.

A select group of mathematics tutors will be hired to work as Supplemental Learning Assistants (SLA) in MAT 098 and/or 101. While this model varies slightly from a traditional SI model, assistants will be trained in SI best practices.

Administration

Math Commons will continue to work with the Learning Commons directors on formalizing and developing uniform job descriptions, hiring, training, reporting, scheduling, and marketing procedures.

The Math Commons will use WC-Online to track and document tutoring appointments, send electronic surveys to clients, analyze data, and share data with the Academic Support Team.

The Math Commons will begin to create a director’s manual.

Service to Students

The Math Commons staff will provide higher quality tutoring to clients as a result of increased and improved training.

The Math Commons will keep close to the same hours as this past spring. While, we were unable to staff the center on Fridays from 8:00-9:00 a.m., this has not been a very popular time in the past. We will explore closing an hour earlier on Fridays and offering weekend hours.

Math Commons Hours of Operation per Week Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Hours FA 08 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 8:00a-8:00p 9:00a-6:00p 57

The Math Commons will add a review session for the MAT 101 first exam and continue to provide review sessions for second, third, and final exams. We will again offer tutor-led workshop on mathematics study skills.

Service to Faculty

Tutors will meet with math faculty and adjuncts to build report, align expectations, and promote our services.

Tutors will be available to do classroom presentations for faculty.

The Math Commons will continue to be a resource to faculty and staff though participation in the Summer Institute, RA Training, Hispanic Nursing Grant, First-Generation Grant, retention, and other similar initiatives that may arise. Tutor involvement will increase in outreach initiatives.

The Math Commons director will continue to actively participate in the Academic Support Team.

Math Commons Assessment Plan Spring 2008

The Math Commons is an extension of the Learning Commons and located in Maxon 305. The goal of the Math Commons is to provide quality support to students taking mathematics courses at Carroll College through peer tutoring, peer-led review sessions for service-level mathematics courses, and mathematical workshops.

Math Commons Mission Statement

Through the use of trained peer tutors, the Math Commons will provide students with skills and strategies that help students to improve their confidence, become independent and active learners, and achieve academic success in their mathematics coursework.

The Math Commons will provide tutors with training and experience that will increase their connection with the Carroll Community, develop career-related skills, and increase their mathematical mastery.

The Math Commons will collaborate with and provide resource for faculty, staff, and administrators in addressing learning needs, academic performance, quantitative literacy, and retention of students.

Math Commons Learning Outcomes

A. Students will improve comprehension of course material.

B. Students will learn how to effectively use specific learning and studying strategies for mathematics.

C. Students will become active, independent learners.

D. Students will gain confidence in their mathematical ability and will develop positive attitudes about learning mathematics.

E. Tutors will reflect upon their roles as peer learners and tutors.

F. Tutors will gain leadership experience and improve their interpersonal skills.

G. Tutors will gain a deeper understanding of mathematics.

The Math Commons will measure those outcomes using the following tools:

1. Math Commons Surveys will be administered to clients to evaluate tutor performance and students' perception of their own increase in comprehension, confidence, and strategies.

2. Tutoring session reflections will be completed by tutors for each session and reviewed by staff and the Math Commons director.

3. Tutoring sessions will be observed by frequent and unannounced walkthroughs made by the Math Commons director.

4. Tutor participation in internal and external conferences, workshops, and training to further their professional development will be documented.

5. Student attendance in the Math Commons, review sessions, and workshops will be taken.

Linkage between Measure and Outcomes

Learning Outcome Assessment Measure A B C D E F G x x x x x Math Commons Client Surveys x x x x x x Session Reflections completed by Tutors x x x x x Walk-through Observations by director x x In-service professional development x x x x Tutoring, review session, and workshop attendance

Analysis of Results

At the end of the year, the Math Commons Director will assemble the assessment data into a report to share with the Learning Commons Director, the Mathematics Program, and other academic support services staff. Appropriate action will determined at that time.

Submitted by Heather Evans, Math Commons Director May 31, 2008

TO: Joanne Passaro

FROM: Beth Towell

DATE: April 14, 2008

RE: 2007‐2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

In December 2007, a request to participate in a survey was sent to five year alumni of Carroll College. The request was sent to all 221 known email addresses of Carroll alumni graduating 2002‐2003; 43 of these messages bounced. Of the 178 invitations that went to valid addresses, 33 students chose to respond (19%). This report summarizes the results from the survey. Complete data will be included in the comprehensive 2007‐2008 Institutional Assessment Report this summer.

Respondents were from a broad variety of fields of study with 17 different majors represented. Most were full time students (88%) and now live in WI (73%). The majority of respondents indicated that they had not yet pursued graduate education (67%). About 79% are working in a field related to the undergraduate major and 83% suggested that the Carroll College experiences had helped them achieve career goals.

When asked about the Carroll College educational experience in terms of general education learning outcomes, respondents indicated the most growth in "increasing knowledge and understanding in an academic field," and "gaining knowledge, technical skills, and/or competence required for a job/career." The greatest number of respondents who indicated little or no growth specified the areas "increasing a commitment to community/religious/volunteer organizations" and "interacting and working effectively with people from different racial/ethnic backgrounds." The three areas that responding alumni indicated were most important were "gaining knowledge, technical skills and/or competence required for a job/career," "developing skills in leading or participating in groups or teams," and "thinking clearly, getting a problem, and following it to a sensible conclusion."

When addressing academic skills and academic competencies developed at Carroll College, respondents indicated that more emphasis should be placed on "application courses related to my major" and "understanding and relating to people" while they suggested less emphasis should be placed on a "background in fine arts and a "background in humanities." Only about half who had taken the freshman year seminar (54%) found it beneficial. Most (90%) had a capstone experience and most of those (92%) found this experience to be beneficial.

When asked about experiences that had lasting effects, both curricular and co‐curricular experiences were described. About 67% of the respondents indicated that if they were starting over, they would still choose Carroll College and 76% would choose the same major.

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

4. Present state of residence (please use two letter postal abbreviation, eg. WI): Full Response

1. WI

2. WI

3. WI

4. WI

5. WI

6. WI

7. IL

8. WI

9. OH

10. WI

11. WI

12. WI

13. WI

14. IL

15. WI

16. WI

17. WI

18. IL

19. WI

20. WI

21. WI

22. MA

23. WI

24. IL

25. WI

26. IN

27. WI

28. WI

29. WI

30. WI

31. MI

32. WI

33. UK

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

6. If you answered yes to the previous question, please provide the following: Name of institution(s) attended, Degree (e.g. M.S., M.D., Ph.D.), Field of Study (e.g. American History, Industrial Full Psychology), and the years the degrees were completed. If the degree has not been completed Response please leave the date field blank. Prompt: 1st Degree

1. UW Whitewater; MBA; Mktg./Mgmt

2. Marquette university; MSN; nursing

3. Wright State University; Master of Arts; Public History; 2006

4. UW-Platteville; M.S.; Criminal Justice; Dec 2007

5. UW-Whitewater; MSE; Reading; 2007

6. UWM; Masters; Curriculum and Instructio; 2007

7. Marquette; JD; Law; 2007

8. Vanderbilt University; JD; law

9. University of IL-Chicago; MSW; Social Work; 05-07

10. North Carolina State Univ; M.Ed; Higher Educationa Adm.; 2007

11. WI School of Prof Psych; MS; Clin. Psych.; 2005

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

1. Cardinal Stritch; MAE; Special Education; Exp 2009

2. WI School of Prof Psych; PsyD; Clinical Psych.

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

10. If you answered yes to the previous question, please describe the experience. Full Response

Calculus - prerequisite for some MBA programs. More advanced math or in dept micro economics 1.

would have helped with Managerial Economics. On the job training, sometimes thats where you have to learn it. But maybe for (special) education majors (minors), a class specifically to understand how IEP's (Individualized Education Plans) work, 2.

how to do one, etc. for special education students. I know it's just a minor right now, but even offering the special education as a major, would be great, I would have chosen that as my major.

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

15. What Carroll College experiences have had a lasting effect on your personal or professional life? Full Response

I am proud to say that I am a Carroll alumni. When I speak with my clients regarding my previous 1. education, they are always impressed that I am a graduate of Carroll College, as it has such a well- known positive reputation.

Working in groups really helped me prepare for my life as a young professional. 2. Professor Levas was great. He made the marketing classes very interesting!

3. Living in the dorms and the self responsibility gained from it.

That the instructors were available at all times and had a personable approach. This helped in 4. developing relationships with "higher up" colleagues.

Nearly all of my history classes have proven beneficial to both my personal and professional life. Those classes taught me not only how to read, write, and reason within an academic setting, but also how to think critically about the world around me. I also learned how to interact with people in a professional manner, as well as how to share ideas and learn from others' points of view. I very 5. much believe that this kind of experience was made possible by the high-quality history professors

employed by Carroll, as well as the small class sizes. Small classes encourage familiarity between students and faculty, and such close professional relationships are perfect for creating lively discussion and creativity. I will cherish those memories of expanding my personal philosophy and knowledge through classtime and friendships.

6. The patience and willingness of the instructors to work with the individuals unique talents and skills

It would definitely have to be the internship I completed during my senior year with the State of WI Department of Corrections. I interned with two Probation/Parole agents under the direction of Dr. 7.

Fielder, and this internship helped me to earn a full-time position as an agent in July of 2003 with DOC, where I am still employed as a senior agent. Getting me interested in reading, which I eventually got my masters in and my special education minor gave me experience and knowledge for my current job of special education teacher. The 8. professors mentioned below helped with both. As well as my job search while going to school at

Carroll, I saw a job opening for in home therapy with kids with Autism and I had that job for 5 years and it has helped me in my current career as well. 9. Education Program

Club membership and activities. Caring and thorough professors who are as dedicated to teaching as 10.

I was to learning. To be honest, there isn't much of what I learned in college that I use in my professional life. I majored in English and Politics and currently work in advertising. I suppose extracurricular studies, 11.

such as Student Senate, has allowed me to communicate with my peers and co-workers well, which is always helpful. Being involed in AMA was beneficial for networking with my peers as well as others at the national meetings. My capstone class was beneficial as well, I wish more of the business classes were as 12.

involved and based on real clients with a project emphasis. More classes of that nature would be nice since it was what the "real" work world is like. Combining class work with community work was very important to me. The Waukesha and Milwaukee communities provide for many opportunites to learn more about community work and interacting with many different kinds of people. I was especially blessed/effected by my work with 13.

social service agencies in town (Hebron House, Domestic Violence Shelter, Food Pantries, Habitat for Humanity), my invovlement with Residence Life, Habitat for Humanity Campus Chapter, Communication Club and my work study in Admissions and Part Time Studies.

14. -Extracurricular involvement. Challenge Leadership, Resident Advisor, CEAL

Learning to look at things from as many angles as possible and determining the best course of 15.

action. ie: Being well-rounded for whatever is thrown my way. The entire experience gave me confidence in my abilities in general. Leadership skills learned 16.

through group work and my on-campus job assisted me in my future employment.

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

Some teachers stand out as extraordinarily effective. If you had such "standouts" please identify 16. Full them by name and (if applicable) indicate the class(es) you took with them. Response Prompt: 1.

1. Charles Byler; FYS, Kennan Fellowship

2. Joel Heim

3. Mary Kazmierczak; numerous

4. Levas; Multiple

5. G. Schultz; Business Management

6. Professor Levas; Marketing

7. Mike Konemann; CSC

8. Diana Hankes; pathophysiology

9. Dr. Jack Dukes; History

10. Bob Black

11. Cullen

12. Tim Fielder; Various CJ Classes 13. Kathy Kramer; special ed minor classes

14. Levis; Marketing

15. Emily Long; Education

16. Timothy Fiedler; Sociology

17. Dr. Cope; everything he taught

18. Dr. Rabidoux; Politics

19. Dr. Block; GEO/ENV

20. Dr. Virginia Parsons; Neuroscience

21. Professor Kulmeyer; BUS 101, and Econ/Finance

22. Barb King; Com150, Com Capstone, etc

23. Dr. David Block; n/a

24. Emily Long; Teaching Reading

25. Nelia Beth Scovill; REL 106

26. John Towell

27. Suzy Holstein; American Lit

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

1. Greg Schultz; Org. Management

2. Dr. Simpson

3. Charles Byler; numerous

4. Towell; ECO225

5. Isaacs; CSC

6. Kristen Foster; History

7. Dr. Block

8. Deidre Keenan; Freshman Seminar

9. Emily Long; Kiddie Lit

10. Stevens; English

11. Scott Johnston; Education

12. Craig Mastantuono; Criminal Justice/Law

13. Prof. Scovill; ditto

14. Dr. Stevens; Writing

15. Dr David Simpson; Psychology Courses

16. Levas; Market Research

17. Kilgust; Post Colonial Lit

18. Bruce Strom; EDU

19. Philip Krejcarek

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

1. Dr. Hainsworth

2. Lelan McLemore; Pol 275

3. Debrecht; Principles of Financial M

4. Stevens; ENG

5. Charles Byler; History

6. Roseanne Donovan; Reading

7. John Radar; Social Work

8. Dr. Heim; ditto

9. Dr. King; FYS

10. Claudette McShane; Intro to Social Work

11. Rosanne Donovan; EDU 3??

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

18. Current Position or Title: Full Response

1. Branch Sales Manager

2. Associate Wealth Management Advisor

3. Legal Clerk

4. Director of Client Services

5. Customer Care Specialist

6. Branch Manager

7. Stay at home Mom

8. Registered Nurse

9. Archivist

10. Assessment Technician for the External Diploma Program

11. Preschool Teacher

12. Senior Probation/Parole Agent and Mentor Agent

13. Special Education Teacher (Cross-Cat, LD)

14. District Sales Manager

15. 8th Grade Teacher

16. Attorney

17. Account Executive

18. Senior Land Use Planner

19. Physical Therapist

20. Group Car Sales Marketing Manager

21. Web Development Manager

22. Social Work Project Coordinator

23. Assistant Residence Manager & Director - Fitness and Wellness Living Learning Community

24. Teacher

25. Child Care Teacher

26. Psychology Intern

27. Senior Web Developer

28. Outsource Bureau Manager

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

19. Name of Firm: Full Response

1. Landmark Credit

2. Northwestern Mutual Investment Services

3. Waukesha County

4. High Velocity Communications

5. QuadTech, Inc.

6. Franklin Financial Corporation

7. Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare-Elmbrook Memorial Hospital

8. Waukesha County Technical College

9. Whizkidz

10. State of Wisconsin - Department of Corrections

11. Kenosha Unified School District

12. Hyundai Motor America

13. St. Adalbert

14. Anderson Group, S.C.

15. Walrob Agency

16. Kenosha County Planning and Development

17. Aurora St. Luke's Medical Center

18. Enterprise Rent A Car

19. Association of Equipment Manufacturers

20. Trinity Christian College

21. Indiana University - Bloomington

22. Dept. of Corrections

23. The Childrens Center

24. Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare - All Saints

25. Foley and Larnder

26. KCS Connect (part of the Sage group)

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

20. Location: Full Response

1. Franklin, WI

2. New Berlin, Wisconsin

3. Waukesha, WI

4. Waukesha

5. Sussex, WI

6. 4889 S. 27th St. Greenfield, WI 53221

7. Brookfield, WI

8. Dayton, Ohio

9. 327 E. Broadway

10. Madison, WI

11. Milwaukee, WI

12. Harvey Elementary

13. Aurora, IL

14. Milwaukee

15. Delafield, WI

16. Glenview, IL

17. Bristol, WI

18. Milwaukee, WI

19. Boston, MA

20. Milwaukee, WI

21. Palos Heights, IL

22. Bloomington, IN

23. Racine

24. Chilton, WI

25. Racine, WI

26. Downtown Milwaukee

27. Purley, England

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

21. Years in Position: Full Response

1. 10 years (worked there all thru college)

2. 3

3. 3

4. 3

5. 8

6. 4+

7. 4

8. 21 years

9. 5

10. 4 1/2

11. 1

12. 1

13. 4

14. .5

15. 4.5

16. 4

17. 3

18. 4 1/2 years with Enterprise 3 years in the marketing role

19. 1

20. less than one

21. 1

22. 3

23. 2.25

24. Less than one

25. (I was just employeed somewhere else for 4.5 years but I will be starting at Foley in Jan)

26. 2

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

26. If you have ideas about changes in Carroll College's educational programs which you think would strengthen their value in career preparation, please describe them briefly. Full Response

1. More math should be required for students in the business area.

2. More help in finding a career that is consistent with your Major upon graduation.

I believe all students should complete an internship program in their field, as it will help to prepare 3. them to understand what life in the "real" working world is like, and it will also give them an

advantage over other students applying for the same jobs.

4. More/longer student teaching (whole school year)

More security in finding a job. I felt there were a lot of empty promises made regarding when I 5.

graduate and how much I'll be paid.

6. Longer capstone courses or internship opportunities.

Stronger science offerings. If the last few physics classes for the minor had been available, I would not now be trying to find a community college to attend. 7. More trust in the faculty. The amount of excellent faculty let go during my last few semesters at

Carroll was atrocious. It left me with such hard feelings for the school that I have no desire to participate in or donate to any future Carroll programs. I think Carroll College teaches on a high school level. Everything is simplified. The real world does not function like that. Carroll hires professors who are retired high school teachers or there for a 8. class or two, but have no real concern over the success of the students. I had no help in preparing

resumes or discussing what different careers were available to me, or where to even start. After graduation, it was pretty much a guessing game. When I went through the internship program I was not provided with a whole lot of opprotunities. I 9. was disappointed in the the three choices I was given. It would have been beneficial to also have

two different intern experiences. I was quite happy with my education in the Communications Department. I have heard lots of 10. complaints from friends with Graphic Design or Computer Science degrees that thier education was

not on target with what technology they would be using in the real world. I would really love to see more electives tha focus on current events and thier impact our world. Darfur, AIDS crisis, restorative justice, etc. Perhaps because I'm a social worker I have bias towards these issues, but with the lack of a social work department on campus this focus on repressed populations can be missed. - Greater connections to the Waukesah/Milwaukee business and educational communities in terms 11.

of internships, practicum expereinces and community-service organizations. Courses need to be less test based. What you learn shouldn't be about how much you can cram but 12.

how you find or if you can find the answers. For Computer Science grads it's really important to be able to change and pick up new technologies 13. and languages easily because they are updated so constantly and quickly. Having the theory and

background in various technologies and software makes it easier to transition.

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

26. If you have ideas about changes in Carroll College's educational programs which you think would strengthen their value in career preparation, please describe them briefly. Full Response

1. More math should be required for students in the business area.

2. More help in finding a career that is consistent with your Major upon graduation.

advantage over other students applying for the same jobs.

4. More/longer student teaching (whole school year)

More security in finding a job. I felt there were a lot of empty promises made regarding when I 5.

graduate and how much I'll be paid.

6. Longer capstone courses or internship opportunities.

of internships, practicum expereinces and community-service organizations. Courses need to be less test based. What you learn shouldn't be about how much you can cram but 12.

background in various technologies and software makes it easier to transition.

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

27. Given your understanding of what it means to be a liberally educated adult, please comment on anything that you think should be emphasized or deeemphasized at Carroll. Full Response

We had to take all the prerequisites for a Liberal Arts degree. It definately helped me prepare for life 1. as a working adult. I am not directly involved in a marketing field (which was my emphasis), so I

am glad we had to take different types of classes. I understand that Carroll has decided to expand areas of study including computer-related studies, business, etc. While I agree these areas are useful (and marketable to potential students!), I strongly believe in the importance of studying areas like history, english, foreign languages, and 2.

music. Unfortunately, when I was finishing my undergraduate time at Carroll, the administration was downsizing many of these areas. I hope this new administration sees the value of a truly liberal arts education, and does not stray too far from Carroll's roots in this tradition.

3. I think the programs are effective and well-rounded as they are.

4. I do not agree with the mandatory, two per year, convocation requirement. It should be optional.

Encourage more diversity. Find a way to attract students from a wider geographical area and/or 5.

wider socio-economic backgrounds. I think it's important to have professors who care - who are passionate about what they're teaching and can reasonably be there for you as a student who wants to succeed. Unfortunately, there has been just so much turnover at that school, I can't even look back and call on a professor today as 6. with a double major and minor, not one professor still teaches at Carroll. It's a disappointment that

there is nothing there for me to go back to as the years progress and my career progresses. I think it should be emphasized that being a student there means something by providing a staff who cares... not just staff who will teach at the lowest rate. I think that you should bring back the social work department. I learned more in most of those 7. classes that applies not only to my profession but also to how I relate to other people and my world

then I did in most of my other liberal arts classes. Bring back social work!! - Emphasized; A greater understanding how faith in God works within a student's college life and 8. academic achievement. More emphasis on creating a Christian - based college environment. Possibly

holding monthly required church services for all undergraduates. Real life situations need to be emphasized. Life isn't about tests you need to study for. You find 9.

ways to conquer situations through experience and learning, not by memorizing. I think that my education at Carroll was pretty much right on. I wish I could have been there longer 10.

:) I hope that the Liberal Arts continue to be a emphasis in each Carroll student's education regardless 11. of major. During my Junior/senior years the liberal arts were under threat some-what but i believe

this situation to have been erradicated.

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

2007-2008 Five Year Alumni Survey

Respondents: 33 Status: Open

Launched 12/07/2007 Closed Date: 05/31/2008 Date:

28. Other suggestions/comments: Full Response

1. Offering an MBA program would be a good move.

In the past few years, I chose not to give money to Carroll College because of the problem I 2. mentioned in question 27. I hope to be pleasantly surprised by this administration. I look forward to

someday contributing financially as an alumnus. If Carroll offered classes for the Masters Program I am interested in taking, I would run back to 3.

Carroll. As a non-traditional student, Carroll was an incredible experience for me I did not realize how harmful my decision to go to Carroll was until I came to a top-20 law school. I often feel I am missing many core educational elements that my friends received in their undergrad 4.

institutions. I was lucky to have outstanding professors in my major, but I feel the college let me down in basic requirements and the lack of diversity at the institution. I believe that it should be a requirement for all students to take an intensive grammar class (unless they can test out of it). Perhaps this can be wrapped into the Writing Seminar-but this is a big need! Currently I work in higher education and with recent graduates and the knowledge of grammar is 5. almost non-existent in many students. Writing is essential in almost every profession and Carroll

should be graduating students with a good grasp on grammar. Many times this is no longer taught or emphasized in younger grades. I for one would have benifited from a grammar class and I am going to take one now at my current place on employment. - Increase the number of residence halls and give more funding to this area. Carroll residential students have a world of potential to do great things within their housing units and in the surrounding community. However, it was my experience that these halls were so underfunded that res. hall leaders could do little with the limited amount of resources they had to work with. There are many regional and national residence hall organizations that Carroll can become a part of with the right funding and support. More attention paid to the residence hall environment would allow 6. students to better take part in learning outside the classroom (such as living-learning centers) and

engage students in their living environments. Make connections between res. life and academic departments to bring faculty members out of the academic buildings and into the halls, thus allowing for continued growth beyond the course requirements.

Continue to expand the athletic department and devote more land/space to upgrading the facilities; it is becoming a great showcase for the school and it's student-athletes.

I have been pleased to see the school's expansion and growth over the last seven years.

7. Keep it up!

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Memorandum July 17, 2008

TO: Joanne Passaro

FROM: Beth Towell

RE: 2007-2008 Faculty Survey Report (HERI)

What follows is a summary of the results of the 2007-2008 Higher Education Research Institute’s Survey of Faculty and the data itself. The institutional profile we received provides a precise summary of the data collected from Carroll faculty in November of this year and provides a comparison to results from all 4-yr. private colleges. I have provided longitudinal comparisons in this summary. The response rate achieved this year is similar to that of other years (62 of 122 surveyed, or 51%). As always, because the sample responding is not determined randomly, it cannot be used to make an inference about the opinions or demographics of the faculty as a whole. While the percentages for all colleges do not generally change dramatically from one survey to the next, they are apt to vary widely over time at a particular institution, in part because the numbers at a given institution are sensitive to the specific response population and the timing of the survey.

Table I: From this survey, Carroll's faculty appears to be younger than they were three years ago and younger than faculty at other private four-year colleges. Table I shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE I Age of Respondents as of 12/31/07

AGE Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 <30 3.2 2.4 1.6 1.7 0 3.6 2.2 30-49 61.2 51.3 49.1 50 49.2 60.8 48.7 50+ 35.5 46.2 49.2 48.3 50.8 35.8 49.2

1 Table II: As expected with a younger faculty, we see a continued decline in the number of full professors at Carroll and an increase in the number of assistant professors. The increase in the number of assistant professors in 2004, however, can be directly tied to the change in title conferred on non-tenure track faculty members (all non-tenure track faculty were changed to "assistant professors" beginning July 1, 2004). The increase in the overall number of non-tenure track faculty helps to explain the overall shift in the distribution of ranks at Carroll. Table II shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE II Academic Rank

RANK Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 Full 32.3 31.7 31.1 18 15.8 13.8 28.2 Associate 37.1 34.1 34.4 45.9 38.6 27.6 28.0 Assistant 30.6 29.3 29.5 24.6 40.4 48.3 31.5 Lecturer 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.9 1.8 0.0 3.4 Instructor 0.0 2.4 0.0 4.9 3.5 10.3 8.9

Table III: Table III provides information on the tenure status of respondents. Note that the response options were changed in 2004. Table III provides percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE III Tenure Status

Tenured? Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 Yes 79 73.5 73 59.3 54.4 41.4 45.8 No 21 26.5 27 40.7 On tenure 17.5 3.4 24.3 track but not tenured Not on 28.1 55.2 18.2 tenure track but institution has tenure system Institution 0 0 11.6 has no tenure system

2 Table IV A & B: Carroll’s faculty members continue to be primarily interested in teaching. The question regarding focus, however, was re-worded in 2007. Carroll respondents in 2007 were slightly less interested in research and service than their counterparts in 4-yr. private institutions. Tables IVA and IVB shows percentages for survey respondents for the questions related to focus.

TABLE IVA (2004 and before) Primary Interest

Primary Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Interest 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 Very 38.7 48.8 47.5 48.3 49.1 heavily in teaching Leaning 56.5 48.8 45.9 41.7 43.9 toward teaching Leaning 4.8 2.4 6.6 8.3 7.0 toward research Very 0 0 0 1.7 0 heavily toward research

Table IVB (2007) Very Important or Essential

Noted as being personally Carroll 2007 All 4-yr Private "very important" or "essential" 2007 Research 54.4 62.4 Teaching 100.0 98.9 Service 63.2 69.4

Table V: Table V provides a sample of general activities over the last two years for Carroll respondents and their counterparts in other 4-year private colleges and universities. Several new questions have been added. The Carroll faculty appears to be less loyal and more frequently consider leaving this institution than their counterparts. This may be related to their relative youthfulness (and therefore shortened time at the institution) or it may be related to the lack of tenure status for a large number of faculty. Table V shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE V General Activities in the Last Two Years

Activity Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 Had at least 29.5 20 23 26.2 25.0 29.3 25.2 one firm job offer Developed a 65 75 88.5 83.6 60.4 65.5 71.2 new course Considered 31.1 47.5 41 37.7 30.4 24.1 17.8 early retirement Considered 37.7 37.5 36.1 47.5 69.6 43.1 32.9 leaving academe Taught a N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.6 10.5 9.3 course exclusively on the Internet Considered N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 68.8 44.4 leaving this institution for another Engaged N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38.6 38.8 undergraduates on your research project

Table VI: Table VI provides a picture of how Carroll respondents spend their time. Compared to peers, Carroll faculty appear to spend less time on student advising and research and spend more time on committee work. Table VI shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE VI Hours Per Week Spent On…

Preparing for Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr Teaching 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 0 to 4 6.8 10.0 1.6 3.4 3.8 3.4 7.0 5 to 12 30.5 37.5 44.3 37.2 28.9 51.7 43.8 13 to 20 44.0 35.0 34.4 40.6 48.1 29.3 33.8 21 or more 18.7 17.5 19.6 18.7 19.2 15.5 15.5 Advising of Students 0 to 4 55.9 69.2 57.3 69.0 61.5 69.0 57.7 5 to 12 42.4 30.8 42.6 29.3 38.5 31.1 38.1 13 to 20 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.6 21 or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Committee Work/Meetings 0 to 4 66.1 74.4 78.3 74.6 75.4 55.2 66.9 5 to 12 32.2 25.7 21.7 25.4 24.5 41.4 30.2 13 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.5 21 or more 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Research/Writing 0 to 4 68.4 79.4 83.0 79.3 70.6 72.4 62.0 5 to 12 22.8 12.8 15.3 17.2 25.5 25.9 30.0 13 to 20 8.8 7.7 1.7 3.4 3.9 1.7 6.0 21 or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Community/ Public Service 0 to 4 N/A 94.5 91.6 89.7 94.3 93.1 87.4 5 to 12 N/A 2.8 6.7 10.3 3.8 5.2 11.9 13 to 20 N/A 2.8 1.7 0.0 1.9 1.7 0.7 21 or more N/A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Communicating Using Email* 0 to 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 49.1 36.2 33.1 5 to 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 49.0 56.9 56.2 13 to 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.9 5.2 9.0 21 or more N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 1.7 1.5

5 Table VII: Table VII provides data regarding professional publications of Carroll faculty responding to the survey. These Carroll faculty appear to be on par with their peer group. Table VII shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE VII Number of Professional Writings Published or Accepted for Publication in the Last Two Years

Number Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr 1989 1995* 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 None 55.0 42.5 50.8 58.3 53.7 46.6 43.0 1 to 2 33.3 30.0 41.0 33.3 37.0 32.8 34.4 3 to 4 8.3 20.0 6.6 6.7 7.4 15.5 15.3 5 to 10 1.7 5.0 1.6 0.0 1.9 3.4 6.0 11 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 21 to 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.7 0.3 > 50 1.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

*1995 data includes performances

Table VIII: Table VIII concerns classroom methods. Many questions that have been tracked historically were removed temporarily from some iterations of the instrument and new questions have been added. Carroll faculty that responded to the 2007-2008 survey apparently assign more term papers and employ cooperative learning and group projects to a greater extent than the peer group. They also lecture more extensively and use fewer student developed activities that respondents at other four year private colleges and universities. Table VIII shows percentages for survey respondents.

6 TABLE VIII Methods you use in "all" or "most" of the courses you teach

Method Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4 yr. 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 Multiple choice 35.5 29.3 40.0 32.8 49.1 39.7 32.1 exams Essay exams 57.4 53.7 44.1 41.7 49.1 44.8 49.3 Short-answer 44.3 37.5 42.4 38.3 41.8 58.6 48.3 exams Quizzes 7.6 29.3 32.2 45.9 N/A 38.6 40.5 Weekly essay 12.9 10.0 15.3 11.5 N/A 20.7 24.0 assignment Student 32.3 53.7 60.0 72.1 69.1 60.3 52.6 presentations Term/ research 40.3 36.6 35.0 39.3 38.2 56.9 46.2 papers Student 14.8 12.2 28.3 21.3 14.5 36.2 25.3 evaluations of each others’ work Grading on a curve 35.5 36.6 33.3 21.7 26.4 19.0 13.2 Competency-based 41.0 26.8 37.3 38.3 N/A 49.1 51.9 grading Reflective N/A N/A N/A N/A 16.4 27.6 24.6 writing/journaling Class discussions 77.4 78.0 81.4 77.0 81.8 82.8 84.3 Cooperative 32.3 58.5 49.2 60.0 61.8 77.6 63.4 learning Experiential/ field 25.8 31.7 28.8 29.5 N/A 29.3 32.0 study Teaching assistants 8.1 2.4 6.8 3.3 5.5 3.4 6.6 Recitals/demon- N/A 19.5 10.2 11.5 16.4 19.0 21.0 strations Group projects 22.6 31.7 40.7 44.3 49.1 60.3 36.7 Extensive lecturing 48.4 46.3 44.1 54.1 58.2 56.9 40.5 Multiple drafts of 9.8 19.5 22.0 23.0 27.3 32.8 27.1 written work Student-developed 11.3 7.3 8.5 11.5 N/A 15.5 25.6 activities Student-selected 8.1 7.3 8.5 6.6 14.5 15.5 17.1 topics Community N/A 0.0 N/A 3.3 12.7 6.9 8.8 service as part of coursework

7 Table XI: Table XI involves the personal opinions of campus activities and climate. Carroll faculty responding are less inclined (than the peer group) to believe that incoming students are well prepared academically and that Carroll takes responsibility for educating underprepared students. They also feel that the criteria for advancement and promotion decisions are not clear. Note, however, the change from 2004 to 2007 in terms of faculty agreement with the statement that "faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision-making; this changed from 10.7% to 54.4% in a three year period. Table XI shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE XI Do you agree "strongly" or "somewhat"?

Item Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 Faculty are 93.4 92.5 91.7 93.3 91.1 93.1 93.9 interested in students’ personal problems Faculty here are 90.2 92.5 95.0 95.0 85.5 87.7 95.2 strongly interested in the academic problems of undergraduates Faculty are 85.2 82.5 85.0 83.3 N/A 87.7 95.2 committed to the welfare of the institution. Student Affairs staff 59.0 47.5 59.3 76.7 N/A 87.7 80.6 have the support and respect of the faculty. Faculty feel that 29.5 5.0 18.3 25.0 10.7 19.0 48.1 most students are well-prepared academically Many courses 15.0 35.0 25.9 22.0 N/A 39.3 49.1 include feminist perspectives.

There is a lot 3.3 12.5 18.6 11.7 12.5 14.0 11.4 of campus racial conflict here. Faculty are N/A N/A N/A N/A 10.7 54.4 60.1 sufficiently involved in campus decision- making The institution N/A N/A N/A N/A 25.0 49.1 67.5 takes responsibility for educating under-prepared students The criteria for N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.9 43.1 71.8 advancement and promotion decisions are clear

NOTE: The only historical data available (’89, ’95, ’98) for the remaining tables are rounded values.

9 Table XII: Items in Table XII provide insight into respondents' perceptions of Carroll. Of greatest note is the change from 2004 to 2007 in the percent that believe "faculty are typically at odds with the administration" which changed from 94.6% to 37.9%. Table XI shows percentages for Carroll respondents and those at other four-year private colleges and universities.

TABLE XII Attributes Noted as Being Very Descriptive of this Institution

Attribute Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 2007 Easy to see 71 72 64 65.5 66.1 69.0 77.6 faculty outside of regular office hours There is a great 58 31 59 50.8 N/A 48.3 32.3 deal of conformity among the students Faculty here 36 24 39 32.8 26.8 36.2 53.9 respect each other. Faculty are 24 7 10 3.3 0 3.6 20.9 rewarded for being good teachers Social activities 11 5 3 9.8 1.8 7.0 9.9 are overemphasized Faculty are at 5 61 34 75.4 94.6* 37.9 17.7 odds with the administration Most of 0 0 0 1.6 5.4 1.8 1.6 students are treated like “numbers in a book”

*This question was reworded slightly in 2004 to read “The faculty are typically at odds with campus administrators.”

10 Table XIII: Table XIII deals with the respondents' satisfaction with various aspects of their jobs. Carroll faculty members apparently are more satisfied with their jobs then they were in 2004 but are still not, in all cases, as satisfied as faculty at peer institutions. Table XIII shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE XIII Aspects of Job Noted as Very Satisfactory or Satisfactory

Aspect Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4- 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 yr private 2007 Autonomy 90 80 77 83.6 46.4 72.4 85.7 and independence Job security 85 72 73 54.2 N/A 56.9 75.9 Professional N/A N/A 75 80.3 81.5 76.8 82.5 relationships with other faculty Social N/A N/A 62 65.0 74.5 77.8 73.2 relationships with other faculty Relationships 72 33 40 23.3 23.6 50.0 63.0 with the administration Competency 72 70 79 82.0 85.7 69.0 82.0 of colleagues Overall job 70 60 64 47.5 30.4 60.3 77.2 satisfaction Visibility for 52 32 25 32.5 20.0 37.0 48.3 job at other institutions Teaching load 48 68 62 61.7 42.9 58.6 55.4 Quality of 38 40 33 39.3 23.2 43.1 58.2 students Salary and 34 28 38 39.3 29.1 fringe benefits Salary 29.3 46.4 Health 55.8 59.0 benefits Retirement 75.0 63.3 benefits Opportunity 26 31 41 N/A N/A 38.6 48.7 for scholarly pursuits

11 Table XIV: Table XIV deals with sources of stress for faculty. The sources noted most often by Carroll faculty in 2007 were lack of personal time and household responsibilities. Table XIV shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE XIV Sources of Stress Last Two Years

Source Carr Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr oll 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private 198 2007 9 Lack of personal 95 88 83 88.5 80.4 87.9 76.1 life/time Teaching load 80 65 70 63.9 71.4 55.2 66.7 Household 68 70 77 72.1 75.0 81.0 75.5 responsibilities Committee work 75 55 62 62.3 62.5 67.2 61.6 Students 58 70 62 67.2 N/A 72.4 67.0 Research or 57 48 42 49.2 57.1 67.2 53.6 publishing demands Colleagues 57 68 58 59.0 N/A 63.8 62.6 Review/promotion 56 35 47 50.8 51.8 55.2 49.7 process Faculty meetings 54 63 47 60.7 66.1 67.2 53.4 Child care 40 35 44 39.3 32.1 32.8 33.6 My physical health 39 38 49 45.9 44.6 53.4 48.6 Children’s 37 45 44 31.1 32.1 25.9 31.4 problems Subtle 30 20 22 24.6 27.3 13.8 24.0 discrimination Marital friction 27 35 36 14.8 21.4 34.5 26.4 Care of elderly 26 25 25 21.3 19.6 22.4 34.4 patient/parent Keeping up with N/A N/A 63 65.6 53.6 50.0 52.7 information technology Job security N/A N/A N/A N/A 62.5 43.1 35.1 Change in work N/A N/A N/A N/A 67.9 51.7 48.5 responsibility Working with N/A N/A N/A N/A 67.9 74.1 65.5 under-prepared students Institutional N/A N/A 75.0 73.8 85.7 77.6 65.4 procedures and red tape

12 Table XV: Table XV reflects faculty opinions regarding priorities at Carroll. From the choices provided, items judged as the highest priority by 2007 respondents include promoting the intellectual development of students and pursuing extramural funding. Table XV shows percentages for survey respondents.

TABLE XV Faculty Judgments of Priorities at Carroll

Judged as being Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll Carroll All 4-yr highest or high 1989 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 private priority 2007 Increasing 38 23 18 N/A 16.4* 19.6 41.3 minorities in faculty/ administration Developing 48 26 43 38.3 32.7 38.6 68.9 leadership ability in students Teaching students 23 18 20 20 14.5 15.8 43.9 how to bring about change in American society Foster involvement 23 23 32 18.3 N/A 29.8 59.1 in community service Hiring faculty 10 3 5 13.6 9.1 7.0 16.2 “stars” To pursue N/A N/A N/A N/A 43.6 71.4 45.7 extramural funding To promote the N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 81.0 89.0 intellectual development of students To create a diverse N/A N/A N/A N/A 14.5 41.4 53.7 multi-cultural campus environment To create and N/A N/A N/A N/A 25.5 61.4 45.4 sustain partnerships with surrounding communities

* This question was not included in 2001 and was reworded in 2004 to read “to increase the representation of minorities in the faculty and administration.”

13 Overall Web Response Report

Survey: 2007-2008 Faculty Survey Date: 7/16/2008 9:24:10 AM

Ace CodeSchool Assigned Returns Returns Returns Returns Response Tickets Accessed Saved Submitted Opted Out Rate* 2934Carroll College 122 6 8 62 1 50.8%

* Overall response rate percentage does not include opt-outs 1 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Number of Respondents 58 58.6 41.4 100.0 59.2 40.8 100.0 57.1 42.9 100.0 What is your principal activity in your current position at this institution? 58 Administration 2.9 0.0 1.7 5.1 5.4 5.2 4.8 4.8 4.8 Teaching 97.1 100.0 98.3 93.4 91.4 92.6 93.6 92.9 93.3 Research 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 Services to clients and patients 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.5 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.7 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.8 What is your present academic rank? 58 Professor 17.6 8.3 13.8 35.5 18.5 28.6 34.7 19.6 28.2 Associate Professor 26.5 29.2 27.6 28.1 27.7 27.9 28.1 27.8 28.0 Assistant Professor 47.1 50.0 48.3 28.0 39.0 32.5 27.0 37.4 31.5 Lecturer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.0 1.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 Instructor 8.8 12.5 10.3 7.5 12.8 9.7 6.7 11.7 8.9 What is your tenure status at this institution? 58 Tenured 47.1 33.3 41.4 49.3 34.6 43.3 50.4 39.8 45.8 On tenure track, but not tenured 2.9 4.2 3.4 23.8 27.9 25.5 22.1 27.3 24.3 Not on tenure track, but institution has tenure system 50.0 62.5 55.2 13.7 25.8 18.6 15.6 21.7 18.2 Institution has no tenure system 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 11.7 12.6 12.0 11.2 11.6 Are you currently serving in an administrative position as: [1] 58 Department Chair 5.9 4.2 5.2 22.3 16.9 20.1 21.1 16.4 19.1 Dean (Associate or Assistant) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.6 2.5 2.1 1.1 1.7 President 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vice-President 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.4 Provost 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 Other 5.9 8.3 6.9 12.5 16.1 14.0 13.7 16.0 14.7 Not Applicable 79.4 79.2 79.3 56.8 62.3 59.0 57.3 62.5 59.5 My primary place of employment in the last year was: [2] 58 In higher education: at this institution 91.2 87.5 89.7 94.0 93.4 93.8 93.9 93.2 93.6 at a different institution 8.8 8.3 8.6 3.0 3.6 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.0 at more than one institution 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.5 Not in higher education 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.5 Not employed 0.0 4.2 1.7 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.4 Noted as being personally "very important" or "essential": [2] Research 57 54.5 54.2 54.4 55.1 54.1 54.7 64.1 60.1 62.4 Teaching 58 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.2 99.1 98.9 99.0 98.9 Service 57 48.5 83.3 63.2 65.2 74.5 69.0 65.2 75.0 69.4

[1] Response options changed from earlier Faculty Surveys. [2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 1 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Highest degree earned 56 Bachelor's (B.A., B.S., etc.) 0.0 4.5 1.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 Master's (M.A., M.S., M.F.A, M.B.A, etc.) 38.2 40.9 39.3 21.7 35.5 27.3 20.1 30.2 24.4 LL.B., J.D. 0.0 4.5 1.8 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.2 1.0 M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.7 Other first professional degree beyond B.A. (e.g., D.D., D.V.M.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.7 1.0 1.4 Ed.D. 0.0 4.5 1.8 3.5 6.3 4.6 2.9 6.3 4.4 Ph.D. 58.8 45.5 53.6 68.4 52.3 61.8 70.6 57.0 64.7 Other degree 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 2.5 3.1 2.4 2.4 2.4 None 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 Degree currently working on 45 Bachelor's (B.A., B.S., etc.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Master's (M.A., M.S., M.F.A, M.B.A, etc.) 0.0 6.3 2.2 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.8 LL.B., J.D. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 M.D., D.D.S. (or equivalent) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other first professional degree beyond B.A. (e.g., D.D., D.V.M.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ed.D. 0.0 6.3 2.2 0.8 2.3 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.6 Ph.D. 10.3 18.7 13.3 6.9 10.3 8.3 5.4 8.6 6.8 Other degree 3.4 0.0 2.2 1.4 1.7 1.5 0.8 1.4 1.0 None 86.2 68.8 80.0 89.8 84.1 87.6 91.5 86.7 89.5 During the past two years, have you engaged in any of the following activities? Taught an honors course 57 8.8 17.4 12.3 20.4 16.1 18.6 21.8 17.0 19.7 Taught an interdisciplinary course 58 38.2 37.5 37.9 45.9 43.1 44.8 46.4 46.2 46.3 Taught an ethnic studies course 57 2.9 17.4 8.8 11.4 13.4 12.2 11.3 14.7 12.7 Taught a women’s studies course 57 2.9 4.3 3.5 3.8 14.4 8.1 3.5 17.1 9.3 Team-taught a course 58 23.5 12.5 19.0 33.1 38.6 35.4 31.3 35.0 32.9 Taught a service learning course 57 20.6 34.8 26.3 18.5 23.8 20.7 17.4 25.3 20.7 Placed or collected assignments on the Internet 58 58.8 62.5 60.3 71.4 73.1 72.1 72.0 75.1 73.4 Taught a course exclusively on the Internet 57 11.8 8.7 10.5 8.9 10.4 9.5 8.5 10.5 9.3 Participated in a teaching enhancement workshop 58 50.0 83.3 63.8 58.8 69.8 63.3 55.8 71.9 62.7 Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work 57 50.0 43.5 47.4 47.7 51.5 49.2 43.8 52.5 47.5 Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching 57 35.3 60.9 45.6 46.5 52.1 48.8 42.9 49.5 45.7 Developed a new course 58 58.8 75.0 65.5 69.0 69.9 69.4 71.3 71.0 71.2 Conducted research/writing focused on: International/global issues 58 23.5 20.8 22.4 27.0 20.9 24.5 29.5 25.6 27.8 Racial or ethnic minorities 57 11.8 26.1 17.5 16.8 19.1 17.7 19.0 23.1 20.7 Women and gender issues 57 2.9 26.1 12.3 10.4 25.2 16.4 11.7 28.8 19.0 Taught a seminar for first-year students 57 29.4 39.1 33.3 30.7 32.0 31.2 29.1 31.5 30.1 Engaged undergraduates on your research project [2] 57 44.1 30.4 38.6 37.2 30.7 34.5 42.2 34.3 38.8 Worked with undergraduates on a research project 57 50.0 43.5 47.4 57.0 51.4 54.7 61.0 54.2 58.1

[2] This question asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 2 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total DURING THE PRESENT TERM, HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK ON AVERAGE DO YOU ACTUALLY SPEND ON: Scheduled teaching (actual, not credit hours) 58 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 1 to 4 5.9 4.2 5.2 5.3 9.3 7.0 6.9 8.4 7.5 5 to 8 8.8 8.3 8.6 16.2 20.2 17.8 21.8 24.3 22.9 9 to 12 38.2 41.7 39.7 44.4 41.8 43.4 42.4 41.4 42.0 13 to 16 29.4 20.8 25.9 22.4 19.2 21.1 19.4 17.2 18.5 17 to 20 11.8 8.3 10.3 7.6 5.2 6.6 6.2 5.5 5.9 21 to 34 5.9 4.2 5.2 3.4 2.8 3.2 2.5 2.2 2.4 35 to 44 0.0 12.5 5.2 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.2 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 Preparing for teaching (including reading student papers and grading) 58 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 1 to 4 2.9 4.2 3.4 6.6 5.8 6.3 7.8 5.3 6.7 5 to 8 20.6 20.8 20.7 20.1 16.2 18.5 20.9 18.8 20.0 9 to 12 32.4 29.2 31.0 27.0 24.6 26.0 24.1 23.4 23.8 13 to 16 14.7 12.5 13.8 18.6 17.3 18.1 17.8 16.9 17.4 17 to 20 14.7 16.7 15.5 14.4 17.4 15.7 15.5 17.7 16.4 21 to 34 8.8 8.3 8.6 10.2 13.2 11.4 10.3 13.3 11.6 35 to 44 5.9 8.3 6.9 2.3 3.8 2.9 2.5 3.1 2.8 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.1 Advising and counseling of students 58 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.4 2.7 3.7 2.4 3.1 1 to 4 76.5 58.3 69.0 60.0 50.5 56.2 58.0 50.2 54.6 5 to 8 17.6 20.8 19.0 26.9 31.9 28.9 27.5 33.0 29.9 9 to 12 5.9 20.8 12.1 7.2 10.7 8.6 7.7 8.9 8.2 13 to 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.6 2.0 1.8 3.2 2.4 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.2 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Committee work and meetings 58 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 2.9 4.5 6.4 2.8 4.9 1 to 4 47.1 66.7 55.2 65.5 61.4 63.8 63.4 60.2 62.0 5 to 8 32.4 25.0 29.3 22.0 26.3 23.7 22.6 27.4 24.6 9 to 12 14.7 8.3 12.1 5.0 6.7 5.7 5.0 6.5 5.6 13 to 16 2.9 0.0 1.7 1.0 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.6 17 to 20 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.9 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Other administration 58 None 29.4 25.0 27.6 25.6 25.7 25.6 29.5 24.8 27.5 1 to 4 50.0 41.7 46.6 43.8 39.8 42.2 41.1 43.3 42.0 5 to 8 11.8 20.8 15.5 14.6 16.2 15.3 14.6 15.1 14.8 9 to 12 2.9 0.0 1.7 7.0 8.3 7.5 6.4 8.1 7.1 13 to 16 2.9 0.0 1.7 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.6 17 to 20 2.9 4.2 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.3 2.5 2.4 2.5 21 to 34 0.0 4.2 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 35 to 44 0.0 4.2 1.7 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Page 3 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total DURING THE PRESENT TERM, HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK ON AVERAGE DO YOU ACTUALLY SPEND ON: Research and scholarly writing 58 None 26.5 20.8 24.1 21.1 27.8 23.8 19.2 23.8 21.1 1 to 4 47.1 50.0 48.3 44.9 45.8 45.3 38.9 43.5 40.9 5 to 8 20.6 20.8 20.7 18.7 15.3 17.3 22.8 18.3 20.8 9 to 12 5.9 4.2 5.2 7.9 6.3 7.2 10.0 8.1 9.2 13 to 16 0.0 4.2 1.7 3.3 2.2 2.9 3.9 2.6 3.4 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.4 1.9 3.0 2.0 2.6 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 Other creative products/performances 57 None 61.8 65.2 63.2 48.6 52.1 50.1 49.9 51.7 50.7 1 to 4 20.6 26.1 22.8 31.5 30.7 31.1 30.0 31.1 30.4 5 to 8 11.8 8.7 10.5 10.5 9.8 10.2 10.4 10.3 10.3 9 to 12 2.9 0.0 1.8 4.4 3.9 4.2 5.8 3.0 4.6 13 to 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 1.6 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 21 to 34 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Consultation with clients/patients 58 None 91.2 70.8 82.8 81.7 78.5 80.4 82.7 80.0 81.5 1 to 4 8.8 16.7 12.1 12.6 12.0 12.3 11.7 10.8 11.3 5 to 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 5.5 4.4 3.5 4.5 3.9 9 to 12 0.0 4.2 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.1 2.3 1.6 13 to 16 0.0 4.2 1.7 0.5 1.4 0.9 0.2 1.1 0.6 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 35 to 44 0.0 4.2 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Community or public service 58 None 61.8 29.2 48.3 30.5 27.3 29.2 37.5 33.0 35.5 1 to 4 32.4 62.5 44.8 54.9 59.8 56.9 50.1 54.2 51.9 5 to 8 2.9 8.3 5.2 11.5 9.8 10.8 9.4 9.5 9.5 9 to 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.4 13 to 16 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Outside consulting/freelance work 58 None 82.4 58.3 72.4 67.4 72.5 69.5 68.0 74.7 70.8 1 to 4 14.7 41.7 25.9 24.4 19.8 22.5 24.3 18.4 21.8 5 to 8 2.9 0.0 1.7 5.6 5.2 5.5 5.4 4.5 5.0 9 to 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.6 13 to 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 4 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total DURING THE PRESENT TERM, HOW MANY HOURS PER WEEK ON AVERAGE DO YOU ACTUALLY SPEND ON: Household/childcare duties 58 None 14.7 4.2 10.3 13.7 4.2 9.8 13.1 4.1 9.3 1 to 4 20.6 8.3 15.5 19.7 17.0 18.6 20.6 17.8 19.4 5 to 8 20.6 29.2 24.1 27.1 27.8 27.4 25.9 26.5 26.1 9 to 12 14.7 8.3 12.1 16.1 16.3 16.2 16.0 15.8 15.9 13 to 16 8.8 12.5 10.3 7.3 7.8 7.5 8.2 9.1 8.6 17 to 20 8.8 0.0 5.2 7.8 7.3 7.6 7.4 7.7 7.5 21 to 34 5.9 8.3 6.9 4.4 7.9 5.9 4.7 7.5 5.9 35 to 44 2.9 16.7 8.6 1.8 4.3 2.8 1.8 4.9 3.1 45 + 2.9 12.5 6.9 2.1 7.3 4.2 2.4 6.6 4.2 Communicating via email 58 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.6 1 to 4 32.4 41.7 36.2 38.8 30.6 35.5 37.0 26.6 32.5 5 to 8 41.2 41.7 41.4 40.2 38.6 39.5 39.8 41.1 40.3 9 to 12 17.6 12.5 15.5 13.8 18.2 15.6 14.2 18.1 15.9 13 to 16 5.9 4.2 5.2 3.9 7.3 5.3 5.0 7.8 6.2 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.2 2.6 2.1 3.8 2.8 21 to 34 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.0 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 Commuting to campus [2] 58 None 8.8 4.2 6.9 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 6.8 7.8 1 to 4 61.8 62.5 62.1 63.8 56.2 60.7 59.7 55.5 57.9 5 to 8 20.6 16.7 19.0 20.7 24.1 22.1 22.0 24.5 23.1 9 to 12 8.8 16.7 12.1 6.6 9.8 7.9 8.4 10.5 9.3 13 to 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.4 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Other employment, outside of academia [2] 57 None 85.3 73.9 80.7 82.8 87.4 84.7 84.3 85.5 84.8 1 to 4 11.8 13.0 12.3 9.4 5.8 7.9 8.4 7.5 8.0 5 to 8 0.0 4.3 1.8 4.1 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.8 3.4 9 to 12 2.9 4.3 3.5 1.4 1.8 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.8 13 to 16 0.0 4.3 1.8 1.2 0.5 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.9 17 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 21 to 34 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 35 to 44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 45 + 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 5 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Including all institutions at which you teach, how many undergraduate courses are you teaching this term? [2] 58 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 One 5.9 4.2 5.2 6.6 12.4 9.0 9.9 12.3 10.9 Two 11.8 45.8 25.9 15.6 19.0 17.0 22.1 22.4 22.2 Three 55.9 41.7 50.0 32.3 31.2 31.9 29.9 33.9 31.6 Four 17.6 4.2 12.1 27.3 24.9 26.3 22.5 20.4 21.6 Five 5.9 4.2 5.2 12.7 8.7 11.1 10.2 7.6 9.1 Six or more 2.9 0.0 1.7 5.6 3.8 4.8 5.4 3.4 4.5 FOR UP TO FOUR OF THE UNDERGRADUATE COURSES MENTIONED ABOVE, HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE ENROLLED IN: [2] Course #1 57 10 or fewer 11.8 21.7 15.8 15.9 19.1 17.2 16.9 16.8 16.8 11 to 20 29.4 34.8 31.6 31.2 34.5 32.5 33.9 37.9 35.6 21 to 30 35.3 34.8 35.1 29.0 28.5 28.8 27.9 27.6 27.8 31 to 50 14.7 8.7 12.3 18.8 13.2 16.6 16.1 13.0 14.7 51 to 100 8.8 0.0 5.3 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.7 More than 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.4 Course #2 55 10 or fewer 6.3 34.8 18.2 21.1 22.3 21.6 20.0 21.3 20.6 11 to 20 28.1 13.0 21.8 37.2 40.0 38.3 39.2 42.4 40.5 21 to 30 43.7 39.1 41.8 27.3 26.4 27.0 27.1 24.8 26.1 31 to 50 18.7 8.7 14.5 12.4 9.1 11.1 11.1 9.5 10.4 51 to 100 3.1 0.0 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.7 More than 100 0.0 4.3 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.6 Course #3 40 10 or fewer 21.4 25.0 22.5 32.1 31.7 31.9 28.8 31.0 29.7 11 to 20 46.4 33.3 42.5 39.8 38.2 39.2 38.5 38.6 38.5 21 to 30 25.0 25.0 25.0 19.9 22.5 20.9 23.2 22.2 22.8 31 to 50 7.1 8.3 7.5 7.5 7.1 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.4 51 to 100 0.0 8.3 2.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.3 0.3 0.9 More than 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 Course #4 11 10 or fewer 55.6 50.0 54.5 43.4 40.8 42.4 37.9 38.0 38.0 11 to 20 11.1 50.0 18.2 35.8 35.0 35.6 34.8 37.6 35.9 21 to 30 11.1 0.0 9.1 15.0 18.2 16.2 17.9 19.6 18.5 31 to 50 22.2 0.0 18.2 4.4 5.2 4.7 8.1 4.2 6.6 51 to 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 More than 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 6 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total HOW MANY OF THE FOLLOWING COURSES ARE YOU TEACHING THIS ACADEMIC YEAR? General education courses 57 None 50.0 52.2 50.9 39.8 45.2 42.0 45.8 48.8 47.1 One 8.8 13.0 10.5 21.9 20.4 21.3 19.9 19.3 19.7 Two 26.5 17.4 22.8 17.9 13.8 16.2 15.2 12.8 14.1 Three 14.7 4.3 10.5 10.1 9.1 9.7 9.1 8.1 8.7 Four 0.0 13.0 5.3 4.5 5.2 4.8 4.5 5.2 4.8 Five or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 6.2 6.0 5.5 5.7 5.6 Developmental/remedial courses 54 None 96.9 95.5 96.3 93.6 92.1 93.0 93.2 91.8 92.6 One 3.1 4.5 3.7 3.9 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.4 4.0 Two 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.5 Three 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.8 Four 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.5 Five or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 Other undergraduate credit courses 57 None 9.1 16.7 12.3 12.6 18.1 14.8 15.1 17.6 16.1 One 21.2 4.2 14.0 12.5 13.6 12.9 14.0 15.4 14.6 Two 21.2 45.8 31.6 17.3 19.4 18.1 19.9 20.9 20.3 Three 15.2 16.7 15.8 19.9 16.6 18.6 18.9 17.8 18.4 Four 21.2 16.7 19.3 16.0 13.9 15.2 13.6 11.7 12.8 Five or more 12.1 0.0 7.0 21.7 18.4 20.4 18.5 16.7 17.7 Graduate courses 53 None 87.1 90.9 88.7 86.1 85.4 85.8 82.9 83.0 82.9 One 9.7 0.0 5.7 7.9 6.5 7.3 9.1 8.7 8.9 Two 3.2 4.5 3.8 3.1 2.8 3.0 4.2 4.0 4.1 Three 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.3 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.7 Four 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 Five or more 0.0 4.5 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 Vocational or technical courses 55 None 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.0 97.7 97.9 97.5 97.7 97.6 One 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0 Two 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 Three 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 Four 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Five or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Non-credit courses (other than above) 55 None 100.0 95.5 98.2 94.9 94.5 94.7 95.5 93.7 94.7 One 0.0 4.5 1.8 3.7 4.0 3.8 3.2 4.6 3.8 Two 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.4 1.0 Three 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Four 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Five or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 Do you teach remedial/developmental skills in any of the following areas? 58 Reading 2.9 4.2 3.4 4.4 4.7 4.5 4.5 5.9 5.1 Writing 14.7 16.7 15.5 9.5 11.7 10.4 10.5 14.0 12.0 Mathematics 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.2 3.5 4.8 3.9 4.4 ESL 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.3 1.4 0.8 2.0 1.3 General academic skills 5.9 16.7 10.3 8.6 8.8 8.7 8.7 11.4 9.8 Other subject areas 5.9 8.3 6.9 4.3 8.3 5.9 5.8 7.5 6.5

Page 7 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AT YOUR INSTITUTION? [2] Workshops focused on teaching in the classroom 58 Yes 76.5 83.3 79.3 72.4 76.1 73.9 71.4 77.4 74.0 No 14.7 16.7 15.5 22.4 17.7 20.5 25.0 17.2 21.7 Not eligible 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Not available 8.8 0.0 5.2 5.0 6.1 5.4 3.4 5.2 4.2 Paid workshops outside the institution focused on teaching 58 Yes 17.6 41.7 27.6 31.4 40.4 35.1 27.1 39.5 32.4 No 61.8 58.3 60.3 63.8 53.1 59.5 68.5 55.1 62.8 Not eligible 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.4 Not available 20.6 0.0 12.1 4.2 5.7 4.8 4.0 4.9 4.4 Paid sabbatical leave 58 Yes 14.7 12.5 13.8 28.8 19.9 25.2 34.0 26.1 30.6 No 55.9 75.0 63.8 54.0 56.4 55.0 51.1 53.1 52.0 Not eligible 26.5 12.5 20.7 13.4 20.3 16.2 12.6 18.6 15.2 Not available 2.9 0.0 1.7 3.8 3.4 3.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 Travel funds paid by the institution 58 Yes 70.6 62.5 67.2 81.6 80.8 81.3 80.2 80.7 80.4 No 29.4 37.5 32.8 16.3 16.2 16.2 17.2 16.1 16.7 Not eligible 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.8 1.1 1.8 1.4 Not available 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 Association membership/dues paid by the institution 58 Yes 32.4 16.7 25.9 53.9 48.9 51.8 46.1 45.2 45.7 No 47.1 62.5 53.4 36.3 34.9 35.7 43.4 38.0 41.1 Not eligible 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.8 2.2 1.4 1.7 2.9 2.2 Not available 17.6 20.8 19.0 9.0 14.0 11.0 8.7 14.0 11.0 Tuition remission 58 Yes 17.6 12.5 15.5 23.5 19.1 21.7 20.4 18.4 19.5 No 67.6 75.0 70.7 70.4 71.8 71.0 73.0 72.0 72.6 Not eligible 5.9 4.2 5.2 3.8 5.0 4.3 4.2 4.7 4.4 Not available 8.8 8.3 8.6 2.3 4.1 3.1 2.5 4.9 3.5 Internal grants for research 58 Yes 47.1 45.8 46.6 38.6 33.1 36.3 42.4 39.0 41.0 No 50.0 54.2 51.7 55.7 61.0 57.9 52.7 54.3 53.4 Not eligible 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.8 Not available 2.9 0.0 1.7 4.4 3.9 4.2 3.3 4.4 3.8 Training for administrative leadership 58 Yes 5.9 8.3 6.9 11.7 11.1 11.4 12.4 12.3 12.3 No 70.6 83.3 75.9 75.9 72.5 74.5 75.8 71.1 73.8 Not eligible 8.8 0.0 5.2 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.4 3.3 2.8 Not available 14.7 8.3 12.1 10.0 13.7 11.5 9.5 13.2 11.1

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 8 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Goals for undergraduates noted as "very important" or "essential" Develop ability to think critically 58 97.1 100.0 98.3 99.6 99.8 99.7 99.3 99.9 99.6 Prepare students for employment after college 58 85.3 83.3 84.5 81.0 86.1 83.1 78.3 84.8 81.1 Prepare students for graduate or advanced education 58 64.7 62.5 63.8 79.1 82.2 80.4 77.1 80.9 78.7 Develop moral character 58 67.6 70.8 69.0 80.5 82.3 81.2 75.5 80.3 77.6 Provide for students’ emotional development 58 38.2 50.0 43.1 55.3 64.1 58.9 51.3 62.0 55.9 Prepare students for family living 58 8.8 20.8 13.8 28.5 33.0 30.3 25.1 27.6 26.1 Teach students the classic works of Western civilization [2] 58 50.0 29.2 41.4 44.3 37.1 41.4 40.8 35.7 38.6 Help students develop personal values 58 70.6 79.2 74.1 77.4 81.2 78.9 72.7 77.8 74.9 Enhance students’ self-understanding 58 79.4 83.3 81.0 77.3 81.5 79.0 76.1 80.7 78.1 Instill in students a commitment to community service 58 44.1 70.8 55.2 60.9 72.1 65.5 55.5 69.9 61.7 Enhance students’ knowledge of and appreciation for other racial/ethnic groups 58 76.5 83.3 79.3 72.4 89.1 79.2 71.9 89.4 79.5 Study a foreign language [2] 58 44.1 50.0 46.6 55.9 63.8 59.1 54.4 63.6 58.3 Help master knowledge in a discipline 58 94.1 100.0 96.6 95.8 97.3 96.4 95.5 96.3 95.9 Develop creative capacities 58 70.6 66.7 69.0 80.6 78.2 79.6 82.1 81.4 81.8 Instill a basic appreciation of the liberal arts 58 70.6 70.8 70.7 80.9 82.1 81.4 80.2 83.3 81.5 Promote ability to write effectively 58 97.1 95.8 96.6 96.4 98.9 97.4 96.8 99.0 97.8 Help students evaluate the quality and reliability of information [2] 58 94.1 95.8 94.8 96.3 98.3 97.1 96.9 99.0 97.8 Engage students in civil discourse around controversial issues [2] 58 67.6 75.0 70.7 76.2 80.0 77.7 75.3 83.3 78.7 Teach students tolerance and respect for different beliefs [2] 58 88.2 87.5 87.9 78.8 92.0 84.2 80.1 92.8 85.5 Encourage students to become agents of social change [2] 58 41.2 70.8 53.4 57.5 73.2 63.9 56.6 75.4 64.6

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 9 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total HOW MANY OF THE FOLLOWING HAVE YOU PUBLISHED? Articles in academic or professional journals 58 None 32.4 37.5 34.5 27.8 37.9 31.9 24.9 32.5 28.2 1 to 2 20.6 20.8 20.7 24.3 29.6 26.4 21.2 25.9 23.2 3 to 4 17.6 12.5 15.5 15.8 15.7 15.8 15.1 17.1 15.9 5 to 10 14.7 20.8 17.2 17.2 11.2 14.8 18.9 14.5 17.0 11 to 20 11.8 4.2 8.6 8.7 3.6 6.6 10.8 6.0 8.8 21 to 50 2.9 4.2 3.4 5.1 1.9 3.8 7.1 3.3 5.5 51+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.7 2.0 0.7 1.4 Chapters in edited volumes 58 None 82.4 70.8 77.6 64.8 71.6 67.6 58.8 63.2 60.7 1 to 2 14.7 25.0 19.0 22.4 21.0 21.9 24.4 24.6 24.5 3 to 4 2.9 4.2 3.4 7.4 5.0 6.4 9.7 7.4 8.7 5 to 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.9 3.2 5.1 3.5 4.4 11 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 1.6 0.7 1.2 21 to 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 51+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Books, manuals, or monographs 58 None 76.5 79.2 77.6 70.9 80.2 74.7 66.0 76.3 70.4 1 to 2 23.5 20.8 22.4 19.5 15.7 18.0 23.3 18.4 21.2 3 to 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 3.0 4.6 5.5 3.3 4.6 5 to 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.7 1.8 4.1 1.6 3.0 11 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.7 21 to 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 51+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other, such as patents or computer software products 58 None 88.2 95.8 91.4 87.7 93.3 90.0 87.3 91.6 89.2 1 to 2 8.8 0.0 5.2 6.6 4.1 5.6 7.2 5.4 6.4 3 to 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.4 2.4 2.7 1.7 2.3 5 to 10 0.0 4.2 1.7 1.1 0.6 0.9 1.4 0.6 1.1 11 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 21 to 50 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 51+ 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, HOW MANY: Exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts have you presented? 58 None 79.4 83.3 81.0 77.3 79.3 78.1 76.6 78.6 77.4 1 to 2 2.9 4.2 3.4 5.4 7.1 6.1 8.0 7.9 8.0 3 to 4 8.8 8.3 8.6 4.7 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.9 4.8 5 to 10 2.9 0.0 1.7 5.4 4.4 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.4 11 to 20 2.9 4.2 3.4 3.2 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.0 2.1 21 to 50 2.9 0.0 1.7 1.9 0.9 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.1 51+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.9 1.6 1.7 0.6 1.3 Of your professional writings have been published or accepted for publication? 58 None 38.2 58.3 46.6 44.8 53.9 48.5 40.2 46.6 43.0 1 to 2 38.2 25.0 32.8 33.5 31.9 32.8 35.2 33.3 34.4 3 to 4 14.7 16.7 15.5 14.6 10.8 13.1 16.2 14.2 15.3 5 to 10 5.9 0.0 3.4 5.7 2.6 4.5 6.8 4.8 6.0 11 to 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 21 to 50 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 51+ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

Page 10 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total General activities Are you a member of a faculty union? 58 35.3 25.0 31.0 5.4 6.7 5.9 9.1 10.2 9.5 Are you a U.S. citizen? 58 97.1 100.0 98.3 95.4 95.6 95.5 94.7 95.5 95.0 Were you born in the U.S.A.? 58 91.2 100.0 94.8 91.0 88.4 90.0 87.4 88.1 87.7 Do you plan to retire within the next three years? 58 11.8 0.0 6.9 9.5 7.6 8.7 10.6 8.6 9.8 Do you use your scholarship to address local community needs? 58 26.5 41.7 32.8 48.2 52.4 49.9 41.2 48.9 44.5 Have you been sexually harassed at this institution? 58 0.0 4.2 1.7 1.6 8.4 4.3 2.2 7.9 4.6 Have you ever interrupted your professional career for more than one year for family reasons? [2] 58 2.9 8.3 5.2 6.5 21.6 12.6 5.8 20.9 12.3 Have you ever received an award for outstanding teaching? 58 32.4 29.2 31.0 42.1 38.0 40.4 39.5 37.2 38.6 Have you published op-ed pieces or editorials? 58 23.5 16.7 20.7 25.9 15.5 21.7 26.8 16.4 22.3 Is (or was) your: Father an academic? 58 23.5 4.2 15.5 14.8 15.7 15.1 13.3 15.0 14.0 Mother an academic? 58 14.7 8.3 12.1 10.2 13.4 11.5 8.7 12.2 10.2 Spouse/partner an academic? 58 23.5 29.2 25.9 34.5 32.6 33.7 33.8 33.3 33.6 Are you currently teaching courses at more than one institution? 58 5.9 8.3 6.9 7.2 4.0 5.9 7.6 5.3 6.6 During the past two years, have you: Considered early retirement? 58 23.5 25.0 24.1 17.9 18.8 18.3 17.2 18.6 17.8 Considered leaving academe for another job? 58 41.2 45.8 43.1 32.8 37.3 34.7 31.2 35.3 32.9 Considered leaving this institution for another? 58 67.6 58.3 63.8 46.8 43.9 45.6 45.0 43.6 44.4 Changed academic institutions? 58 14.7 25.0 19.0 12.9 11.9 12.5 11.1 13.3 12.0 Engaged in paid consulting outside of your institution? 58 23.5 37.5 29.3 35.0 28.0 32.2 35.2 27.7 32.0 Engaged in public service/professional consulting without pay? 58 41.2 66.7 51.7 58.6 58.5 58.6 55.1 55.6 55.3 Received at least one firm job offer? 58 17.6 45.8 29.3 24.3 27.5 25.6 24.4 26.3 25.2 Received funding for your work from: Foundations? 58 8.8 8.3 8.6 14.7 13.6 14.2 17.3 15.4 16.5 State or federal government? 58 20.6 20.8 20.7 9.5 9.2 9.4 14.1 12.7 13.5 Business or industry? 58 2.9 4.2 3.4 9.9 6.6 8.6 11.3 6.6 9.3 Requested/sought an early promotion? 58 2.9 4.2 3.4 5.2 5.9 5.5 6.4 6.0 6.2 IF YOU WERE TO BEGIN YOUR CAREER AGAIN, WOULD YOU STILL WANT TO: Come to this institution? [2] 58 Definitely yes 8.8 29.2 17.2 38.8 40.4 39.5 38.6 39.7 39.1 Probably yes 50.0 25.0 39.7 33.0 34.4 33.6 33.9 34.0 33.9 Not sure 11.8 33.3 20.7 15.2 15.7 15.4 15.3 16.6 15.9 Probably no 14.7 4.2 10.3 9.6 6.1 8.2 8.2 6.7 7.5 Definitely no 14.7 8.3 12.1 3.3 3.4 3.4 4.0 3.0 3.6 Be a college professor? 58 Definitely yes 58.8 66.7 62.1 67.4 62.4 65.4 66.5 62.2 64.7 Probably yes 35.3 16.7 27.6 25.0 26.3 25.5 25.2 26.5 25.8 Not sure 2.9 16.7 8.6 5.9 9.3 7.3 6.2 9.4 7.6 Probably no 2.9 0.0 1.7 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 Definitely no 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 11 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Attributes noted as being "very descriptive" of your institution It is easy for students to see faculty outside of regular office hours 58 73.5 62.5 69.0 80.5 79.2 80.0 77.7 77.3 77.6 There is a great deal of conformity among the students 58 50.0 45.8 48.3 37.4 36.8 37.1 32.9 31.6 32.3 The faculty are typically at odds with campus administration 58 38.2 37.5 37.9 16.0 16.9 16.4 17.3 18.2 17.7 Faculty here respect each other 58 47.1 20.8 36.2 58.2 57.7 58.0 53.9 53.8 53.9 Most students are treated like "numbers in a book" 57 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.6 Social activities are overemphasized 57 5.9 8.7 7.0 13.0 10.5 12.0 11.0 8.5 9.9 Faculty are rewarded for being good teachers 56 2.9 4.5 3.6 18.4 19.0 18.6 21.0 20.8 20.9 There is respect for the expression of diverse values and beliefs 57 32.4 26.1 29.8 31.6 30.5 31.2 38.6 36.5 37.7 Faculty are rewarded for their efforts to use instructional technology 58 11.8 4.2 8.6 12.7 17.9 14.8 14.4 18.2 16.1 Faculty are rewarded for their efforts to work with underprepared students 58 0.0 4.2 1.7 5.1 8.7 6.6 6.6 8.4 7.4 Administrators consider faculty concerns when making policy [2] 58 5.9 12.5 8.6 20.4 18.5 19.6 19.4 16.6 18.2 The administration is open about its policies 57 11.8 21.7 15.8 22.4 20.4 21.6 22.0 18.8 20.6 Do you, "to a great extent": Engage in academic work that spans multiple disciplines 58 44.1 29.2 37.9 35.5 32.5 34.3 40.3 34.6 37.8 Feel that the training you received in graduate school prepared you well for your role as a faculty mentor 58 35.3 33.3 34.5 37.8 37.2 37.5 37.9 34.5 36.4 Achieve a healthy balance between your personal life and your professional life 58 23.5 8.3 17.2 35.7 23.7 30.8 37.0 25.2 32.0 Experience close alignment between your work and your personal values 58 58.8 62.5 60.3 71.7 70.7 71.3 68.1 70.1 68.9 Feel that you have to work harder than your colleagues to be perceived as a legitimate scholar 58 20.6 33.3 25.9 21.7 27.2 23.9 21.8 28.8 24.8 Mentor new faculty [2] 57 15.2 16.7 15.8 15.1 22.4 18.1 17.2 26.3 21.1

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 12 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Aspects of your job with which you are "very satisfied" or "satisfied": [3] Salary [2] 58 26.5 33.3 29.3 44.1 44.6 44.3 47.9 44.5 46.4 Health benefits [2] 52 60.0 50.0 55.8 52.3 52.7 52.4 58.2 60.0 59.0 Retirement benefits [2] 56 75.8 73.9 75.0 62.2 64.8 63.3 63.3 63.2 63.3 Opportunity for scholarly pursuits 57 42.4 33.3 38.6 48.8 45.7 47.5 52.0 44.3 48.7 Teaching load 58 61.8 54.2 58.6 52.3 55.1 53.5 56.5 54.0 55.4 Quality of students 58 38.2 50.0 43.1 53.8 61.8 57.1 55.8 61.3 58.2 Office/lab space 56 50.0 72.7 58.9 70.2 70.6 70.3 70.4 70.2 70.3 Autonomy and independence 58 76.5 66.7 72.4 85.0 85.7 85.3 85.8 85.5 85.7 Professional relationships with other faculty 56 78.8 73.9 76.8 83.8 84.4 84.0 81.7 83.4 82.5 Social relationships with other faculty 54 78.8 76.2 77.8 71.3 76.8 73.6 70.7 76.4 73.2 Competency of colleagues 58 70.6 66.7 69.0 81.7 84.8 83.0 80.6 83.9 82.0 Visibility for jobs at other institutions/organizations 46 37.9 35.3 37.0 47.5 53.3 49.8 48.0 48.7 48.3 Job security 58 58.8 54.2 56.9 76.7 73.9 75.6 77.0 74.4 75.9 Relationship with administration 58 52.9 45.8 50.0 62.7 62.5 62.6 63.1 62.9 63.0 Departmental leadership [2] 52 64.3 50.0 57.7 79.3 72.1 76.4 77.1 71.8 74.8 Course assignments [2] 58 79.4 62.5 72.4 87.6 85.1 86.5 87.6 86.2 87.0 Freedom to determine course content [2] 58 94.1 87.5 91.4 94.4 92.8 93.7 93.8 92.3 93.1 Availability of child care at this institution 17 11.1 0.0 5.9 24.6 21.9 23.5 24.5 20.1 22.5 Prospects for career advancement 54 36.4 38.1 37.0 56.4 55.4 56.0 56.6 54.6 55.7 Clerical/administrative support 56 30.3 39.1 33.9 59.3 58.5 59.0 62.4 58.4 60.7 Overall job satisfaction 58 52.9 70.8 60.3 75.6 75.6 75.6 77.9 76.2 77.2

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007. [3] Respondents marking "Not Applicable" were not included in the computation of these results.

Page 13 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Do you agree "strongly" or "somewhat"? Faculty are interested in students’ personal problems 58 91.2 95.8 93.1 96.2 96.6 96.3 93.6 94.4 93.9 Racial and ethnic diversity should be more strongly reflected in the curriculum 57 73.5 82.6 77.2 58.8 73.6 64.8 58.2 71.7 64.0 Faculty feel that most students are well-prepared academically 58 17.6 20.8 19.0 47.2 52.0 49.1 47.7 48.6 48.1 This institution should hire more faculty of color 58 85.3 91.7 87.9 76.3 86.0 80.2 72.8 84.4 77.7 Student Affairs staff have the support and respect of faculty 57 88.2 87.0 87.7 79.4 84.6 81.5 79.4 82.1 80.6 Faculty are committed to the welfare of this institution 57 88.2 87.0 87.7 95.2 96.4 95.7 94.8 95.8 95.2 Faculty here are strongly interested in the academic problems of undergraduates 57 88.2 87.0 87.7 95.1 96.0 95.5 94.9 95.5 95.2 There is a lot of campus racial conflict here 57 2.9 30.4 14.0 8.0 14.8 10.8 8.9 14.7 11.4 Most students are strongly committed to community service 57 41.2 39.1 40.4 67.0 74.5 70.1 61.6 66.6 63.8 My research is valued by faculty in my department 55 60.6 72.7 65.5 78.1 76.1 77.3 78.3 72.7 75.9 My teaching is valued by faculty in my department 57 85.3 91.3 87.7 95.3 92.7 94.2 93.3 93.2 93.2 Many courses include feminist perspectives 56 33.3 47.8 39.3 40.5 45.0 42.3 46.7 52.3 49.1 Faculty of color are treated fairly here 55 88.2 95.2 90.9 92.0 87.1 90.0 92.4 87.9 90.4 Women faculty are treated fairly here 56 94.1 86.4 91.1 92.6 78.6 86.9 93.5 81.4 88.3 Many courses involve students in community service 56 44.1 31.8 39.3 60.6 66.6 63.1 56.7 63.4 59.6 This institution should hire more women faculty 57 41.2 39.1 40.4 48.8 60.0 53.3 46.4 55.7 50.4 Gay and lesbian faculty are treated fairly here 55 93.9 72.7 85.5 68.6 62.2 66.0 77.5 74.5 76.2 My department does a good job of mentoring new faculty 57 61.8 60.9 61.4 76.5 72.8 75.0 76.7 71.7 74.6 Faculty are sufficiently involved in campus decision making 57 50.0 60.9 54.4 58.4 58.3 58.4 60.3 59.9 60.1 My values are congruent with the dominant institutional values 57 73.5 73.9 73.7 83.6 83.7 83.6 80.8 82.2 81.4 There is adequate support for integrating technology in my teaching 58 79.4 58.3 70.7 79.3 76.8 78.3 82.8 79.3 81.3 This institution takes responsibility for educating underprepared students 57 50.0 47.8 49.1 68.8 63.6 66.7 69.1 65.4 67.5 The criteria for advancement and promotion decisions are clear 58 35.3 54.2 43.1 73.2 70.5 72.1 71.8 71.7 71.8 Most of the students I teach lack the basic skills for college level work 58 44.1 41.7 43.1 34.5 35.1 34.8 34.6 36.7 35.5 There is adequate support for faculty development 57 52.9 47.8 50.9 65.6 66.1 65.8 69.5 68.2 69.0 This institution should not offer remedial/developmental education 57 23.5 21.7 22.8 29.8 23.7 27.3 28.9 22.9 26.3

Page 14 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Issues you believe to be of "high" or "highest" priority at your institution: To promote the intellectual development of students 58 82.4 79.2 81.0 88.0 90.0 88.8 88.0 90.3 89.0 To help students examine and understand their personal values 57 52.9 47.8 50.9 78.8 81.9 80.1 73.2 75.4 74.1 To develop a sense of community among students and faculty 58 44.1 50.0 46.6 69.5 75.0 71.7 65.9 72.2 68.6 To facilitate student involvement in community service 57 26.5 34.8 29.8 61.3 68.9 64.4 55.3 64.2 59.1 To help students learn how to bring about change in American society 57 11.8 21.7 15.8 40.4 48.5 43.7 40.8 48.0 43.9 To increase or maintain institutional prestige 58 52.9 41.7 48.3 51.7 58.7 54.6 59.4 60.8 60.0 To hire faculty “stars” 57 5.9 8.7 7.0 12.7 17.8 14.8 14.6 18.3 16.2 To recruit more minority students 57 20.6 43.5 29.8 43.4 46.1 44.5 47.3 51.4 49.1 To enhance the institution’s national image 58 38.2 50.0 43.1 53.1 55.8 54.2 62.0 61.2 61.6 To create a diverse multi-cultural campus environment 58 32.4 54.2 41.4 46.9 49.1 47.8 53.0 54.6 53.7 To promote gender equity among faculty 57 23.5 21.7 22.8 49.0 39.2 45.0 54.6 43.8 50.0 To provide resources for faculty to engage in community-based teaching or research 57 20.6 34.8 26.3 28.6 36.6 31.9 32.9 36.2 34.3 To create and sustain partnerships with surrounding communities 57 58.8 65.2 61.4 42.1 49.3 45.1 43.8 47.5 45.4 To pursue extramural funding 56 67.6 77.3 71.4 39.9 45.9 42.3 44.3 47.6 45.7 To increase the representation of minorities in the faculty and administration 56 11.8 31.8 19.6 35.4 38.8 36.8 40.2 42.7 41.3 To strengthen links with the for- profit, corporate sector [2] 57 58.8 47.8 54.4 32.0 34.5 33.0 34.4 37.2 35.6 To develop leadership ability among students 57 26.5 56.5 38.6 66.9 73.8 69.8 66.3 72.4 68.9 To increase the representation of women in the faculty and administration 56 23.5 22.7 23.2 30.7 29.1 30.1 35.9 30.3 33.5 To develop an appreciation for multiculturalism [2] 56 50.0 50.0 50.0 52.9 57.1 54.6 57.6 60.6 58.9

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 15 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Do you agree "strongly" or "somewhat"? Western civilization and culture should be the foundation for the undergraduate curriculum 57 67.6 56.5 63.2 71.3 55.1 64.7 66.6 52.2 60.4 College officials have the right to ban persons with extreme views from speaking on campus 57 44.1 26.1 36.8 47.8 37.4 43.6 39.1 29.8 35.1 The chief benefit of a college education is that it increases one’s earning power 57 26.5 17.4 22.8 21.4 25.7 23.2 24.1 24.3 24.2 Promoting diversity leads to the admission of too many underprepared students 56 29.4 27.3 28.6 26.3 17.8 22.8 24.8 16.2 21.1 Colleges should be actively involved in solving social problems 57 70.6 69.6 70.2 70.5 75.4 72.5 68.6 75.6 71.6 Tenure is an outmoded concept 58 26.5 45.8 34.5 31.1 41.1 35.1 31.3 35.1 32.9 Colleges should encourage students to be involved in community service activities 57 91.2 100.0 94.7 92.8 95.9 94.0 89.2 95.4 91.8 Community service should be given weight in college admissions decisions 57 73.5 82.6 77.2 68.6 74.0 70.8 68.7 73.4 70.7 A racially/ethnically diverse student body enhances the educational experience of all students 57 94.1 95.7 94.7 93.8 96.7 95.0 91.6 97.4 94.1 Realistically, an individual can do little to bring about changes in society 58 32.4 0.0 19.0 19.5 10.1 15.7 21.8 9.9 16.7 Colleges should be concerned with facilitating undergraduate students’ spiritual development 56 47.1 50.0 48.2 73.4 69.2 71.7 58.1 56.0 57.2 Colleges have a responsibility to work with their surrounding communities to address local issues 57 97.1 91.3 94.7 90.4 92.9 91.4 86.7 92.6 89.2 Private funding sources often prevent researchers from being completely objective in the conduct of their work 57 50.0 60.9 54.4 56.9 58.8 57.7 57.3 59.0 58.0

Page 16 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Factors noted as a source of stress for you during the last two years [4] Managing household responsibilities 58 79.4 83.3 81.0 72.7 82.1 76.5 70.8 81.9 75.5 Child care 58 35.3 29.2 32.8 34.7 34.7 34.7 34.1 33.0 33.6 Care of elderly parent 58 20.6 25.0 22.4 32.2 38.6 34.8 33.4 35.8 34.4 My physical health 58 52.9 54.2 53.4 45.5 54.7 49.2 44.7 53.9 48.6 Health of spouse/partner 58 23.5 33.3 27.6 38.4 28.4 34.3 38.4 31.2 35.3 Review/promotion process 58 50.0 62.5 55.2 45.5 52.0 48.2 45.7 55.1 49.7 Subtle discrimination (e.g., prejudice, racism, sexism) 58 8.8 20.8 13.8 14.0 35.5 22.8 16.9 33.4 24.0 Personal finances 58 76.5 62.5 70.7 67.3 65.5 66.6 65.5 66.3 65.8 Committee work 58 73.5 58.3 67.2 60.0 60.5 60.2 60.3 63.3 61.6 Faculty meetings 58 61.8 75.0 67.2 52.4 51.6 52.1 52.5 54.6 53.4 Colleagues 58 61.8 66.7 63.8 59.5 62.9 60.9 59.5 66.7 62.6 Students 58 73.5 70.8 72.4 69.2 74.0 71.1 64.4 70.5 67.0 Research or publishing demands 58 61.8 75.0 67.2 49.2 50.2 49.6 51.2 56.9 53.6 Institutional procedures and "red tape" 58 85.3 66.7 77.6 67.9 63.9 66.3 66.4 64.1 65.4 Teaching load 58 58.8 50.0 55.2 67.2 70.3 68.5 64.2 70.2 66.7 Children’s problems 58 29.4 20.8 25.9 34.5 30.0 32.7 32.0 30.6 31.4 Friction with spouse/partner 58 41.2 25.0 34.5 26.7 23.8 25.5 27.7 24.6 26.4 Lack of personal time 58 85.3 91.7 87.9 71.6 84.8 77.0 69.2 85.2 76.1 Keeping up with information technology 58 41.2 62.5 50.0 50.7 58.7 54.0 49.7 56.7 52.7 Job security 58 41.2 45.8 43.1 31.6 37.4 34.0 34.1 36.5 35.1 Being part of a dual career couple 57 50.0 60.9 54.4 45.9 51.0 48.0 44.9 50.1 47.1 Working with underprepared students 58 61.8 91.7 74.1 68.4 70.7 69.3 64.2 67.1 65.5 Classroom conflict 58 23.5 20.8 22.4 16.8 25.2 20.2 16.9 25.1 20.4 Self-imposed high expectations 58 73.5 95.8 82.8 80.4 86.8 83.0 77.7 85.5 81.1 Change in work responsibilities 58 44.1 62.5 51.7 43.0 55.7 48.2 43.0 55.9 48.5 Personal goals noted as "very important" or "essential": Becoming an authority in my field 58 52.9 66.7 58.6 52.4 49.6 51.3 52.8 51.8 52.4 Influencing the political structure 58 17.6 25.0 20.7 16.3 16.5 16.4 16.5 17.6 17.0 Influencing social values 58 26.5 62.5 41.4 42.7 47.6 44.7 39.9 48.2 43.5 Raising a family 58 70.6 66.7 69.0 78.1 66.5 73.4 74.9 66.0 71.1 Becoming very well off financially 58 29.4 16.7 24.1 24.8 22.8 24.0 28.3 24.6 26.7 Helping others who are in difficulty 58 50.0 83.3 63.8 66.0 75.8 70.0 64.0 73.6 68.1 Becoming involved in programs to clean up the environment 58 20.6 33.3 25.9 31.2 37.7 33.9 33.0 38.9 35.5 Developing a meaningful philosophy of life 58 67.6 79.2 72.4 75.4 78.0 76.4 75.2 78.0 76.4 Helping to promote racial understanding 58 29.4 70.8 46.6 49.6 63.5 55.2 52.4 64.0 57.4 Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field 58 38.2 25.0 32.8 33.2 37.6 35.0 38.3 41.4 39.6 Integrating spirituality into my life 58 38.2 50.0 43.1 65.5 71.0 67.8 54.5 58.7 56.3

[4] Percentage represents those reporting "somewhat" or "extensive" stress.

Page 17 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total IN YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH UNDERGRAD- UATES, HOW OFTEN DO YOU ENCOURAGE THEM TO: [2] Ask questions in class 58 Frequently 82.4 91.7 86.2 93.6 96.6 94.8 93.5 96.9 95.0 Occasionally 17.6 8.3 13.8 6.3 3.3 5.1 6.4 3.1 5.0 Not at all 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Support their opinions with a logical argument 58 Frequently 76.5 83.3 79.3 80.0 84.9 82.0 82.0 86.7 84.0 Occasionally 20.6 12.5 17.2 18.9 14.7 17.2 17.2 12.8 15.3 Not at all 2.9 4.2 3.4 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 Seek solutions to problems and explain them to others 58 Frequently 82.4 70.8 77.6 68.4 75.9 71.5 71.3 80.0 75.1 Occasionally 17.6 20.8 19.0 30.2 22.9 27.2 26.9 18.9 23.5 Not at all 0.0 8.3 3.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.5 Revise their papers to improve their writing 58 Frequently 35.3 70.8 50.0 53.1 66.9 58.7 57.2 69.8 62.6 Occasionally 52.9 29.2 43.1 38.2 28.1 34.1 34.8 25.8 30.9 Not at all 11.8 0.0 6.9 8.7 5.0 7.2 8.0 4.3 6.4 Evaluate the quality or reliability of information they receive 58 Frequently 61.8 87.5 72.4 66.5 77.4 70.9 69.4 79.3 73.6 Occasionally 29.4 12.5 22.4 31.0 21.2 27.0 28.4 19.1 24.4 Not at all 8.8 0.0 5.2 2.5 1.5 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.9 Take risks for potential gains 56 Frequently 24.2 30.4 26.8 33.6 39.5 36.0 35.8 42.3 38.6 Occasionally 51.5 52.2 51.8 52.8 48.7 51.2 51.0 47.3 49.4 Not at all 24.2 17.4 21.4 13.5 11.8 12.8 13.2 10.4 12.0 Seek alternative solutions to a problem 57 Frequently 61.8 52.2 57.9 58.9 66.4 62.0 61.1 69.4 64.7 Occasionally 29.4 43.5 35.1 38.7 31.6 35.8 36.5 28.8 33.2 Not at all 8.8 4.3 7.0 2.4 2.0 2.2 2.4 1.8 2.2 Look up scientific research articles and resources 57 Frequently 35.3 60.9 45.6 42.9 52.1 46.7 46.4 55.8 50.4 Occasionally 38.2 26.1 33.3 41.6 33.4 38.3 38.9 29.7 35.0 Not at all 26.5 13.0 21.1 15.5 14.4 15.1 14.6 14.5 14.6 Explore topics on their own, even though it was not required for a class 57 Frequently 35.3 39.1 36.8 43.7 50.1 46.3 46.6 54.2 49.9 Occasionally 52.9 56.5 54.4 50.8 45.6 48.7 48.3 43.1 46.1 Not at all 11.8 4.3 8.8 5.4 4.3 5.0 5.1 2.7 4.1 Acknowledge failure as a necessary part of the learning process 58 Frequently 47.1 25.0 37.9 45.2 49.0 46.7 47.2 53.4 49.8 Occasionally 44.1 62.5 51.7 47.9 46.1 47.1 46.4 41.6 44.3 Not at all 8.8 12.5 10.3 7.0 4.9 6.1 6.4 5.0 5.8 Seek feedback on their academic work 58 Frequently 67.6 87.5 75.9 67.9 81.3 73.4 69.8 82.8 75.4 Occasionally 29.4 12.5 22.4 30.5 17.6 25.2 28.5 16.5 23.3 Not at all 2.9 0.0 1.7 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.7 0.6 1.2

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 18 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Methods you use in "all" or "most" of the courses you teach: Multiple-choice exams [2] 58 41.2 37.5 39.7 36.4 39.3 37.6 31.0 33.7 32.1 Essay exams [2] 58 47.1 41.7 44.8 51.5 48.1 50.1 52.3 45.3 49.3 Short-answer exams [2] 58 61.8 54.2 58.6 51.3 49.9 50.7 49.7 46.3 48.3 Quizzes 57 39.4 37.5 38.6 43.6 46.4 44.7 39.5 41.8 40.5 Weekly essay assignments 58 14.7 29.2 20.7 18.6 25.8 21.5 21.2 27.6 24.0 Student presentations 58 55.9 66.7 60.3 43.8 60.3 50.6 46.0 61.3 52.6 Term/research papers 58 61.8 50.0 56.9 44.9 43.7 44.4 45.0 47.8 46.2 Student evaluations of each others’ work 58 32.4 41.7 36.2 19.2 31.7 24.3 20.9 31.2 25.3 Grading on a curve 58 26.5 8.3 19.0 14.8 5.6 11.0 16.7 8.4 13.2 Competency-based grading 55 48.5 50.0 49.1 49.2 56.1 52.0 51.3 52.7 51.9 Class discussions 58 85.3 79.2 82.8 82.3 86.9 84.1 81.4 88.3 84.3 Cooperative learning (small groups) 58 70.6 87.5 77.6 56.5 77.8 65.2 54.6 75.1 63.4 Experiential learning/Field studies 58 20.6 41.7 29.3 27.7 42.1 33.6 27.0 38.6 32.0 Teaching assistants 58 2.9 4.2 3.4 5.8 6.3 6.0 6.5 6.7 6.6 Recitals/Demonstrations 58 26.5 8.3 19.0 19.6 22.8 20.9 20.0 22.3 21.0 Group projects 58 61.8 58.3 60.3 34.1 44.0 38.1 32.5 42.4 36.7 Extensive lecturing 58 73.5 33.3 56.9 48.9 30.4 41.4 48.5 29.8 40.5 Multiple drafts of written work 58 23.5 45.8 32.8 19.7 29.3 23.6 23.6 31.7 27.1 Readings on racial and ethnic issues 58 14.7 41.7 25.9 16.6 30.7 22.4 19.9 32.8 25.5 Readings on women and gender issues 58 8.8 33.3 19.0 14.1 27.4 19.5 15.6 29.3 21.4 Student-developed activities (assignments, exams, etc.) 58 14.7 16.7 15.5 21.2 27.8 23.9 24.5 27.1 25.6 Student-selected topics for course content 58 17.6 12.5 15.5 13.9 19.7 16.3 14.8 20.2 17.1 Reflective writing/journaling 58 17.6 41.7 27.6 18.6 33.1 24.5 18.3 32.9 24.6 Community service as part of coursework 58 2.9 12.5 6.9 7.3 12.4 9.4 6.1 12.3 8.8 Electronic quizzes with immediate feedback in class [2] 58 5.9 0.0 3.4 5.1 6.8 5.8 5.0 5.5 5.2 Using real-life problems [2] 58 52.9 50.0 51.7 53.3 58.7 55.5 53.1 57.7 55.1 Using student inquiry to drive learning 57 48.5 41.7 45.6 41.7 51.2 45.6 45.4 54.5 49.3

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 19 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total YOUR BASE INSTITUTIONAL SALARY 9/10 month contract 45 Less than $20,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.0 2.1 $20,000 to 29,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.3 $30,000 to 39,999 4.0 15.0 8.9 5.7 8.8 6.9 4.2 6.1 5.0 $40,000 to 49,999 40.0 45.0 42.2 24.0 30.0 26.4 20.0 23.7 21.5 $50,000 to 59,999 28.0 25.0 26.7 28.2 31.7 29.6 23.8 30.9 26.8 $60,000 to 69,999 12.0 10.0 11.1 17.0 16.7 16.9 16.5 18.0 17.2 $70,000 to 79,999 8.0 5.0 6.7 11.6 5.0 9.0 12.6 8.3 10.8 $80,000 to 89,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 3.0 4.8 8.1 5.0 6.8 $90,000 to 99,999 8.0 0.0 4.4 3.4 1.1 2.5 5.5 2.3 4.2 $100,000 to 124,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.3 1.2 5.0 2.5 4.0 $125,000 to 149,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.7 $150,000 or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 11/12 month contract 11 Less than $20,000 11.1 0.0 9.1 0.9 1.6 1.2 2.4 2.2 2.3 $20,000 to 29,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.4 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.7 $30,000 to 39,999 22.2 0.0 18.2 5.9 7.5 6.6 2.7 5.8 4.1 $40,000 to 49,999 33.3 0.0 27.3 27.0 31.7 29.0 21.2 23.1 22.1 $50,000 to 59,999 11.1 100.0 27.3 22.5 26.1 24.0 20.1 24.2 22.0 $60,000 to 69,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 19.6 17.4 14.9 19.4 17.0 $70,000 to 79,999 22.2 0.0 18.2 10.6 7.5 9.3 11.0 11.1 11.1 $80,000 to 89,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 2.7 5.3 10.2 6.7 8.6 $90,000 to 99,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.1 2.4 6.6 3.5 5.2 $100,000 to 124,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.7 1.9 7.6 3.0 5.5 $125,000 to 149,999 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.9 $150,000 or more 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.7 Your base institutional salary is based on: 56 9/10 months 73.5 90.9 80.4 72.1 70.1 71.2 70.2 66.8 68.7 11/12 months 26.5 9.1 19.6 27.9 29.9 28.8 29.8 33.2 31.3 WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR CURRENT YEAR'S SALARY COMES FROM: [2] Income from this institution 56 All 72.7 69.6 71.4 57.4 71.3 63.1 59.6 70.4 64.2 75 to 99 21.2 26.1 23.2 33.7 23.9 29.7 30.6 24.8 28.1 50 to 74 3.0 4.3 3.6 6.1 3.2 4.9 6.5 3.2 5.1 25 to 49 3.0 0.0 1.8 2.3 1.1 1.8 2.9 1.1 2.1 1 to 24 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Other academic income 51 All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 75 to 99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 50 to 74 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 25 to 49 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.8 1.6 1.7 1 to 24 6.5 15.0 9.8 18.0 12.5 15.8 18.6 13.0 16.2 None 93.5 85.0 90.2 80.7 85.8 82.7 79.1 85.0 81.6 Non-academic income 51 All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 75 to 99 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 50 to 74 3.2 5.0 3.9 2.7 1.7 2.3 3.0 1.5 2.4 25 to 49 3.2 0.0 2.0 6.9 2.1 5.0 6.6 3.1 5.1 1 to 24 19.4 15.0 17.6 23.4 17.7 21.1 20.9 17.4 19.4 None 74.2 80.0 76.5 66.4 77.9 71.0 68.7 77.6 72.5

[2] These questions asked for the first time in 2007.

Page 20 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total What is your age as of 12/31/2007? 56 Less than 30 2.9 4.5 3.6 1.9 3.4 2.5 1.9 2.5 2.2 30 to 34 14.7 9.1 12.5 7.6 9.9 8.5 7.6 8.6 8.0 35 to 39 20.6 9.1 16.1 13.1 14.3 13.6 12.9 14.0 13.4 40 to 44 17.6 18.2 17.9 12.8 13.7 13.2 12.5 14.2 13.3 45 to 49 8.8 22.7 14.3 15.2 15.4 15.2 13.8 14.3 14.0 50 to 54 8.8 22.7 14.3 14.6 16.6 15.4 14.1 16.5 15.1 55 to 59 11.8 13.6 12.5 15.2 15.3 15.2 15.0 14.3 14.7 60 to 64 8.8 0.0 5.4 13.2 7.7 10.9 13.1 10.0 11.8 65 to 69 2.9 0.0 1.8 4.2 3.3 3.8 6.4 4.5 5.6 70 or more 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.4 1.6 2.7 1.1 2.0 Year of highest degree now held 55 Before 1970 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.7 2.4 5.3 1.7 3.7 1971 to 1975 8.8 0.0 5.5 7.5 2.0 5.3 7.6 3.2 5.7 1976 to 1980 14.7 9.5 12.7 9.0 5.4 7.5 9.3 6.5 8.1 1981 to 1985 8.8 0.0 5.5 9.1 8.1 8.7 11.0 8.6 10.0 1986 to 1990 2.9 19.0 9.1 13.0 12.8 12.9 11.9 13.7 12.7 1991 to 1995 23.5 23.8 23.6 15.9 17.0 16.4 14.7 15.2 14.9 1996 to 2000 17.6 19.0 18.2 16.2 20.4 17.9 15.5 20.1 17.5 2001 to 2005 17.6 19.0 18.2 20.0 22.9 21.2 18.8 22.9 20.6 2006 to 2007 5.9 9.5 7.3 5.6 10.7 7.7 5.9 8.1 6.8 Year of appointment at current position 55 Before 1970 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.7 2.0 3.6 1.0 2.5 1971 to 1975 3.0 0.0 1.8 2.8 1.0 2.1 3.3 1.7 2.6 1976 to 1980 6.1 4.5 5.5 4.9 3.1 4.2 5.6 3.4 4.7 1981 to 1985 12.1 0.0 7.3 7.7 3.4 5.9 7.7 6.3 7.1 1986 to 1990 6.1 4.5 5.5 8.6 11.0 9.6 10.5 10.6 10.5 1991 to 1995 9.1 18.2 12.7 11.8 11.6 11.7 11.5 10.6 11.1 1996 to 2000 12.1 13.6 12.7 16.5 19.4 17.7 16.6 18.8 17.6 2001 to 2005 30.3 22.7 27.3 30.1 31.0 30.4 28.7 31.2 29.8 2006 to 2007 21.2 36.4 27.3 14.8 18.9 16.4 12.6 16.4 14.2 If tenured, year tenure was awarded 25 Before 1970 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.6 0.6 1.2 1971 to 1975 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.5 1.7 3.2 0.7 2.3 1976 to 1980 5.9 0.0 4.0 4.5 1.7 3.6 6.5 2.5 5.0 1981 to 1985 11.8 0.0 8.0 7.9 4.1 6.7 8.3 5.0 7.1 1986 to 1990 29.4 12.5 24.0 11.7 6.9 10.2 12.2 10.4 11.5 1991 to 1995 5.9 12.5 8.0 14.8 16.9 15.4 16.5 15.0 15.9 1996 to 2000 11.8 37.5 20.0 16.4 16.1 16.3 16.3 18.6 17.2 2001 to 2005 29.4 25.0 28.0 22.7 31.4 25.5 19.5 26.6 22.1 2006 to 2007 5.9 12.5 8.0 18.7 22.0 19.8 16.0 20.6 17.7

Page 21 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total WHAT IS THE MAJOR OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE YOU HOLD? Biological Science 57 Agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 Forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Bacteriology, Molecular Biology 0.0 4.3 1.8 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 Biochemistry 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 Biophysics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Botany 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.5 Environmental Science 5.9 0.0 3.5 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 Marine (life) Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 Physiology, Anatomy 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.9 Zoology 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 1.1 General, Other Biological Sciences 0.0 4.3 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 Business Accounting 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 Finance 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 International Business 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Management 5.9 4.3 5.3 3.2 1.8 2.6 2.7 1.9 2.3 Marketing 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.5 0.8 Secretarial Studies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 General, Other Business 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.8 1.3 1.8 0.8 1.3 Education Business Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Educational Administration 0.0 4.3 1.8 2.4 2.8 2.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 Educational Psychology/Counseling 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 Elementary Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 0.8 0.2 1.3 0.7 Higher Education 0.0 4.3 1.8 1.1 2.0 1.5 1.1 2.9 1.9 Music or Art Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.3 Physical or Health Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 Secondary Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 Special Education 0.0 4.3 1.8 0.4 2.2 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.1 General, Other Education Fields 0.0 4.3 1.8 2.0 5.6 3.5 1.9 4.5 3.0 Engineering Aero-/Astronautical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 Chemical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Civil Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 Electrical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 Industrial Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Mechanical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 General, Other Engineering Fields 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.3 Health Dentistry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Health Technology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Medicine or Surgery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Nursing 2.9 21.7 10.5 0.4 7.8 3.4 0.2 7.4 3.3 Pharmacy, Pharmacology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 Therapy (speech, physical, occup.) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.3 Veterinary Medicine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 General, Other Health Fields 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.8

Page 22 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total WHAT IS THE MAJOR OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE YOU HOLD? Humanities History 8.8 8.7 8.8 5.0 2.9 4.1 5.2 3.2 4.4 Political Science, Government 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.3 2.0 2.8 1.8 2.4 English Language & Literature 5.9 4.3 5.3 5.7 8.7 6.9 6.9 9.0 7.8 Foreign Languages & Literature 2.9 4.3 3.5 1.3 2.0 1.6 0.9 2.6 1.7 French 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.6 German 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 Spanish 0.0 4.3 1.8 1.2 2.7 1.8 1.0 1.9 1.4 Other Foreign Languages 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 Linguistics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.3 0.7 Philosophy 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.6 1.9 3.1 1.1 2.3 Religion or Theology 0.0 4.3 1.8 7.0 3.9 5.7 6.0 2.6 4.6 General, Other Humanities Fields 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.2 Fine Arts Architecture/Urban Planning 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Art 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.5 Dramatics or Speech 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 Music 5.9 0.0 3.5 6.2 4.6 5.6 4.5 3.2 3.9 Television or Film 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4 Other Fine Arts 5.9 4.3 5.3 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.4 1.0 Physical Science Mathematics and/or Statistics 5.9 4.3 5.3 5.1 2.4 4.0 5.6 3.0 4.5 Astronomy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 Atmospheric Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chemistry 2.9 4.3 3.5 4.3 1.9 3.3 4.0 2.5 3.3 Earth Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.6 Geography 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Marine Sciences (incl. Oceanography) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Physics 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.5 1.4 2.9 0.6 1.9 General, Other Physical Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Social Science Anthropology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 Archaeology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Clinical Psychology 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1 Counseling and Guidance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 Experimental Psychology 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 Social Psychology 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 General, Other Psychology 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.6 1.3 0.8 2.9 1.7 Economics 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.9 0.6 2.0 3.2 1.0 2.3 Sociology 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.8 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 Social Work, Social Welfare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 General, Other Social Sciences 0.0 4.3 1.8 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.0

Page 23 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total WHAT IS THE MAJOR OF THE HIGHEST DEGREE YOU HOLD? Technical Computer Science 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.2 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.7 Data Processing, Computer Prog. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Drafting/Design 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Electronics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial Arts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mechanics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Technical 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Other Fields Building Trades 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Communications 2.9 4.3 3.5 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.3 Ethnic Studies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Human Ecology/Family Science 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 Journalism 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 Law 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.8 Law Enforcement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Library Science 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.3 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.7 Women's Studies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Other Vocational 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Other Fields 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7

Page 24 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUR CURRENT FACULTY APPOINTMENT? Biological Science 57 Agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Forestry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bacteriology, Molecular Biology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Biochemistry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Biophysics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Botany 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Environmental Science 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.6 Marine (life) Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Physiology, Anatomy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 Zoology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 General, Other Biological Sciences 2.9 8.7 5.3 6.0 4.5 5.4 6.0 5.0 5.5 Business Accounting 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.8 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 Finance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 International Business 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 Management 5.9 4.3 5.3 3.3 1.6 2.6 2.9 1.5 2.3 Marketing 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.9 Secretarial Studies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 General, Other Business 8.8 0.0 5.3 4.0 2.4 3.4 3.0 1.9 2.5 Education Business Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Educational Administration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Educational Psychology/Counseling 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Elementary Education 0.0 8.7 3.5 0.7 3.9 2.0 1.5 3.4 2.3 Higher Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 Music or Art Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Physical or Health Education 0.0 4.3 1.8 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 Secondary Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.6 Special Education 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.4 General, Other Education Fields 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.0 3.8 2.7 1.9 3.2 2.5 Engineering Aero-/Astronautical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chemical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Civil Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Electrical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 Industrial Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Mechanical Engineering 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 General, Other Engineering Fields 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 Health Dentistry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 Health Technology 0.0 4.3 1.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Medicine or Surgery 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Nursing 2.9 21.7 10.5 0.5 9.3 4.1 0.2 9.7 4.3 Pharmacy, Pharmacology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.0 Therapy (speech, physical, occup.) 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.5 Veterinary Medicine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 General, Other Health Fields 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6

Page 25 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUR CURRENT FACULTY APPOINTMENT? Humanities History 8.8 8.7 8.8 4.8 2.7 4.0 4.8 2.5 3.8 Political Science, Government 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.4 2.3 2.6 1.7 2.2 English Language & Literature 8.8 8.7 8.8 6.6 10.2 8.1 6.4 10.3 8.1 Foreign Languages & Literature 2.9 8.7 5.3 2.3 4.2 3.1 1.8 3.5 2.6 French 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 German 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 Spanish 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.6 1.2 0.7 1.6 1.1 Other Foreign Languages 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 Linguistics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 Philosophy 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.7 1.8 2.9 1.0 2.1 Religion or Theology 2.9 4.3 3.5 6.9 3.5 5.5 5.6 2.6 4.3 General, Other Humanities Fields 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 2.3 2.2 2.2 Fine Arts Architecture/Urban Planning 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 Art 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.1 2.9 Dramatics or Speech 5.9 0.0 3.5 2.4 1.4 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.0 Music 5.9 0.0 3.5 6.6 4.6 5.8 4.6 3.2 4.0 Television or Film 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 Other Fine Arts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 Physical Science Mathematics and/or Statistics 2.9 4.3 3.5 6.2 3.2 5.0 6.0 3.1 4.8 Astronomy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 Atmospheric Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Chemistry 8.8 4.3 7.0 4.5 2.2 3.6 4.3 2.9 3.7 Earth Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.6 Geography 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Marine Sciences (incl. Oceanography) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Physics 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.6 1.6 2.6 0.7 1.8 General, Other Physical Sciences 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 Social Science Anthropology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 Archaeology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clinical Psychology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 Counseling and Guidance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Experimental Psychology 2.9 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 Social Psychology 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 General, Other Psychology 2.9 0.0 1.8 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.2 4.8 3.9 Economics 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.6 0.3 1.1 2.5 0.9 1.8 Sociology 2.9 0.0 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.2 2.0 Social Work, Social Welfare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 General, Other Social Sciences 0.0 4.3 1.8 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.6 2.4 1.9

Page 26 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUR CURRENT FACULTY APPOINTMENT? Technical Computer Science 2.9 0.0 1.8 2.2 1.0 1.7 2.3 1.4 1.9 Data Processing, Computer Prog. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Drafting/Design 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Electronics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial Arts 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mechanics 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Technical 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 Other Fields Building Trades 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Communications 2.9 4.3 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.7 3.1 2.6 2.9 Ethnic Studies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Human Ecology/Family Science 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 Journalism 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Law 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 Law Enforcement 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 Library Science 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.1 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.6 Women's Studies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 Other Vocational 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 All Other Fields 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.1 HOW MANY CHILDREN DO YOU HAVE IN THE FOLLOWING AGE RANGES? Under 18 years old 58 None 64.7 50.0 58.6 54.0 63.2 57.7 56.7 64.4 60.0 One 20.6 16.7 19.0 18.0 18.9 18.4 17.9 17.3 17.6 Two 11.8 20.8 15.5 19.1 13.0 16.6 17.8 14.2 16.2 Three 2.9 8.3 5.2 7.2 4.1 5.9 6.1 3.3 4.9 Four or more 0.0 4.2 1.7 1.6 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.8 1.2 18 years or older 58 None 61.8 66.7 63.8 52.9 60.1 55.8 56.9 61.3 58.8 One 8.8 20.8 13.8 11.5 13.0 12.1 11.9 13.8 12.7 Two 17.6 8.3 13.8 21.1 17.5 19.6 17.8 16.6 17.3 Three 5.9 4.2 5.2 9.4 6.9 8.4 8.4 5.8 7.3 Four or more 5.9 0.0 3.4 5.1 2.5 4.1 5.0 2.6 4.0 How would you characterize your political views? 57 Far left 2.9 13.0 7.0 6.7 7.1 6.8 8.4 9.6 8.9 Liberal 61.8 47.8 56.1 34.8 41.8 37.6 41.8 50.6 45.6 Middle of the Road 17.6 26.1 21.1 29.3 28.2 28.8 27.7 25.3 26.7 Conservative 17.6 13.0 15.8 28.4 22.3 25.9 21.2 14.0 18.1 Far right 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 Are you currently: 57 Single 9.1 16.7 12.3 7.3 14.9 10.4 8.5 15.3 11.4 Married 81.8 75.0 78.9 86.2 71.5 80.2 83.0 69.0 77.0 Unmarried, living with partner 0.0 4.2 1.8 2.0 3.9 2.8 3.4 5.0 4.0 Divorced 9.1 4.2 7.0 3.3 7.1 4.9 3.8 8.4 5.7 Widowed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.0 1.2 0.6 1.6 1.0 Separated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8

Page 27 of 28 2007-2008 FACULTY SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL PROFILE (2934)

Carroll College # Resp- Your Institution Oth Relig 4yr Colls All Priv 4-yr Colls Full-time Undergraduate Faculty ondents Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Is English your native language? 58 Yes 97.1 95.8 96.6 94.7 92.1 93.7 91.1 91.8 91.4 No 2.9 4.2 3.4 5.3 7.9 6.3 8.9 8.2 8.6 Are you: [5] 58 White/Caucasian 97.1 100.0 98.3 92.6 91.9 92.3 89.9 90.6 90.2 African American/Black 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.4 2.8 2.6 American Indian/Alaska Native 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.1 1.4 Asian American/Asian 2.9 0.0 1.7 1.9 3.8 2.7 3.5 3.1 3.3 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 Mexican American/Chicano 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.8 Puerto Rican 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 Other Latino 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.8 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.0 Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 1.2 2.3 2.8 1.7 2.3 Do you give the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) permission to retain your contact information (i.e., your email address and name) for possible follow-up research? 58 Yes 67.6 70.8 69.0 72.8 73.0 72.9 71.1 73.3 72.0 No 32.4 29.2 31.0 27.2 27.0 27.1 28.9 26.7 28.0

[5] Percentages will sum to more than 100.0 if any respondent marked more than one category.

Page 28 of 28 TO: Joanne Passaro

FROM: Beth Towell

DATE: May 8, 2008

RE: The Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

The Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) is an instrument developed by the National Institute of Student Engagement (NSSE) Institute at Indiana University at Bloomington. The NSSE Institute is co-sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Pew Forum on Undergraduate Learning. The BCSSE was administered to 300 Carroll freshmen in September 2007. It was the first time Carroll had administered this survey and was, in fact the first year it was administered at any institution. There were 126 institutions who distributed the survey to more than 100,000 students. The NSSE Institute describes the instrument on their web site in the following way, "The Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement collects data about entering college students' high school academic and co-curricular experiences, as well as their expectations for participating in educationally purposeful activities during the first college year. BCSSE administration usually takes place prior to start of fall classes and is designed to be paired with a NSSE administration at the end of the first college year, providing an in-depth understanding of first-year student engagement on your campus." This report provides sample results from eight BCSSE survey questions. A comparison is drawn between Carroll results and other Private Master's institutions. At the end of this report, results from question clusters are compared to the results from all students completing the BCSSE this year. Carroll did pair the administration of this instrument with the NSSE instrument but NSSE results will not be available until fall 2008. A more comprehensive report will be generated later which compares the two. 8a. During your last New Carroll Freshmen at all Private year of high school Freshmen Masters n=12,170 about how many N=300 hours did you spend in a typical 7-day week preparing for class? 0 hours per week 3% 1% 1-5 hours per week 49% 38% 6-10 hours per week 29% 30% 11-15 hours per week 12% 16% 16-20 hours per week 4% 8% 21-25 hours per week 2% 4% 26-30 hours per week 1% 2% More than 30 hours 1% 1% per week

9h. During your last New Carroll Freshmen at all year of high school, Freshmen Private Masters about how often did N=300 n=12,170 you discuss ideas from your readings or classes with teachers outside of class? Never 34% 25% Sometimes 50% 48% Often 12% 19% Very often 4% 8%

9l. During your last New Carroll Freshmen at all year of high school, Freshmen Private Masters about how often did N=300 n=12,170 you have serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values? Never 19% 13% Sometimes 42% 38% Often 27% 28% Very often 12% 22%

13a. During the New Carroll Freshmen at all coming school year, Freshmen Private Masters about how many N=300 n=12,170 hours do you think you will spend in a typical 7-day week working for pay on-or off- campus? 0 hours per week 11% 24% 1-5 hours per week 18% 12% 6-10 hours per week 37% 25% 11-15 hours per week 16% 20% 16-20 hours per week 10% 12% 21-25 hours per week 6% 4% 26-30 hours per week 1% 2% More than 30 hours 1% 1% per week

13c. During the New Carroll Freshmen at all coming year, about Freshmen Private Masters how many hours do N=300 n=12,170 you think you will spend in a typical 7- day week participating in co- curricular activities? 0 hours per week 5% 4% 1-5 hours per week 39% 22% 6-10 hours per week 28% 29% 11-15 hours per week 15% 21% 16-20 hours per week 9% 13% 21-25 hours per week 3% 6% 26-30 hours per week 1% 2% More than 30 hours 1% 3% per week

14a. During the New Carroll Freshmen at all coming school year, Freshmen Private Masters about how often do N=300 n=12,170 you expect to ask questions or contribute to class discussions? Never 0% 0% Sometimes 24% 16% Often 51% 47% Very often 25% 37%

14j. During the New Carroll Freshmen at all coming school year, Freshmen Private Masters about how often do N=300 n=12,170 you expect to work with faculty members on activities other than coursework? Never 15% 4% Sometimes 60% 45% Often 22% 38% Very often 3% 13%

24. Do you know New Carroll Freshmen at all what your major will Freshmen Private Masters be? N=300 n=12,170 No 11% 21% Yes 89% 79%

Cluster Scores

What follows are benchmarks of effective educational practice from the Before College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE) administered to 62,941 freshmen nationwide and 300 freshmen at Carroll in Fall 2007. Means have positive association with survey item factors.

Survey Items Related To: All Students All Students

Grand Results Carroll College

Mean SD N Mean SD N

High School Academic Engagement Engagement in educationally relevant 5.26 1.40 62,941 4.98 1.26 300 behaviors during high school

Expected First-Year Academic Engagement Expected engagement in educationally 5.99 1.58 62,941 5.74 1.53 300 relevant behaviors during the first-year of college

Academic Persistence Student certainty that they will persist in the 7.06 1.62 62,941 6.96 1.53 300 midst of difficult circumstances

Academic Preparation Student perception of their academic 6.99 1.55 62,941 6.78 1.40 300 preparation

Importance of Campus Environment Student-rated importance that the institution 7.33 1.69 62,941 7.38 1.54 300 provides a challenging and supportive environment

BCSSE Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

Norms Report - 2007 Private/Master’s Institutions

NSSE’s Precollege Student Experiences and Expectations Survey BCSSE 2007 Respondent Characteristics Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's

Respondents

Count % Number of Surveys Completed 12394 100%

Number of Institutions 32 100%

Mode of Completion Paper 9359 76% Web 3035 25%

When Student Completed BCSSE Before attending orientation 1823 15% While attending orientation 7065 58% After attending orientation 3016 25% Not applicable, not attending orientation 266 2% Student Characteristics Enrollment Status Full-time 12034 100% Less than full-time 60 0%

Gender Female 7495 62% Male 4605 38%

Race/Ethnicity American Indian or other Native American 50 0% Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 406 3% Black or African American 1207 10% White (non-Hispanic) 9156 76% Mexican or Mexican American 198 2% Puerto Rican 118 1% Other Hispanic or Latino 250 2% Multiracial 263 2% Other 165 1% I prefer not to respond 300 2%

High School Graduation Year 2004 or earlier 92 1% 2005 90 1% 2006 230 2% 2007 11903 97%

First Generation Status Yes 3958 36% No 7045 64%

International or Foreign National Student Yes 541 4% No 11528 96% Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

Private Master's

Frequency Distributions 2007 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % You are taking this survey: tksrvy Before attending orientation 1,823 15% 1,083 15% 680 15% 567 15% 1,042 15% While attending orientation 7,065 58% 4,374 59% 2,572 57% 2,293 59% 3,988 58% After attending orientation 3,016 25% 1,789 24% 1,142 25% 940 24% 1,773 26% N/A, not attending orientation 266 2% 152 2% 106 2% 92 2% 130 2% Total 12,170 100% 7,398 100% 4,500 100% 3,892 100% 6,933 100% 1. Please write in the year you hgradyr_r 2004 and earlier 92 1% 38 1% 51 1% 41 1% 38 1% graduated from high school. 2005 90 1% 44 1% 44 1% 34 1% 40 1% (for example, "2007"): 2006 230 2% 107 1% 117 3% 78 2% 102 1% 2007 11,903 97% 7,277 97% 4,365 95% 3,781 96% 6,841 97% Total 12,315 100% 7,466 100% 4,577 100% 3,934 100% 7,021 100% 2. From which type of high htype Public 9,557 77% 5,975 80% 3,380 74% 3,317 84% 5,200 74% school did you graduate? Private, religiously-affiliated 2,132 17% 1,170 16% 910 20% 507 13% 1,381 20% (Select only one.) Private, independent 565 5% 281 4% 262 6% 94 2% 397 6% Home school 69 1% 40 1% 27 1% 13 0% 48 1% Other (e.g., GED) 39 0% 20 0% 19 0% 17 0% 16 0% Total 12,362 100% 7,486 100% 4,598 100% 3,948 100% 7,042 100% 3. What were most of your high hgrades C- or lower 15 0% 5 0% 10 0% 5 0% 5 0% school grades? C 135 1% 58 1% 75 2% 53 1% 51 1% (Select only one.) C+ 325 3% 139 2% 179 4% 131 3% 137 2% B- 656 5% 285 4% 346 8% 207 5% 321 5% B 2,386 19% 1,238 17% 1,085 24% 767 20% 1,292 18% B+ 2,672 22% 1,581 21% 1,020 22% 899 23% 1,485 21% A- 2,764 23% 1,775 24% 924 20% 834 21% 1,654 24% A 3,272 27% 2,330 31% 901 20% 1,014 26% 2,026 29% Grades not used 45 0% 21 0% 23 1% 13 0% 22 0% Total 12,270 100% 7,432 100% 4,563 100% 3,923 100% 6,993 100% 4. To date, in which of the following math classes did you earn a passing grade? a. Pre-calculus/Trigonometry hprecalc Did not pass 82 1% 47 1% 32 1% 33 1% 36 1% Passed 9,186 75% 5,556 75% 3,455 76% 2,752 70% 5,549 80% Did not take 2,942 24% 1,809 24% 1,046 23% 1,125 29% 1,385 20% Total 12,210 100% 7,412 100% 4,533 100% 3,910 100% 6,970 100% b. Calculus hcalc Did not pass 92 1% 47 1% 39 1% 37 1% 44 1% Passed 3,391 29% 2,024 28% 1,314 31% 958 26% 2,170 33% Did not take 8,180 70% 5,042 71% 2,947 69% 2,744 73% 4,445 67% Total 11,663 100% 7,113 100% 4,300 100% 3,739 100% 6,659 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 3 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Probability or Statistics hstats Did not pass 47 0% 20 0% 23 1% 12 0% 25 0% Passed 3,210 28% 1,859 27% 1,281 30% 970 26% 1,908 29% Did not take 8,224 72% 5,134 73% 2,920 69% 2,715 73% 4,606 70% Total 11,481 100% 7,013 100% 4,224 100% 3,697 100% 6,539 100% 5. During high school , how many years of the following subjects did you complete? a. English/Literature heng 0 years 3 0% 2 0% 1 0% 0 0% 2 0% 1 year 8 0% 3 0% 5 0% 5 0% 1 0% 2 years 52 0% 17 0% 34 1% 18 0% 28 0% 3 years 188 2% 93 1% 87 2% 47 1% 100 1% 4 years 11,368 92% 6,917 93% 4,212 92% 3,664 93% 6,500 93% 5 or more years 690 6% 433 6% 238 5% 209 5% 386 6% Total 12,309 100% 7,465 100% 4,577 100% 3,943 100% 7,017 100% b. Math hmath 0 years 4 0% 1 0% 3 0% 1 0% 1 0% 1 year 20 0% 6 0% 14 0% 10 0% 7 0% 2 years 134 1% 74 1% 56 1% 58 1% 58 1% 3 years 2,021 16% 1,305 17% 655 14% 752 19% 1,004 14% 4 years 8,910 72% 5,392 72% 3,343 73% 2,746 70% 5,229 74% 5 or more years 1,224 10% 688 9% 510 11% 375 10% 720 10% Total 12,313 100% 7,466 100% 4,581 100% 3,942 100% 7,019 100% c. Science hsci 0 years 11 0% 2 0% 8 0% 3 0% 5 0% 1 year 19 0% 12 0% 7 0% 7 0% 8 0% 2 years 290 2% 158 2% 121 3% 103 3% 135 2% 3 years 3,840 31% 2,279 31% 1,473 32% 1,299 33% 2,098 30% 4 years 7,102 58% 4,386 59% 2,576 56% 2,186 56% 4,163 59% 5 or more years 1,029 8% 617 8% 386 8% 332 8% 600 9% Total 12,291 100% 7,454 100% 4,571 100% 3,930 100% 7,009 100% d. History/Social Science hhist 0 years 16 0% 2 0% 14 0% 8 0% 5 0% 1 year 41 0% 25 0% 16 0% 17 0% 19 0% 2 years 449 4% 248 3% 189 4% 148 4% 230 3% 3 years 3,579 29% 2,197 29% 1,302 29% 1,167 30% 2,012 29% 4 years 7,477 61% 4,555 61% 2,764 61% 2,375 60% 4,309 62% 5 or more years 715 6% 423 6% 279 6% 216 5% 427 6% Total 12,277 100% 7,450 100% 4,564 100% 3,931 100% 7,002 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 4 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % e. Foreign Language hforlan 0 years 227 2% 98 1% 123 3% 96 2% 86 1% 1 year 440 4% 221 3% 208 5% 184 5% 181 3% 2 years 3,661 30% 2,035 27% 1,542 34% 1,324 34% 1,859 27% 3 years 3,925 32% 2,383 32% 1,455 32% 1,178 30% 2,329 33% 4 years 3,436 28% 2,308 31% 1,069 23% 992 25% 2,168 31% 5 or more years 601 5% 411 6% 174 4% 160 4% 387 6% Total 12,290 100% 7,456 100% 4,571 100% 3,934 100% 7,010 100% 6. During high school , how many of the following types of classes did you complete? a. Advanced Placement (AP) hapcl 0 classes 4,892 41% 2,787 38% 2,003 45% 1,754 46% 2,508 37% classes 1 class 2,240 19% 1,391 19% 790 18% 771 20% 1,222 18% 2 classes 1,621 14% 1,025 14% 562 13% 493 13% 967 14% 3 classes 1,180 10% 758 10% 405 9% 318 8% 768 11% 4 classes 810 7% 518 7% 278 6% 213 6% 537 8% 5 or more classes 1,180 10% 779 11% 379 9% 277 7% 816 12% Total 11,923 100% 7,258 100% 4,417 100% 3,826 100% 6,818 100% b. Honors classes (not AP) taught hhonor 0 classes 3,658 31% 2,038 28% 1,544 35% 1,324 35% 1,863 27% at your high school 1 class 1,228 10% 745 10% 446 10% 365 10% 701 10% 2 classes 1,133 10% 671 9% 446 10% 376 10% 646 9% 3 classes 980 8% 606 8% 349 8% 304 8% 567 8% 4 classes 760 6% 521 7% 221 5% 265 7% 412 6% 5 or more classes 4,158 35% 2,680 37% 1,397 32% 1,202 31% 2,616 38% Total 11,917 100% 7,261 100% 4,403 100% 3,836 100% 6,805 100% 7. During your last year of high school , about how much reading and writing did you do? a. Assigned Reading (textbooks hreadasg None 77 1% 32 0% 44 1% 28 1% 38 1% or other course materials) Very little 784 6% 396 5% 375 8% 258 7% 441 6% Some 3,282 27% 1,756 24% 1,465 32% 1,089 28% 1,818 26% Quite a bit 4,750 39% 2,862 38% 1,788 39% 1,546 39% 2,711 39% Very much 3,407 28% 2,416 32% 914 20% 1,026 26% 2,005 29% Total 12,300 100% 7,462 100% 4,586 100% 3,947 100% 7,013 100% b. Writing short papers or reports hwrite5 None 38 0% 19 0% 19 0% 11 0% 16 0% (5 or fewer pages) Very little 537 4% 315 4% 208 5% 194 5% 273 4% Some 2,783 23% 1,530 20% 1,202 26% 941 24% 1,508 21% Quite a bit 4,824 39% 2,820 38% 1,899 41% 1,533 39% 2,773 40% Very much 4,127 34% 2,788 37% 1,256 27% 1,270 32% 2,446 35% Total 12,309 100% 7,472 100% 4,584 100% 3,949 100% 7,016 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 5 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Writing longer papers or hwrite5m None 772 6% 472 6% 285 6% 260 7% 414 6% reports (more than 5 pages) Very little 3,642 30% 2,143 29% 1,430 31% 1,236 31% 2,012 29% Some 4,430 36% 2,618 35% 1,718 38% 1,358 35% 2,614 37% Quite a bit 2,186 18% 1,344 18% 801 17% 665 17% 1,280 18% Very much 1,258 10% 880 12% 345 8% 417 11% 689 10% Total 12,288 100% 7,457 100% 4,579 100% 3,936 100% 7,009 100% 8. During your last year of high school , about how many hours did you spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following? a. Preparing for class (studying, hacadpr 0 hours per week 165 1% 38 1% 125 3% 58 1% 85 1% doing homework, rehearsing, 1-5 hours per week 4,693 38% 2,552 34% 2,047 45% 1,676 42% 2,499 36% etc.) 6-10 hours per week 3,748 30% 2,315 31% 1,368 30% 1,208 31% 2,134 30% 11-15 hours per week 1,952 16% 1,302 17% 611 13% 544 14% 1,211 17% 16-20 hours per week 940 8% 681 9% 239 5% 260 7% 582 8% 21-25 hours per week 459 4% 327 4% 119 3% 114 3% 292 4% 26-30 hours per week 196 2% 149 2% 45 1% 49 1% 126 2% More than 30 hours per week 151 1% 106 1% 41 1% 41 1% 93 1% Total 12,304 100% 7,470 100% 4,595 100% 3,950 100% 7,022 100% b. Working for pay (before or hwork 0 hours per week 3,657 30% 1,994 27% 1,595 35% 949 24% 2,259 32% after school, weekends) 1-5 hours per week 1,269 10% 797 11% 449 10% 294 7% 845 12% 6-10 hours per week 1,575 13% 1,036 14% 508 11% 460 12% 981 14% 11-15 hours per week 1,828 15% 1,198 16% 598 13% 639 16% 1,030 15% 16-20 hours per week 1,951 16% 1,229 16% 679 15% 719 18% 1,014 14% 21-25 hours per week 1,157 9% 712 10% 422 9% 495 13% 526 8% 26-30 hours per week 539 4% 312 4% 212 5% 246 6% 228 3% More than 30 hours per week 315 3% 180 2% 129 3% 143 4% 129 2% Total 12,291 100% 7,458 100% 4,592 100% 3,945 100% 7,012 100% c. Participating in co-curricular hcocurr 0 hours per week 774 6% 490 7% 257 6% 316 8% 321 5% activities (arts, clubs, athletics, 1-5 hours per week 2,424 20% 1,703 23% 669 15% 862 22% 1,250 18% etc.) 6-10 hours per week 2,210 18% 1,437 19% 742 16% 704 18% 1,293 18% 11-15 hours per week 2,457 20% 1,459 20% 950 21% 760 19% 1,434 20% 16-20 hours per week 2,093 17% 1,170 16% 889 19% 631 16% 1,292 18% 21-25 hours per week 1,128 9% 595 8% 509 11% 330 8% 681 10% 26-30 hours per week 486 4% 269 4% 209 5% 134 3% 302 4% More than 30 hours per week 732 6% 351 5% 366 8% 207 5% 458 7% Total 12,304 100% 7,474 100% 4,591 100% 3,944 100% 7,031 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 6 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Relaxing and socializing hsocial 0 hours per week 48 0% 26 0% 21 0% 13 0% 27 0% (watching TV, partying, etc.) 1-5 hours per week 2,156 18% 1,551 21% 560 12% 745 19% 1,131 16% 6-10 hours per week 3,590 29% 2,328 31% 1,199 26% 1,194 30% 2,038 29% 11-15 hours per week 2,826 23% 1,704 23% 1,068 23% 880 22% 1,655 24% 16-20 hours per week 1,833 15% 991 13% 806 18% 560 14% 1,097 16% 21-25 hours per week 842 7% 430 6% 393 9% 260 7% 486 7% 26-30 hours per week 378 3% 184 2% 185 4% 124 3% 211 3% More than 30 hours per week 631 5% 258 3% 362 8% 168 4% 386 5% Total 12,304 100% 7,472 100% 4,594 100% 3,944 100% 7,031 100% 9. During your last year of high school, about how often did you do each of the following? a. Asked questions in class or hclquest Never 116 1% 57 1% 59 1% 48 1% 55 1% contributed to class Sometimes 2,721 22% 1,576 21% 1,089 24% 869 22% 1,501 21% discussions Often 4,616 38% 2,700 36% 1,837 40% 1,498 38% 2,613 37% Very often 4,822 39% 3,133 42% 1,597 35% 1,521 39% 2,853 41% Total 12,275 100% 7,466 100% 4,582 100% 3,936 100% 7,022 100% b. Made a class presentation hclprese Never 173 1% 100 1% 68 1% 52 1% 94 1% Sometimes 5,613 46% 3,264 44% 2,247 49% 1,811 46% 3,196 46% Often 4,740 39% 2,923 39% 1,729 38% 1,488 38% 2,768 39% Very often 1,748 14% 1,177 16% 539 12% 581 15% 966 14% Total 12,274 100% 7,464 100% 4,583 100% 3,932 100% 7,024 100% c. Came to class without hclunpre Never 4,049 33% 2,825 38% 1,168 26% 1,280 33% 2,391 34% completing readings or Sometimes 7,289 59% 4,237 57% 2,897 63% 2,387 61% 4,078 58% assignments Often 692 6% 306 4% 373 8% 203 5% 394 6% Very often 230 2% 91 1% 135 3% 59 2% 149 2% Total 12,260 100% 7,459 100% 4,573 100% 3,929 100% 7,012 100% d. Discussed grades or hfacgrad Never 531 4% 285 4% 243 5% 170 4% 298 4% assignments with a teacher Sometimes 5,532 45% 3,387 46% 2,042 45% 1,691 43% 3,292 47% Often 4,376 36% 2,631 35% 1,656 36% 1,463 37% 2,436 35% Very often 1,798 15% 1,139 15% 629 14% 597 15% 977 14% Total 12,237 100% 7,442 100% 4,570 100% 3,921 100% 7,003 100% e. Worked with other students hclassgr Never 207 2% 130 2% 73 2% 57 1% 130 2% on projects during class Sometimes 4,103 33% 2,500 34% 1,520 33% 1,247 32% 2,408 34% Often 5,783 47% 3,429 46% 2,252 49% 1,894 48% 3,280 47% Very often 2,166 18% 1,396 19% 733 16% 735 19% 1,192 17% Total 12,259 100% 7,455 100% 4,578 100% 3,933 100% 7,010 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 7 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Worked with classmates hoccgrp Never 1,510 12% 861 12% 617 13% 520 13% 806 11% outside of class to prepare for Sometimes 6,780 55% 4,113 55% 2,554 56% 2,219 56% 3,899 56% assignments Often 3,003 24% 1,832 25% 1,109 24% 885 22% 1,766 25% Very often 973 8% 657 9% 299 7% 313 8% 544 8% Total 12,266 100% 7,463 100% 4,579 100% 3,937 100% 7,015 100% g. Prepared two or more drafts of hrewropa Never 1,715 14% 857 11% 828 18% 559 14% 991 14% a paper or assignment before Sometimes 5,051 41% 2,922 39% 2,035 44% 1,594 41% 2,875 41% turning it in Often 3,561 29% 2,292 31% 1,215 27% 1,133 29% 2,046 29% Very often 1,915 16% 1,387 19% 497 11% 647 16% 1,099 16% Total 12,242 100% 7,458 100% 4,575 100% 3,933 100% 7,011 100% h. Had serious conversations hdivrstu Never 2,149 18% 1,362 18% 759 17% 726 18% 1,217 17% with students of a different Sometimes 4,162 34% 2,582 35% 1,513 33% 1,312 33% 2,451 35% race or ehtnicity than your own Often 2,975 24% 1,725 23% 1,191 26% 959 24% 1,671 24% Very often 2,958 24% 1,791 24% 1,112 24% 933 24% 1,676 24% Total 12,244 100% 7,460 100% 4,575 100% 3,930 100% 7,015 100% i. Discussed ideas from your hfacidea Never 3,088 25% 1,868 25% 1,178 26% 1,025 26% 1,762 25% readings or classes with Sometimes 5,842 48% 3,565 48% 2,162 47% 1,871 48% 3,361 48% teachers outside of class Often 2,339 19% 1,416 19% 883 19% 737 19% 1,334 19% Very often 953 8% 599 8% 341 7% 293 7% 542 8% Total 12,222 100% 7,448 100% 4,564 100% 3,926 100% 6,999 100% j. Discussed ideas from your hoocidea Never 1,021 8% 486 7% 520 11% 363 9% 528 8% readings or classes with others Sometimes 5,664 46% 3,321 45% 2,248 49% 1,888 48% 3,188 45% outside of class (students, Often 3,844 31% 2,440 33% 1,333 29% 1,182 30% 2,269 32% family members, etc.) Very often 1,717 14% 1,213 16% 476 10% 497 13% 1,032 15% Total 12,246 100% 7,460 100% 4,577 100% 3,930 100% 7,017 100% k. Talked with a counselor, hfacplan Never 498 4% 271 4% 218 5% 156 4% 288 4% teacher, or other staff member Sometimes 4,331 35% 2,523 34% 1,740 38% 1,282 33% 2,556 36% about college or career plans Often 4,630 38% 2,800 38% 1,739 38% 1,524 39% 2,638 38% Very often 2,778 23% 1,860 25% 876 19% 969 25% 1,527 22% Total 12,237 100% 7,454 100% 4,573 100% 3,931 100% 7,009 100% l. Had serious conversations hdiffstu Never 1,550 13% 885 12% 640 14% 563 14% 819 12% with students who are very Sometimes 4,617 38% 2,826 38% 1,725 38% 1,455 37% 2,658 38% different from you in terms of Often 3,387 28% 2,086 28% 1,248 27% 1,112 28% 1,937 28% their religious beliefs, political Very often 2,679 22% 1,656 22% 959 21% 800 20% 1,592 23% opinions, or personal values Total 12,233 100% 7,453 100% 4,572 100% 3,930 100% 7,006 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 8 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % m. Missed a day of school hmisssch Never 1,792 15% 920 12% 847 19% 503 13% 1,096 16% Sometimes 8,988 74% 5,639 76% 3,198 70% 2,913 74% 5,140 73% Often 1,000 8% 619 8% 358 8% 338 9% 536 8% Very often 428 4% 264 4% 153 3% 158 4% 224 3% Total 12,208 100% 7,442 100% 4,556 100% 3,912 100% 6,996 100% 10. Did you take the SAT and/or hsatact No 168 1% 74 1% 91 2% 65 2% 63 1% ACT? Yes 11950 99% 7312 99% 4439 98% 3829 98% 6887 99% Total 12118 100% 7386 100% 4530 100% 3894 100% 6950 100% a. SAT Composite Score SAT_ACTr 1000 or lower 2749 26% 1705 27% 1001 25% 1119 33% 1180 19% categories 1001 - 1100 2041 20% 1254 20% 769 19% 742 22% 1114 18% (SAT scores or ACT scores 1101 - 1200 2572 25% 1533 24% 1008 25% 810 24% 1564 26% convertd to SAT scale) 1201 - 1300 1955 19% 1183 19% 754 19% 471 14% 1391 23% 1301 - 1400 797 8% 458 7% 332 8% 144 4% 620 10% 1401 - 1600 340 3% 177 3% 157 4% 56 2% 262 4% Total 10454 100% 6310 100% 4021 100% 3342 100% 6131 100% 11. During your high school years , how involved were you in the following activities at your school or elsewhere? a. Performing or visual arts hinvarts 1 Not involved 5,227 43% 2,677 36% 2,480 54% 1,830 47% 2,844 41% programs (band, chorus, 2 1,366 11% 843 11% 495 11% 420 11% 798 11% theater, art, etc.) 3 1,114 9% 743 10% 348 8% 345 9% 645 9% 4 1,067 9% 735 10% 317 7% 307 8% 647 9% 5 879 7% 606 8% 256 6% 239 6% 556 8% 6 Highly involved 2,553 21% 1,840 25% 674 15% 778 20% 1,520 22% Total 12,206 100% 7,444 100% 4,570 100% 3,919 100% 7,010 100% b. Athletic teams (varsity, junior hinvathl 1 Not involved 2,767 23% 2,037 27% 684 15% 1,010 26% 1,434 20% varsity, club sport, etc.) 2 922 8% 612 8% 289 6% 302 8% 517 7% 3 1,018 8% 671 9% 330 7% 344 9% 567 8% 4 1,186 10% 736 10% 430 9% 345 9% 702 10% 5 1,198 10% 717 10% 464 10% 343 9% 753 11% 6 Highly involved 5,111 42% 2,670 36% 2,369 52% 1,584 40% 3,023 43% Total 12,202 100% 7,443 100% 4,566 100% 3,928 100% 6,996 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 9 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Student government hstugov 1 Not involved 7,721 63% 4,522 61% 3,078 68% 2,522 64% 4,358 62% 2 1,402 12% 843 11% 538 12% 418 11% 836 12% 3 976 8% 582 8% 388 9% 314 8% 566 8% 4 687 6% 447 6% 223 5% 223 6% 401 6% 5 472 4% 350 5% 111 2% 121 3% 309 4% 6 Highly involved 902 7% 669 9% 218 5% 316 8% 514 7% Total 12,160 100% 7,413 100% 4,556 100% 3,914 100% 6,984 100% d. Publications (student hinvpubs 1 Not involved 7,937 65% 4,541 61% 3,285 72% 2,533 65% 4,564 66% newspaper, yearbook, etc.) 2 1,376 11% 871 12% 472 10% 424 11% 804 12% 3 941 8% 620 8% 312 7% 318 8% 534 8% 4 625 5% 412 6% 200 4% 213 5% 332 5% 5 386 3% 272 4% 110 2% 137 3% 216 3% 6 Highly involved 890 7% 695 9% 173 4% 293 7% 517 7% Total 12,155 100% 7,411 100% 4,552 100% 3,918 100% 6,967 100% e. Academic honor societies hinvhono 1 Not involved 5,445 45% 2,931 39% 2,429 53% 1,828 47% 2,930 42% 2 1,108 9% 625 8% 466 10% 318 8% 649 9% 3 1,253 10% 721 10% 514 11% 386 10% 753 11% 4 1,357 11% 897 12% 437 10% 405 10% 844 12% 5 1,293 11% 965 13% 305 7% 385 10% 809 12% 6 Highly involved 1,704 14% 1,282 17% 398 9% 590 15% 991 14% Total 12,160 100% 7,421 100% 4,549 100% 3,912 100% 6,976 100% f. Academic clubs (debate, hinvaccl 1 Not involved 7,505 62% 4,525 61% 2,871 63% 2,542 65% 4,153 59% mathematics, science, etc.) 2 1,425 12% 827 11% 576 13% 411 11% 865 12% 3 1,233 10% 738 10% 468 10% 330 8% 786 11% 4 829 7% 520 7% 288 6% 264 7% 497 7% 5 492 4% 346 5% 140 3% 149 4% 303 4% 6 Highly involved 684 6% 466 6% 210 5% 217 6% 382 5% Total 12,168 100% 7,422 100% 4,553 100% 3,913 100% 6,986 100% g. Vocational clubs (business, hinvvccl 1 Not involved 8,647 71% 5,341 72% 3,179 70% 2,774 71% 4,948 71% health, technology, etc.) 2 1,095 9% 598 8% 471 10% 305 8% 669 10% 3 868 7% 496 7% 356 8% 266 7% 521 7% 4 615 5% 364 5% 237 5% 208 5% 352 5% 5 360 3% 233 3% 123 3% 126 3% 207 3% 6 Highly involved 581 5% 391 5% 187 4% 234 6% 284 4% Total 12,166 100% 7,423 100% 4,553 100% 3,913 100% 6,981 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 10 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % h. Religious youth groups hrelgrp 1 Not involved 7,080 58% 4,121 55% 2,852 63% 2,495 64% 3,779 54% 2 1,167 10% 682 9% 469 10% 336 9% 708 10% 3 1,133 9% 729 10% 377 8% 303 8% 725 10% 4 908 7% 577 8% 314 7% 247 6% 579 8% 5 599 5% 395 5% 196 4% 173 4% 380 5% 6 Highly involved 1,311 11% 941 13% 354 8% 370 9% 831 12% Total 12,198 100% 7,445 100% 4,562 100% 3,924 100% 7,002 100% 12. Overall, how academically hacachal 1 Not at all challenging 184 2% 74 1% 108 2% 69 2% 91 1% challenging was your high 2 802 7% 421 6% 374 8% 319 8% 389 6% school? 3 2,248 18% 1,286 17% 925 20% 841 21% 1,145 16% 4 4,780 39% 2,961 40% 1,739 38% 1,643 42% 2,627 38% 5 3,335 27% 2,153 29% 1,129 25% 895 23% 2,133 31% 6 Extremely challenging 826 7% 528 7% 284 6% 145 4% 600 9% Total 12,175 100% 7,423 100% 4,559 100% 3,912 100% 6,985 100% 13. During the coming school year , about how many hours do you think you will spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following? a. Preparing for class (studying, cacadpr 0 hours per week 9 0% 0 0% 9 0% 7 0% 1 0% reading, writing, doing 1-5 hours per week 349 3% 174 2% 169 4% 113 3% 165 2% homework or lab work, 6-10 hours per week 1,826 15% 967 13% 821 18% 649 17% 940 13% analyzing data, rehearsing, and 11-15 hours per week 3,251 27% 1,911 26% 1,304 29% 1,084 28% 1,837 26% other academic activities) 16-20 hours per week 3,248 27% 2,019 27% 1,182 26% 1,005 26% 1,945 28% 21-25 hours per week 2,045 17% 1,346 18% 669 15% 635 16% 1,230 18% 26-30 hours per week 954 8% 667 9% 271 6% 275 7% 589 8% More than 30 hours per week 470 4% 335 5% 130 3% 147 4% 272 4% Total 12,152 100% 7,419 100% 4,555 100% 3,915 100% 6,979 100% b. Working for pay on- or off- cwork 0 hours per week 2,894 24% 1,645 22% 1,215 27% 594 15% 2,079 30% campus 1-5 hours per week 1,495 12% 918 12% 556 12% 372 10% 971 14% 6-10 hours per week 3,029 25% 1,933 26% 1,059 23% 1,048 27% 1,684 24% 11-15 hours per week 2,410 20% 1,527 21% 841 18% 907 23% 1,247 18% 16-20 hours per week 1,470 12% 886 12% 556 12% 598 15% 682 10% 21-25 hours per week 478 4% 283 4% 188 4% 219 6% 185 3% 26-30 hours per week 209 2% 130 2% 71 2% 87 2% 80 1% More than 30 hours per week 159 1% 94 1% 62 1% 84 2% 47 1% Total 12,144 100% 7,416 100% 4,548 100% 3,909 100% 6,975 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 11 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Participating in co-curricular ccocurr 0 hours per week 445 4% 255 3% 185 4% 185 5% 194 3% activities (organizations, 1-5 hours per week 2,640 22% 1,765 24% 841 18% 972 25% 1,372 20% campus publications, student 6-10 hours per week 3,535 29% 2,271 31% 1,207 26% 1,131 29% 2,017 29% government, fraternity or 11-15 hours per week 2,559 21% 1,583 21% 939 21% 799 20% 1,525 22% sorority, intercollegiate or 16-20 hours per week 1,617 13% 896 12% 703 15% 455 12% 1,028 15% intramural sports, etc.) 21-25 hours per week 769 6% 373 5% 381 8% 203 5% 484 7% 26-30 hours per week 291 2% 150 2% 135 3% 74 2% 188 3% More than 30 hours per week 310 3% 139 2% 166 4% 94 2% 186 3% Total 12,166 100% 7,432 100% 4,557 100% 3,913 100% 6,994 100% d. Relaxing or socializing csocial 0 hours per week 62 1% 39 1% 23 1% 23 1% 23 0% (watching TV, partying, etc.) 1-5 hours per week 2,448 20% 1,713 23% 696 15% 935 24% 1,187 17% 6-10 hours per week 4,061 33% 2,613 35% 1,399 31% 1,356 35% 2,290 33% 11-15 hours per week 2,984 25% 1,771 24% 1,169 26% 904 23% 1,802 26% 16-20 hours per week 1,587 13% 826 11% 731 16% 445 11% 1,010 14% 21-25 hours per week 634 5% 307 4% 318 7% 154 4% 422 6% 26-30 hours per week 170 1% 74 1% 93 2% 39 1% 113 2% More than 30 hours per week 222 2% 85 1% 133 3% 58 1% 145 2% Total 12,168 100% 7,428 100% 4,562 100% 3,914 100% 6,992 100% 14. During the coming school year , about how often do you expect to do each of the following? a. Ask questions in class or cclquest Never 33 0% 17 0% 15 0% 10 0% 19 0% contribute to class discussions Sometimes 1,966 16% 1,153 15% 787 17% 681 17% 1,048 15% Often 5,676 47% 3,334 45% 2,269 50% 1,769 45% 3,309 47% Very often 4,525 37% 2,950 40% 1,506 33% 1,475 37% 2,635 38% Total 12,200 100% 7,454 100% 4,577 100% 3,935 100% 7,011 100% b. Make a class presentation cclprese Never 99 1% 63 1% 34 1% 28 1% 47 1% Sometimes 3,969 33% 2,375 32% 1,534 34% 1,204 31% 2,327 33% Often 6,110 50% 3,702 50% 2,335 51% 2,019 51% 3,512 50% Very often 2,005 16% 1,308 18% 665 15% 676 17% 1,119 16% Total 12,183 100% 7,448 100% 4,568 100% 3,927 100% 7,005 100% c. Work on a paper or project cintegra Never 12 0% 5 0% 7 0% 4 0% 4 0% that requires integrating ideas Sometimes 1,006 8% 480 6% 511 11% 326 8% 525 7% or information from various Often 5,484 45% 3,101 42% 2,315 51% 1,706 43% 3,186 46% sources Very often 5,681 47% 3,856 52% 1,741 38% 1,891 48% 3,287 47% Total 12,183 100% 7,442 100% 4,574 100% 3,927 100% 7,002 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 12 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Work with other students on cclassgr Never 516 4% 357 5% 153 3% 148 4% 331 5% projects during class Sometimes 4,408 36% 2,830 38% 1,515 33% 1,369 35% 2,636 38% Often 5,025 41% 2,904 39% 2,059 45% 1,639 42% 2,818 40% Very often 2,217 18% 1,342 18% 839 18% 763 19% 1,211 17% Total 12,166 100% 7,433 100% 4,566 100% 3,919 100% 6,996 100% e. Work with classmates outside coccgrp Never 114 1% 61 1% 51 1% 42 1% 63 1% of class to prepare class Sometimes 3,122 26% 1,847 25% 1,225 27% 1,004 26% 1,779 25% assignments Often 5,750 47% 3,469 47% 2,218 49% 1,829 47% 3,338 48% Very often 3,192 26% 2,070 28% 1,069 23% 1,049 27% 1,818 26% Total 12,178 100% 7,447 100% 4,563 100% 3,924 100% 6,998 100% f. Put together ideas or concepts cintidea Never 106 1% 68 1% 37 1% 43 1% 47 1% from different courses when Sometimes 2,491 20% 1,403 19% 1,055 23% 810 21% 1,387 20% completing assignments or Often 5,944 49% 3,449 46% 2,407 53% 1,883 48% 3,462 49% during class discussions Very often 3,636 30% 2,517 34% 1,075 24% 1,192 30% 2,101 30% Total 12,177 100% 7,437 100% 4,574 100% 3,928 100% 6,997 100% g. Discuss grades or assignments cfacgrad Never 84 1% 40 1% 44 1% 32 1% 41 1% with an instructor Sometimes 3,588 29% 2,137 29% 1,404 31% 1,083 28% 2,138 31% Often 5,320 44% 3,215 43% 2,036 45% 1,702 43% 3,096 44% Very often 3,191 26% 2,055 28% 1,087 24% 1,116 28% 1,724 25% Total 12,183 100% 7,447 100% 4,571 100% 3,933 100% 6,999 100% h. Discuss ideas from your cfacidea Never 549 5% 335 5% 208 5% 196 5% 283 4% readings or classes with faculty Sometimes 5,519 45% 3,398 46% 2,043 45% 1,770 45% 3,212 46% members outside of class Often 4,208 35% 2,505 34% 1,654 36% 1,327 34% 2,453 35% Very often 1,896 16% 1,199 16% 665 15% 637 16% 1,048 15% Total 12,172 100% 7,437 100% 4,570 100% 3,930 100% 6,996 100% i. Receive prompt feedback from cfacfeed Never 140 1% 78 1% 60 1% 44 1% 78 1% faculty on your academic Sometimes 3,198 26% 1,944 26% 1,212 27% 1,035 26% 1,832 26% performance (written or oral) Often 5,902 49% 3,540 48% 2,291 50% 1,852 47% 3,472 50% Very often 2,923 24% 1,877 25% 1,009 22% 997 25% 1,616 23% Total 12,163 100% 7,439 100% 4,572 100% 3,928 100% 6,998 100% j. Work with faculty members on cfacothe Never 498 4% 265 4% 224 5% 177 5% 258 4% activities other than Sometimes 5,531 45% 3,235 43% 2,231 49% 1,779 45% 3,222 46% coursework (committees, Often 4,562 38% 2,871 39% 1,636 36% 1,426 36% 2,671 38% orientation, student life Very often 1,572 13% 1,077 14% 473 10% 551 14% 848 12% activities, etc.) Total 12,163 100% 7,448 100% 4,564 100% 3,933 100% 6,999 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 13 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % k. Discuss ideas from your coocidea Never 300 2% 137 2% 160 4% 99 3% 163 2% readings or classes with others Sometimes 4,421 36% 2,552 34% 1,814 40% 1,487 38% 2,486 36% outside of class (students, Often 5,175 43% 3,189 43% 1,922 42% 1,592 40% 3,063 44% family members, co-workers, Very often 2,262 19% 1,560 21% 671 15% 754 19% 1,280 18% etc.) Total 12,158 100% 7,438 100% 4,567 100% 3,932 100% 6,992 100% l. Have serious conversations cdivrstu Never 364 3% 165 2% 190 4% 118 3% 201 3% with students of a different Sometimes 3,754 31% 2,290 31% 1,430 31% 1,195 30% 2,193 31% race or ethnicity than your own Often 4,894 40% 2,960 40% 1,873 41% 1,547 39% 2,848 41% Very often 3,143 26% 2,018 27% 1,075 24% 1,065 27% 1,753 25% Total 12,155 100% 7,433 100% 4,568 100% 3,925 100% 6,995 100% m. Try to better understand cothrvie Never 98 1% 29 0% 68 1% 30 1% 51 1% someone else's views by Sometimes 2,431 20% 1,270 17% 1,139 25% 774 20% 1,422 20% imagining how an issue looks Often 5,703 47% 3,422 46% 2,204 48% 1,870 48% 3,219 46% from his or her perspective Very often 3,934 32% 2,721 37% 1,161 25% 1,258 32% 2,304 33% Total 12,166 100% 7,442 100% 4,572 100% 3,932 100% 6,996 100% n. Learn something that changes cchngvie Never 43 0% 12 0% 31 1% 15 0% 23 0% the way you understand an Sometimes 2,122 17% 1,076 14% 1,024 22% 667 17% 1,221 17% issue or idea Often 5,824 48% 3,488 47% 2,262 50% 1,883 48% 3,350 48% Very often 4,153 34% 2,856 38% 1,243 27% 1,357 35% 2,395 34% Total 12,142 100% 7,432 100% 4,560 100% 3,922 100% 6,989 100% o. Have serious conversations cdiffstu Never 293 2% 115 2% 170 4% 98 2% 150 2% with students who are very Sometimes 3,299 27% 1,896 26% 1,371 30% 1,084 28% 1,879 27% different from you in terms of Often 4,858 40% 2,945 40% 1,851 41% 1,531 39% 2,824 40% their religious beliefs, political Very often 3,691 30% 2,475 33% 1,167 26% 1,209 31% 2,130 31% opinions, or personal values Total 12,141 100% 7,431 100% 4,559 100% 3,922 100% 6,983 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 14 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 15. During the coming school year , how certain are you that you will do the following? a. Study when there are other cotherint 1 Not at all certain 123 1% 58 1% 61 1% 42 1% 63 1% interesting things to do 2 557 5% 266 4% 284 6% 186 5% 297 4% 3 2,560 21% 1,444 19% 1,088 24% 818 21% 1,459 21% 4 4,396 36% 2,697 36% 1,652 36% 1,365 35% 2,553 36% 5 2,831 23% 1,867 25% 931 20% 951 24% 1,665 24% 6 Very certain 1,694 14% 1,113 15% 557 12% 567 14% 968 14% Total 12,161 100% 7,445 100% 4,573 100% 3,929 100% 7,005 100% b. Find additional information for cfindinfo 1 Not at all certain 48 0% 28 0% 19 0% 18 0% 22 0% course assignments when you 2 233 2% 89 1% 140 3% 65 2% 134 2% don't understand the material 3 1,354 11% 683 9% 653 14% 418 11% 757 11% 4 3,400 28% 1,910 26% 1,452 32% 1,022 26% 2,034 29% 5 3,963 33% 2,525 34% 1,397 31% 1,288 33% 2,340 33% 6 Very certain 3,167 26% 2,216 30% 913 20% 1,120 28% 1,719 25% Total 12,165 100% 7,451 100% 4,574 100% 3,931 100% 7,006 100% c. Participate regularly in course ccourdis 1 Not at all certain 134 1% 76 1% 56 1% 49 1% 72 1% discussions, even when you 2 743 6% 426 6% 310 7% 230 6% 421 6% don't feel like it 3 2,576 21% 1,511 20% 1,032 23% 838 21% 1,449 21% 4 3,750 31% 2,261 30% 1,449 32% 1,194 30% 2,191 31% 5 3,134 26% 1,988 27% 1,112 24% 1,010 26% 1,821 26% 6 Very certain 1,832 15% 1,188 16% 617 13% 611 16% 1,055 15% Total 12,169 100% 7,450 100% 4,576 100% 3,932 100% 7,009 100% d. Ask instructors for help when caskinst 1 Not at all certain 56 0% 31 0% 25 1% 20 1% 29 0% you struggle with course 2 244 2% 112 2% 127 3% 55 1% 147 2% assignments 3 1,013 8% 545 7% 452 10% 296 8% 589 8% 4 2,315 19% 1,258 17% 1,034 23% 712 18% 1,373 20% 5 3,775 31% 2,344 31% 1,388 30% 1,188 30% 2,235 32% 6 Very certain 4,758 39% 3,155 42% 1,548 34% 1,663 42% 2,628 38% Total 12,161 100% 7,445 100% 4,574 100% 3,934 100% 7,001 100% e. Finish something you have cfinish 1 Not at all certain 44 0% 28 0% 16 0% 14 0% 23 0% started when you encounter 2 123 1% 50 1% 70 2% 32 1% 66 1% challenges 3 764 6% 419 6% 331 7% 229 6% 411 6% 4 2,541 21% 1,493 20% 1,013 22% 787 20% 1,482 21% 5 4,368 36% 2,705 36% 1,621 35% 1,403 36% 2,582 37% 6 Very certain 4,326 36% 2,753 37% 1,527 33% 1,470 37% 2,441 35% Total 12,166 100% 7,448 100% 4,578 100% 3,935 100% 7,005 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 15 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Stay positive, even when you cstaypos 1 Not at all certain 130 1% 81 1% 48 1% 43 1% 61 1% do poorly on a test assignment 2 442 4% 285 4% 151 3% 129 3% 277 4% 3 1,598 13% 1,014 14% 564 12% 502 13% 949 14% 4 3,356 28% 2,132 29% 1,178 26% 1,020 26% 2,013 29% 5 3,520 29% 2,136 29% 1,349 29% 1,149 29% 2,039 29% 6 Very certain 3,117 26% 1,800 24% 1,284 28% 1,090 28% 1,664 24% Total 12,163 100% 7,448 100% 4,574 100% 3,933 100% 7,003 100% 16. During the coming school year , how difficult do you expect the following to be? a. Learning course material clearnma 1 Not at all difficult 218 2% 109 1% 106 2% 76 2% 104 1% 2 823 7% 440 6% 369 8% 264 7% 466 7% 3 2,688 22% 1,563 21% 1,102 24% 884 22% 1,510 22% 4 5,000 41% 3,057 41% 1,886 41% 1,591 40% 2,926 42% 5 2,732 23% 1,796 24% 906 20% 883 22% 1,612 23% 6 Very difficult 678 6% 473 6% 198 4% 233 6% 376 5% Total 12,139 100% 7,438 100% 4,567 100% 3,931 100% 6,994 100% b. Managing your time cmantime 1 Not at all difficult 365 3% 236 3% 126 3% 125 3% 189 3% 2 1,038 9% 649 9% 378 8% 342 9% 587 8% 3 2,112 17% 1,307 18% 779 17% 684 17% 1,194 17% 4 3,111 26% 1,884 25% 1,190 26% 988 25% 1,809 26% 5 3,310 27% 2,007 27% 1,270 28% 1,051 27% 1,963 28% 6 Very difficult 2,206 18% 1,357 18% 825 18% 736 19% 1,254 18% Total 12,142 100% 7,440 100% 4,568 100% 3,926 100% 6,996 100% c. Paying college expenses cpaycoll 1 Not at all difficult 1,409 12% 771 10% 620 14% 316 8% 980 14% 2 1,611 13% 928 12% 668 15% 376 10% 1,101 16% 3 2,032 17% 1,212 16% 797 17% 599 15% 1,232 18% 4 2,117 17% 1,277 17% 816 18% 656 17% 1,219 17% 5 2,226 18% 1,394 19% 810 18% 822 21% 1,159 17% 6 Very difficult 2,739 23% 1,854 25% 855 19% 1,156 29% 1,302 19% Total 12,134 100% 7,436 100% 4,566 100% 3,925 100% 6,993 100% d. Getting help with school work cgethelp 1 Not at all difficult 1,618 13% 1,082 15% 521 11% 548 14% 902 13% 2 3,466 29% 2,105 28% 1,327 29% 1,070 27% 2,081 30% 3 3,857 32% 2,324 31% 1,495 33% 1,236 31% 2,271 32% 4 2,246 19% 1,354 18% 861 19% 732 19% 1,268 18% 5 744 6% 451 6% 284 6% 273 7% 369 5% 6 Very difficult 205 2% 122 2% 78 2% 68 2% 104 1% Total 12,136 100% 7,438 100% 4,566 100% 3,927 100% 6,995 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 16 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % e. Making new friends cmakefr 1 Not at all difficult 3,400 28% 1,929 26% 1,426 31% 1,168 30% 1,875 27% 2 3,509 29% 2,140 29% 1,334 29% 1,117 28% 2,082 30% 3 2,615 22% 1,714 23% 872 19% 802 20% 1,561 22% 4 1,559 13% 989 13% 561 12% 486 12% 916 13% 5 707 6% 458 6% 240 5% 233 6% 386 6% 6 Very difficult 345 3% 208 3% 132 3% 117 3% 176 3% Total 12,135 100% 7,438 100% 4,565 100% 3,923 100% 6,996 100% f. Interacting with faculty cintfac 1 Not at all difficult 2,353 19% 1,368 18% 956 21% 803 20% 1,279 18% 2 3,477 29% 2,093 28% 1,356 30% 1,132 29% 2,048 29% 3 3,509 29% 2,181 29% 1,290 28% 1,081 28% 2,083 30% 4 1,932 16% 1,238 17% 666 15% 625 16% 1,116 16% 5 661 5% 442 6% 214 5% 213 5% 364 5% 6 Very difficult 201 2% 117 2% 82 2% 75 2% 99 1% Total 12,133 100% 7,439 100% 4,564 100% 3,929 100% 6,989 100% 17. How prepared are you to do the following in your academic work at this college? a. Write clearly and effectively cgnwrite 1 Not at all prepared 86 1% 37 0% 47 1% 25 1% 43 1% 2 387 3% 185 2% 198 4% 134 3% 204 3% 3 1,697 14% 918 12% 759 17% 553 14% 947 14% 4 3,726 31% 2,135 29% 1,545 34% 1,207 31% 2,109 30% 5 3,510 29% 2,250 30% 1,233 27% 1,123 29% 2,112 30% 6 Very prepared 2,726 22% 1,923 26% 785 17% 883 22% 1,591 23% Total 12,132 100% 7,448 100% 4,567 100% 3,925 100% 7,006 100% b. Speak clearly and effectively cgnspeak 1 Not at all prepared 87 1% 52 1% 35 1% 30 1% 48 1% 2 451 4% 275 4% 167 4% 159 4% 233 3% 3 1,847 15% 1,097 15% 733 16% 613 16% 1,012 14% 4 3,541 29% 2,109 28% 1,397 31% 1,156 29% 2,032 29% 5 3,572 29% 2,173 29% 1,366 30% 1,143 29% 2,116 30% 6 Very prepared 2,635 22% 1,741 23% 875 19% 828 21% 1,563 22% Total 12,133 100% 7,447 100% 4,573 100% 3,929 100% 7,004 100% c. Think critically and cgnanaly 1 Not at all prepared 35 0% 24 0% 11 0% 13 0% 14 0% analytically 2 255 2% 160 2% 92 2% 94 2% 122 2% 3 1,585 13% 994 13% 574 13% 556 14% 830 12% 4 3,714 31% 2,311 31% 1,366 30% 1,243 32% 2,098 30% 5 3,960 33% 2,386 32% 1,541 34% 1,272 32% 2,372 34% 6 Very prepared 2,579 21% 1,572 21% 984 22% 750 19% 1,566 22% Total 12,128 100% 7,447 100% 4,568 100% 3,928 100% 7,002 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 17 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Analyze math or quantitative cgnquant 1 Not at all prepared 345 3% 252 3% 87 2% 119 3% 178 3% problems 2 1,239 10% 848 11% 376 8% 417 11% 677 10% 3 2,645 22% 1,706 23% 914 20% 876 22% 1,510 22% 4 3,270 27% 1,971 26% 1,264 28% 1,015 26% 1,908 27% 5 2,851 24% 1,676 23% 1,152 25% 971 25% 1,646 24% 6 Very prepared 1,776 15% 994 13% 771 17% 535 14% 1,081 15% Total 12,126 100% 7,447 100% 4,564 100% 3,933 100% 7,000 100% e. Use computing and cgncompt 1 Not at all prepared 119 1% 89 1% 29 1% 39 1% 62 1% information technology 2 615 5% 425 6% 182 4% 199 5% 343 5% 3 2,078 17% 1,383 19% 677 15% 651 17% 1,233 18% 4 3,517 29% 2,194 29% 1,281 28% 1,126 29% 2,039 29% 5 3,477 29% 2,065 28% 1,385 30% 1,193 30% 1,963 28% 6 Very prepared 2,325 19% 1,291 17% 1,016 22% 724 18% 1,362 19% Total 12,131 100% 7,447 100% 4,570 100% 3,932 100% 7,002 100% f. Work effectively with others cgnother 1 Not at all prepared 26 0% 14 0% 12 0% 11 0% 9 0% 2 125 1% 63 1% 60 1% 36 1% 69 1% 3 631 5% 305 4% 318 7% 220 6% 315 4% 4 2,424 20% 1,288 17% 1,103 24% 794 20% 1,359 19% 5 4,535 37% 2,809 38% 1,689 37% 1,461 37% 2,678 38% 6 Very prepared 4,386 36% 2,962 40% 1,390 30% 1,409 36% 2,572 37% Total 12,127 100% 7,441 100% 4,572 100% 3,931 100% 7,002 100% g. Learn effectively on your own cgninq 1 Not at all prepared 37 0% 23 0% 14 0% 13 0% 18 0% 2 187 2% 99 1% 85 2% 65 2% 103 1% 3 1,035 9% 580 8% 443 10% 320 8% 583 8% 4 2,961 24% 1,738 23% 1,188 26% 967 25% 1,675 24% 5 4,283 35% 2,632 35% 1,618 35% 1,392 35% 2,500 36% 6 Very prepared 3,625 30% 2,376 32% 1,217 27% 1,174 30% 2,121 30% Total 12,128 100% 7,448 100% 4,565 100% 3,931 100% 7,000 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 18 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 18. How important is it to you that your college or university provides each of the following? a. A challenging academic cenvscho 1 Not important 58 0% 18 0% 39 1% 18 0% 30 0% experience 2 187 2% 73 1% 111 2% 60 2% 105 1% 3 1,140 9% 575 8% 556 12% 368 9% 624 9% 4 3,652 30% 2,106 28% 1,521 33% 1,215 31% 2,075 30% 5 3,976 33% 2,551 34% 1,398 30% 1,309 33% 2,352 34% 6 Very important 3,117 26% 2,136 29% 962 21% 970 25% 1,832 26% Total 12,130 100% 7,459 100% 4,587 100% 3,940 100% 7,018 100% b. Support to help you succeed cenvsupr 1 Not important 12 0% 6 0% 6 0% 1 0% 8 0% academically 2 38 0% 9 0% 27 1% 7 0% 21 0% 3 358 3% 143 2% 211 5% 104 3% 199 3% 4 1,495 12% 706 9% 781 17% 438 11% 846 12% 5 3,269 27% 1,870 25% 1,376 30% 1,065 27% 1,936 28% 6 Very important 6,959 57% 4,728 63% 2,184 48% 2,328 59% 4,006 57% Total 12,131 100% 7,462 100% 4,585 100% 3,943 100% 7,016 100% c. Opportunities to interact with cenvdivr 1 Not important 137 1% 62 1% 74 2% 47 1% 78 1% students from different 2 411 3% 171 2% 236 5% 134 3% 238 3% economic, social, and racial or 3 1,358 11% 705 9% 645 14% 441 11% 778 11% ethnic backgrounds 4 2,898 24% 1,683 23% 1,199 26% 912 23% 1,698 24% 5 3,454 28% 2,214 30% 1,209 26% 1,141 29% 2,003 29% 6 Very important 3,874 32% 2,628 35% 1,222 27% 1,270 32% 2,219 32% Total 12,132 100% 7,463 100% 4,585 100% 3,945 100% 7,014 100% d. Assistance with coping with cenvnaca 1 Not important 259 2% 137 2% 121 3% 91 2% 134 2% your non-academic 2 782 6% 426 6% 348 8% 230 6% 478 7% responsibilities (work, family, 3 2,060 17% 1,137 15% 912 20% 625 16% 1,249 18% etc.) 4 3,454 29% 2,020 27% 1,409 31% 1,067 27% 2,053 29% 5 3,049 25% 1,987 27% 1,042 23% 1,046 27% 1,727 25% 6 Very important 2,515 21% 1,747 23% 750 16% 883 22% 1,368 20% Total 12,119 100% 7,454 100% 4,582 100% 3,942 100% 7,009 100% e. Support to help you thrive cenvsoca 1 Not important 245 2% 115 2% 129 3% 82 2% 126 2% socially 2 635 5% 331 4% 299 7% 208 5% 362 5% 3 1,623 13% 889 12% 720 16% 517 13% 950 14% 4 3,139 26% 1,842 25% 1,274 28% 1,008 26% 1,822 26% 5 3,448 28% 2,193 29% 1,235 27% 1,097 28% 2,039 29% 6 Very important 3,027 25% 2,089 28% 920 20% 1,023 26% 1,712 24% Total 12,117 100% 7,459 100% 4,577 100% 3,935 100% 7,011 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 19 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Opportunities to attend cenveven 1 Not important 100 1% 53 1% 46 1% 40 1% 40 1% campus events and activities 2 259 2% 138 2% 119 3% 92 2% 126 2% 3 987 8% 505 7% 474 10% 354 9% 527 8% 4 2,605 21% 1,440 19% 1,142 25% 844 21% 1,455 21% 5 3,850 32% 2,385 32% 1,446 32% 1,207 31% 2,317 33% 6 Very important 4,319 36% 2,938 39% 1,352 30% 1,397 36% 2,551 36% Total 12,120 100% 7,459 100% 4,579 100% 3,934 100% 7,016 100% 19. About how much of your college expenses (tuition, fees, books, room & board) this year will be provided be each of the following sources? a. Scholarships and grants cschgr None 859 7% 494 7% 361 8% 152 4% 633 9% Less than half 5,237 43% 3,236 44% 1,965 43% 1,580 40% 3,219 46% Half or more 3,974 33% 2,491 33% 1,469 32% 1,437 36% 2,144 31% All or nearly all 1,515 13% 930 13% 566 12% 616 16% 740 11% Do not know 492 4% 285 4% 206 5% 153 4% 256 4% Total 12,077 100% 7,436 100% 4,567 100% 3,938 100% 6,992 100% b. Student loans cstudlo None 3,536 30% 2,141 29% 1,373 31% 748 19% 2,531 37% Less than half 4,591 38% 2,796 38% 1,768 39% 1,678 43% 2,532 37% Half or more 2,190 18% 1,415 19% 757 17% 871 22% 1,057 15% All or nearly all 720 6% 493 7% 223 5% 340 9% 291 4% Do not know 923 8% 544 7% 377 8% 268 7% 509 7% Total 11,960 100% 7,389 100% 4,498 100% 3,905 100% 6,920 100% c. Parents/family cparfam None 1,731 14% 1,141 15% 575 13% 899 23% 633 9% Less than half 4,016 33% 2,506 34% 1,484 33% 1,518 39% 2,130 31% Half or more 2,884 24% 1,682 23% 1,189 26% 697 18% 1,937 28% All or nearly all 2,616 22% 1,645 22% 952 21% 534 14% 1,889 27% Do not know 762 6% 433 6% 328 7% 256 7% 377 5% Total 12,009 100% 7,407 100% 4,528 100% 3,904 100% 6,966 100% d. Self (work on-campus or off- cself None 3,498 29% 2,111 29% 1,369 30% 884 23% 2,349 34% campus, savings) Less than half 6,114 51% 3,816 52% 2,260 50% 2,163 55% 3,402 49% Half or more 871 7% 561 8% 304 7% 331 8% 411 6% All or nearly all 317 3% 218 3% 94 2% 153 4% 121 2% Do not know 1,162 10% 673 9% 484 11% 377 10% 640 9% Total 11,962 100% 7,379 100% 4,511 100% 3,908 100% 6,923 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 20 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 20. Did you receive a Federal Pell cpell No 4,431 37% 2,771 37% 1,638 36% 1,137 29% 3,006 43% Grant? Yes 2,093 17% 1,371 18% 705 15% 1,048 27% 749 11% Do not know 5,540 46% 3,287 44% 2,219 49% 1,742 44% 3,227 46% Total 12,064 100% 7,429 100% 4,562 100% 3,927 100% 6,982 100% 21. What do you expect most of cgrades C- or lower 4 0% 2 0% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% your grades will be at this C 52 0% 31 0% 21 0% 22 1% 24 0% college during the coming C+ 132 1% 77 1% 54 1% 59 2% 53 1% year? B- 582 5% 330 4% 249 5% 214 5% 289 4% (Select only one.) B 2,608 22% 1,594 22% 991 22% 882 23% 1,432 21% B+ 3,541 30% 2,133 29% 1,393 31% 1,175 30% 2,031 29% A- 3,344 28% 2,167 29% 1,159 26% 1,023 26% 2,066 30% A 1,719 14% 1,046 14% 660 15% 518 13% 1,048 15% Grades not used 5 0% 3 0% 2 0% 0 0% 3 0% Total 11,987 100% 7,383 100% 4,531 100% 3,893 100% 6,946 100% 22. Do you intend to graduate cintgrad No 141 1% 82 1% 55 1% 41 1% 82 1% from this college? Yes 10,462 87% 6,502 87% 3,909 86% 3,402 87% 6,108 87% Uncertain 1,475 12% 857 12% 604 13% 487 12% 806 12% Total 12,078 100% 7,441 100% 4,568 100% 3,930 100% 6,996 100% 23 What is the highest academic chighdeg Associate's degree 108 1% 57 1% 51 1% 42 1% 49 1% degree you intend to obtain at Bachelor's degree 2,816 23% 1,637 22% 1,167 26% 1,013 26% 1,528 22% this or any college? Master's degree 4,355 36% 2,747 37% 1,572 35% 1,366 35% 2,630 38% Doctoral degree 2,770 23% 1,821 25% 935 21% 909 23% 1,593 23% Uncertain 1,990 17% 1,152 16% 830 18% 590 15% 1,174 17% Total 12,039 100% 7,414 100% 4,555 100% 3,920 100% 6,974 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 21 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 24. Do you know what your major cmajor No 2,470 21% 1,339 18% 1,113 25% 710 18% 1,518 22% will be? Yes 9,456 79% 6,008 82% 3,394 75% 3,166 82% 5,404 78% Total 11,926 100% 7,347 100% 4,507 100% 3,876 100% 6,922 100% Created by recoding xmajrcol Arts and humanities 933 10% 645 11% 281 9% 249 8% 602 12% 'xmajcod1' into one of ten Biological sciences 822 9% 582 10% 234 7% 294 10% 435 9% major categories listed at right Business 1,672 19% 729 13% 929 29% 531 18% 995 20% Education 1,082 12% 858 15% 220 7% 382 13% 597 12% Engineering 127 1% 25 0% 100 3% 35 1% 82 2% Physical science 414 5% 248 4% 165 5% 142 5% 239 5% Professional 1,607 18% 1,235 22% 366 11% 581 19% 870 17% Social science 938 10% 713 13% 223 7% 346 11% 494 10% Other 1,362 15% 664 12% 692 21% 461 15% 764 15% Undecided 16 0% 5 0% 11 0% 4 0% 9 0% Total 8,973 100% 5,704 100% 3,221 100% 3,025 100% 5,087 100% 25. Are you, or will you be, a full- cenrlmen No 60 0% 33 0% 25 1% 24 1% 25 0% time student this fall term? Yes 12,034 100% 7,427 100% 4,544 99% 3,916 99% 6,979 100% Total 12,094 100% 7,460 100% 4,569 100% 3,940 100% 7,004 100% 26. How many of your close cfriends None 6,646 55% 4,298 58% 2,312 50% 2,045 52% 4,000 57% friends will attend this college 1 2,448 20% 1,468 20% 968 21% 803 20% 1,432 20% during the coming year? 2 1,265 10% 752 10% 506 11% 442 11% 692 10% 3 675 6% 385 5% 285 6% 264 7% 326 5% 4 or more 1,083 9% 566 8% 514 11% 390 10% 568 8% Total 12,117 100% 7,469 100% 4,585 100% 3,944 100% 7,018 100% 27. Your sex: csex Male 4,605 38% 0 0% 4,605 100% 1,280 32% 2,841 41% Female 7,495 62% 7,495 100% 0 0% 2,660 68% 4,168 59% Total 12,100 100% 7,495 100% 4,605 100% 3,940 100% 7,009 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 22 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's All Students Gender First Generationa Private Master's Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 28. Are you an international cinterna No 11,528 96% 7,161 96% 4,306 94% 3,790 96% 6,686 96% student or foreign national? Yes 541 4% 273 4% 267 6% 146 4% 301 4% Total 12,069 100% 7,434 100% 4,573 100% 3,936 100% 6,987 100% 29. What is your racial or ethnic crace American Indian or other Native 50 0% 32 0% 17 0% 19 0% 22 0% identification? American (Select only one.) Asian, Asian American, or 406 3% 231 3% 175 4% 141 4% 216 3% Pacific Islander Black or African American 1,207 10% 816 11% 384 8% 471 12% 481 7% White (non-Hispanic) 9,156 76% 5,621 75% 3,484 76% 2,859 72% 5,650 81% Mexican or Mexican American 198 2% 119 2% 78 2% 122 3% 48 1% Puerto Rican 118 1% 71 1% 47 1% 58 1% 48 1% Other Hispanic or Latino 250 2% 146 2% 104 2% 74 2% 133 2% Multiracial 263 2% 174 2% 86 2% 92 2% 137 2% Other 165 1% 96 1% 69 2% 37 1% 97 1% I prefer not to respond 300 2% 162 2% 138 3% 72 2% 186 3% Total 12,113 100% 7,468 100% 4,582 100% 3,945 100% 7,018 100% 30. Please indicate whether your parents completed a 4-year college degree. a. Mother (or guardian) cmothred Did not complete 4-year degree 5,754 48% 3800 51% 1,927 43% 3958 100% 1,568 22% Did complete 4-year degree 5,747 48% 3359 45% 2,354 52% 0 0% 5,477 78% Do not know 468 4% 235 3% 229 5% 0 0% 0 0% Total 11,969 100% 7394 100% 4,510 100% 3958 100% 7,045 100% b. Father (or guardian) cfathred Did not complete 4-year degree 5,423 46% 3559 49% 1,837 41% 3958 100% 1,382 20% Did complete 4-year degree 5,821 49% 3389 46% 2,405 54% 0 0% 5,663 80% Do not know 634 5% 384 5% 245 5% 0 0% 0 0% Total 11,878 100% 7332 100% 4,487 100% 3958 100% 7,045 100% 31. How far is your home from cdistanc 20 miles or less 2,693 22% 1,712 23% 969 21% 1,080 27% 1,274 18% this college? 21-50 miles 2,017 17% 1,299 17% 703 15% 752 19% 1,051 15% 51-100 miles 2,025 17% 1,252 17% 762 17% 726 18% 1,146 16% 101-200 miles 2,064 17% 1,229 17% 826 18% 641 16% 1,286 18% 201-400 miles 1,572 13% 951 13% 612 13% 371 9% 1,088 16% more than 400 miles 1,719 14% 1,000 13% 711 16% 368 9% 1,170 17% Total 12,090 100% 7,443 100% 4,583 100% 3,938 100% 7,015 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 23 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

Private Master's

Mean Scale Scores and Selected Student Comparisons 2007 BCSSE 2007 Mean Scale Scores and Selected Student Comparisons Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Private Master's

Gender Comparisons First Generationd Comparisons All Students Means by Tests of mean Means by Tests of mean Private Master's Gender differences First Generation differences

Scale a Variable Mean SD N Female Male Sig b Effect size c Yes No Sig b Effect size c

High School Academic Engagement Engagement in educationally relevant behaviors HS_acad 5.38 1.39 12,394 5.53 5.14 *** .28 5.34 5.41 ** -.06 during high school

Expected First-Year Academic Engagement Expected engagement in educationally relevant Exp_acad 6.13 1.55 12,394 6.21 6.01 *** .13 6.15 6.12 .02 behaviors during the first-year of college

Academic Persistence Student certainty that they will persist in the Acad_per 7.18 1.57 12,394 7.30 7.00 *** .19 7.27 7.17 *** .07 midst of difficult circumstances

Academic Preparation Student perception of their academic preparation Acad_prep 7.08 1.52 12,394 7.12 7.04 ** .05 7.05 7.14 ** -.06

Importance of Campus Environment Student-rated importance that the institution Imp_env 7.49 1.62 12,394 7.71 7.12 *** .37 7.51 7.50 .01 provides a challenging and supportive environment

a Scale scores are expressed in 0 (minimum) to 10 (maximum) point scales. See page 4 for complete scale descriptions and component items. b T-test results (2-tailed): * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001. The smaller the significance level, the less likely that the difference is due to chance. c Effect size is the mean difference divided by overall standard deviation. It indicates the practical significance of the mean difference (approx. .2 is considered small, .5 moderate, and .8 large). A positive sign indicates that at your institution, females score higher than males, or first generation students scored higher than non-first generation students. d First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree.

25 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement BCSSE 2007 Scale Descriptions

www.bcsse.iub.edu

Center for Postsecondary Research School of Education Indiana University Bloomington 1900 E. Tenth Street Eigenmann Hall, Suite 419 Bloomington, IN 47406-7512

Phone: 812-856-5824 Fax: 812-856-5150 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.bcsse.iub.edu Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

Carroll College

Frequency Distributions 2007 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement BCSSE 2007 Scale Descriptions

High School Academic Engagement Academic Persistence Students learn more when engaged in their learning and other The first year can be challenging. Successful students can overcome difficult situations with purposeful activities. This scale measures student appropriate strategies and problem solving skills. This scale represents student perceptions of their involvement in educationally relevant behaviors during the ability to persist in the midst of difficult circumstances. Items include how certain students are to: last year of high school – behavior patterns that often persist into the first-year. Items include: • Study when there are other interesting things to do • Find info for assignments when they don't understand the material • Amount of assigned reading and writing • Participate regularly in course discussions, even when they don't feel like it • Time spent preparing for class • Ask instructors for help when they struggle with assignments • Asked questions or contributed to class discussions • Finish something when they encounter challenges • Made a class presentation • Stay positive, even when they do poorly on a test or assignment • Discussed grades or assignments with a teacher • Worked with other students on projects during class • Worked on assignments with ith classmates ooutside tside of class Academic Preparation • Prepared 2+ drafts of a paper before turning it in Self-reports of academic preparedness may signal a student’s likelihood of success. This scale • Discussed ideas from readings or classes with teachers measures the degree of confidence students have in their academic abilities. Items include how outside of class prepared students are to: • Discussed ideas from readings or classes with others outside of class • Write clearly and effectively • Speak clearly and effectively • Think critically and analytically Expected First-Year Academic Engagement • Analyze math or quantitative problems Expectations for the first year set the stage for upcoming • Use computing and information technology experiences and influence behaviors. This scale combines • Work effectively with others expectations for a variety of educationally relevant practices • Learn effectively on your own that contribute to student success. Items include student expectations to: Importance of Campus Environment • Spend time preparing for class Campuses can do many things to support students both in and out of the classroom. This scale • Ask questions or contribute to class discussions gauges the importance new students’ assign to various institutional emphases and opportunities, • Make a class presentation including: • Discuss grades or assignments with an instructor • Work with other students on projects during class • A challenging academic experience • Work on assignments with classmates outside of class • Support for academic success • Discuss ideas from readings or classes with faculty outside • Opportunities to interact with students from different backgrounds of class • Assistance coping with non-academic responsibilities • Discuss ideas from readings or classes with others outside • Support to help them thrive socially of class • Opportunities to attend campus events and activities BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % You are taking this survey: tksrvy Before attending orientation 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% While attending orientation 3 1% 3 1% 0 0% 1 1% 2 2% After attending orientation 272 92% 193 91% 77 93% 143 93% 104 90% N/A, not attending orientation 22 7% 16 8% 6 7% 9 6% 10 9% Total 297 100% 212 100% 83 100% 153 100% 116 100% 1. Please write in the year you hgradyr_r 2004 and earlier 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% graduated from high school. 2005 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% (for example, "2007"): 2006 6 2% 3 1% 3 4% 3 2% 2 2% 2007 294 98% 211 99% 81 96% 151 98% 116 98% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% 2. From which type of high htype Public 256 86% 181 85% 73 87% 141 92% 92 78% school did you graduate? Private, religiously-affiliated 38 13% 29 14% 9 11% 11 7% 22 19% (Select only one.) Private, independent 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 0 0% 3 3% Home school 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Other (e.g., GED) 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% 3. What were most of your high hgrades C- or lower 2 1% 0 0% 2 2% 1 1% 0 0% school grades? C 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% (Select only one.) C+ 72%21%45%32%11% B- 10 3% 3 1% 6 7% 4 3% 4 3% B 66 22% 45 21% 21 25% 43 28% 19 16% B+ 59 20% 43 20% 16 19% 29 19% 23 20% A- 50 17% 36 17% 14 17% 25 16% 22 19% A 102 34% 83 39% 19 23% 48 31% 47 40% Grades not used 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total 299 100% 214 100% 83 100% 154 100% 117 100% 4. To date, in which of the following math classes did you earn a passing grade? a. Pre-calculus/Trigonometry hprecalc Did not pass 4 1% 4 2% 0 0% 2 1% 1 1% Passed 228 77% 167 78% 60 74% 111 73% 98 84% Did not take 64 22% 42 20% 21 26% 40 26% 18 15% Total 296 100% 213 100% 81 100% 153 100% 117 100% b. Calculus hcalc Did not pass 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 1 1% 2 2% Passed 63 23% 43 22% 20 25% 30 20% 30 28% Did not take 214 76% 154 77% 58 73% 116 79% 76 70% Total 280 100% 199 100% 79 100% 147 100% 108 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 1 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Probability or Statistics hstats Did not pass 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Passed 76 27% 54 28% 22 28% 43 30% 28 26% Did not take 201 73% 142 72% 57 72% 101 70% 79 74% Total 277 100% 196 100% 79 100% 144 100% 107 100% 5. During high school , how many years of the following subjects did you complete? a. English/Literature heng 0 years 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 year 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 years 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 2 1% 1 1% 4 years 280 93% 199 93% 79 94% 143 93% 113 96% 5 or more years 16 5% 12 6% 4 5% 9 6% 4 3% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% b. Math hmath 00yeas years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 year 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 years 3 1% 3 1% 0 0% 2 1% 1 1% 3 years 86 29% 61 29% 23 27% 53 34% 22 19% 4 years 199 66% 141 66% 58 69% 92 60% 91 77% 5 or more years 12 4% 9 4% 3 4% 7 5% 4 3% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% c. Science hsci 0 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 year 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 years 10 3% 5 2% 4 5% 5 3% 2 2% 3 years 69 23% 44 21% 25 30% 37 24% 23 19% 4 years 188 63% 139 65% 48 57% 95 62% 79 67% 5 or more years 32 11% 25 12% 7 8% 16 10% 14 12% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% d. History/Social Science hhist 0 years 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 year 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 years 17 6% 9 4% 8 10% 11 7% 3 3% 3 years 132 44% 100 47% 31 37% 64 42% 51 43% 4 years 137 46% 97 45% 39 46% 72 47% 60 51% 5 or more years 14 5% 8 4% 6 7% 7 5% 4 3% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 2 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % e. Foreign Language hforlan 0 years 9 3% 2 1% 6 7% 5 3% 1 1% 1 year 21 7% 11 5% 10 12% 14 9% 5 4% 2 years 83 28% 57 27% 26 31% 47 31% 26 22% 3 years 83 28% 60 28% 22 26% 36 23% 41 35% 4 years 94 31% 74 35% 20 24% 48 31% 39 33% 5 or more years 10 3% 10 5% 0 0% 4 3% 6 5% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% 6. During high school , how many of the following types of classes did you complete? a. Advanced Placement (AP) hapcl 0 classes 118 40% 79 37% 37 45% 64 43% 37 31% classes 1 class 86 29% 67 32% 19 23% 46 31% 35 30% 2 classes 41 14% 31 15% 10 12% 14 9% 23 19% 3 classes 26 9% 20 9% 6 7% 11 7% 13 11% 4 cl asses 13 4% 9 4% 4 5% 9 6% 4 3% 5 or more classes 12 4% 6 3% 6 7% 6 4% 6 5% Total 296 100% 212 100% 82 100% 150 100% 118 100% b. Honors classes (not AP) taught hhonor 0 classes 120 41% 83 40% 36 44% 57 39% 47 41% at your high school 1 class 33 11% 24 12% 9 11% 14 9% 16 14% 2 classes 34 12% 20 10% 13 16% 21 14% 11 10% 3 classes 25 9% 18 9% 7 9% 9 6% 12 11% 4 classes 20 7% 17 8% 3 4% 14 9% 6 5% 5 or more classes 58 20% 44 21% 14 17% 33 22% 22 19% Total 290 100% 206 100% 82 100% 148 100% 114 100% 7. During your last year of high school , about how much reading and writing did you do? a. Assigned Reading (textbooks hreadasg None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% or other course materials) Very little 24 8% 15 7% 9 11% 11 7% 9 8% Some 103 34% 68 32% 34 40% 54 35% 41 35% Quite a bit 110 37% 81 38% 29 35% 59 38% 38 32% Very much 62 21% 49 23% 12 14% 30 19% 30 25% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% b. Writing short papers or reports hwrite5 None 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% (5 or fewer pages) Very little 13 4% 11 5% 2 2% 7 5% 5 4% Some 84 28% 50 23% 33 39% 41 27% 33 28% Quite a bit 124 41% 94 44% 30 36% 66 43% 47 40% Very much 79 26% 59 28% 19 23% 40 26% 33 28% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 3 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Writing longer papers or hwrite5m None 24 8% 18 8% 6 7% 14 9% 8 7% reports (more than 5 pages) Very little 79 26% 59 28% 20 24% 41 27% 30 25% Some 120 40% 83 39% 36 43% 60 39% 46 39% Quite a bit 54 18% 36 17% 18 22% 29 19% 23 19% Very much 22 7% 18 8% 3 4% 9 6% 11 9% Total 299 100% 214 100% 83 100% 153 100% 118 100% 8. During your last year of high school , about how many hours did you spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following? a. Preparing for class (studying, hacadpr 0 hours per week 8 3% 2 1% 5 6% 4 3% 3 3% doing homework, rehearsing, 1-5 hours per week 145 49% 98 46% 47 58% 75 49% 54 47% etc.) 6-10 hours per week 85 29% 62 29% 22 27% 49 32% 30 26% 11-15 hours per week 37 12% 34 16% 3 4% 17 11% 18 16% 16-20 hours per week 12 4% 8 4% 4 5% 5 3% 7 6% 21-255ouspewee hours per week 6 2% 6 3% 0 0% 21% 3 3% 26-30 hours per week 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1 1% More than 30 hours per week 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% Total 297 100% 214 100% 81 100% 154 100% 116 100% b. Working for pay (before or hwork 0 hours per week 61 20% 42 20% 19 23% 34 22% 20 17% after school, weekends) 1-5 hours per week 20 7% 15 7% 5 6% 10 6% 7 6% 6-10 hours per week 41 14% 29 14% 12 14% 22 14% 17 14% 11-15 hours per week 66 22% 44 21% 21 25% 34 22% 27 23% 16-20 hours per week 63 21% 49 23% 14 17% 29 19% 29 25% 21-25 hours per week 27 9% 19 9% 8 10% 11 7% 13 11% 26-30 hours per week 12 4% 9 4% 3 4% 8 5% 2 2% More than 30 hours per week 10 3% 7 3% 2 2% 6 4% 3 3% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% c. Participating in co-curricular hcocurr 0 hours per week 23 8% 19 9% 2 2% 10 7% 9 8% activities (arts, clubs, athletics, 1-5 hours per week 72 24% 60 28% 12 14% 36 24% 29 25% etc.) 6-10 hours per week 54 18% 44 21% 10 12% 28 18% 21 18% 11-15 hours per week 59 20% 36 17% 23 27% 33 22% 22 19% 16-20 hours per week 53 18% 31 15% 22 26% 26 17% 23 19% 21-25 hours per week 22 7% 14 7% 8 10% 14 9% 6 5% 26-30 hours per week 9 3% 5 2% 4 5% 2 1% 5 4% More than 30 hours per week 6 2% 3 1% 3 4% 3 2% 3 3% Total 298 100% 212 100% 84 100% 152 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 4 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Relaxing and socializing hsocial 0 hours per week 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% (watching TV, partying, etc.) 1-5 hours per week 50 17% 43 20% 7 8% 24 16% 20 17% 6-10 hours per week 87 29% 68 32% 19 23% 46 30% 37 32% 11-15 hours per week 61 21% 43 20% 17 20% 38 25% 20 17% 16-20 hours per week 57 19% 36 17% 21 25% 27 18% 23 20% 21-25 hours per week 19 6% 11 5% 8 10% 7 5% 9 8% 26-30 hours per week 14 5% 7 3% 6 7% 4 3% 5 4% More than 30 hours per week 9 3% 4 2% 5 6% 6 4% 3 3% Total 297 100% 212 100% 83 100% 152 100% 117 100% 9. During your last year of high school, about how often did you do each of the following? a. Asked questions in class or hclquest Never 2 1% 0 0% 2 2% 1 1% 1 1% contributed to class Sometimes 96 32% 70 33% 25 30% 49 32% 36 31% discussions OOteften109 36% 74 35% 3441% 56 36% 41 35% Very often 92 31% 70 33% 22 27% 48 31% 40 34% Total 299 100% 214 100% 83 100% 154 100% 118 100% b. Made a class presentation hclprese Never 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 0 0% Sometimes 146 49% 108 50% 38 45% 72 47% 61 52% Often 116 39% 75 35% 39 46% 61 40% 44 37% Very often 36 12% 30 14% 6 7% 21 14% 13 11% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% c. Came to class without hclunpre Never 111 37% 92 43% 18 21% 55 36% 48 41% completing readings or Sometimes 172 58% 114 54% 57 68% 90 59% 63 53% assignments Often 12 4% 4 2% 8 10% 5 3% 6 5% Very often 4 1% 3 1% 1 1% 3 2% 1 1% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% d. Discussed grades or hfacgrad Never 15 5% 8 4% 7 8% 10 7% 2 2% assignments with a teacher Sometimes 162 54% 114 54% 47 56% 81 53% 71 60% Often 104 35% 78 37% 25 30% 54 35% 36 31% Very often 18 6% 13 6% 5 6% 8 5% 9 8% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% e. Worked with other students hclassgr Never 4 1% 4 2% 0 0% 3 2% 1 1% on projects during class Sometimes 99 33% 70 33% 28 33% 48 31% 38 32% Often 168 56% 117 55% 50 60% 86 56% 69 58% Very often 28 9% 22 10% 6 7% 16 10% 10 8% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 5 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Worked with classmates hoccgrp Never 54 18% 33 15% 19 23% 27 18% 19 16% outside of class to prepare for Sometimes 187 62% 144 67% 43 51% 95 62% 77 65% assignments Often 53 18% 33 15% 20 24% 28 18% 20 17% Very often 6 2% 4 2% 2 2% 4 3% 2 2% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% g. Prepared two or more drafts of hrewropa Never 40 13% 20 9% 20 24% 21 14% 15 13% a paper or assignment before Sometimes 119 40% 87 41% 31 37% 65 42% 43 37% turning it in Often 86 29% 64 30% 21 25% 42 27% 34 29% Very often 54 18% 42 20% 12 14% 26 17% 25 21% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 117 100% h. Had serious conversations hdivrstu Never 76 25% 57 27% 19 23% 39 25% 32 27% with students of a different Sometimes 112 37% 76 36% 36 43% 60 39% 43 36% race or ehtnicity than your own Often 60 20% 43 20% 16 19% 35 23% 19 16% Very often 51 17% 37 17% 13 15% 19 12% 24 20% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% i. Discussed ideas from your hfacidea Never 102 34% 72 34% 30 36% 58 38% 40 35% readings or classes with Sometimes 148 50% 105 50% 41 49% 72 47% 56 49% teachers outside of class Often 35 12% 27 13% 8 10% 17 11% 15 13% Very often 11 4% 7 3% 4 5% 6 4% 4 3% Total 296 100% 211 100% 83 100% 153 100% 115 100% j. Discussed ideas from your hoocidea Never 31 10% 15 7% 15 18% 15 10% 13 11% readings or classes with others Sometimes 148 49% 111 52% 36 43% 86 56% 48 41% outside of class (students, Often 91 30% 61 29% 30 36% 36 24% 45 38% family members, etc.) Very often 29 10% 26 12% 3 4% 16 10% 12 10% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% k. Talked with a counselor, hfacplan Never 196%105%911%64%119% teacher, or other staff member Sometimes 143 48% 99 47% 43 51% 67 44% 63 54% about college or career plans Often 100 34% 76 36% 23 27% 60 39% 33 28% Very often 35 12% 26 12% 9 11% 20 13% 10 9% Total 297 100% 211 100% 84 100% 153 100% 117 100% l. Had serious conversations hdiffstu Never 56 19% 41 19% 15 18% 27 18% 22 19% with students who are very Sometimes 127 42% 89 42% 37 44% 68 44% 50 42% different from you in terms of Often 80 27% 55 26% 24 29% 37 24% 37 31% their religious beliefs, political Very often 37 12% 29 14% 8 10% 22 14% 9 8% opinions, or personal values Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 8 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % h. Religious youth groups hrelgrp 1 Not involved 172 58% 110 52% 60 71% 99 66% 53 45% 2 25 8% 18 9% 7 8% 11 7% 14 12% 3 29 10% 24 11% 5 6% 6 4% 21 18% 4 29 10% 25 12% 4 5% 12 8% 14 12% 5 16 5% 14 7% 2 2% 10 7% 5 4% 6 Highly involved 26 9% 20 9% 6 7% 13 9% 11 9% Total 297 100% 211 100% 84 100% 151 100% 118 100% 12. Overall, how academically hacachal 1 Not at all challenging 4 1% 1 0% 3 4% 4 3% 0 0% challenging was your high 2 27 9% 17 8% 10 12% 15 10% 10 8% school? 3 61 21% 41 19% 19 23% 34 22% 21 18% 4 126 42% 97 46% 28 33% 70 46% 48 41% 5 74 25% 52 25% 22 26% 28 18% 35 30% 6 Extremely challenging 5 2% 3 1% 2 2% 1 1% 4 3% Total 297 100% 211 100% 84 100% 152 100% 118 100% 13. During the coming school year , about how many hours do you think you will spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following? a. Preparing for class (studying, cacadpr 0 hours per week 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% reading, writing, doing 1-5 hours per week 6 2% 3 1% 3 4% 5 3% 1 1% homework or lab work, 6-10 hours per week 41 14% 24 11% 16 19% 19 12% 16 14% analyzing data, rehearsing, and 11-15 hours per week 75 25% 40 19% 35 42% 35 23% 32 27% other academic activities) 16-20 hours per week 91 31% 69 33% 22 26% 46 30% 37 32% 21-25 hours per week 47 16% 40 19% 7 8% 31 20% 15 13% 26-30 hours per week 24 8% 22 10% 1 1% 10 6% 10 9% More than 30 hours per week 14 5% 14 7% 0 0% 8 5% 6 5% Total 298 100% 212 100% 84 100% 154 100% 117 100% b. Working for pay on- or off- cwork 0 hours per week 34 11% 23 11% 11 13% 17 11% 15 13% campus 1-5 hours per week 55 18% 40 19% 15 18% 29 19% 24 21% 6-10 hours per week 112 37% 77 36% 34 40% 56 36% 46 39% 11-15 hours per week 48 16% 34 16% 14 17% 27 18% 14 12% 16-20 hours per week 29 10% 23 11% 6 7% 14 9% 12 10% 21-25 hours per week 17 6% 13 6% 4 5% 10 6% 5 4% 26-30 hours per week 2 1% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% More than 30 hours per week 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 1 1% 1 1% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 117 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 9 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Participating in co-curricular ccocurr 0 hours per week 16 5% 12 6% 3 4% 7 5% 7 6% activities (organizations, 1-5 hours per week 116 39% 98 46% 17 20% 56 36% 53 45% campus publications, student 6-10 hours per week 84 28% 58 27% 26 31% 45 29% 27 23% government, fraternity or 11-15 hours per week 44 15% 23 11% 21 25% 23 15% 17 14% sorority, intercollegiate or 16-20 hours per week 27 9% 16 7% 11 13% 15 10% 9 8% intramural sports, etc.) 21-25 hours per week 9 3% 5 2% 4 5% 6 4% 3 3% 26-30 hours per week 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 2 2% More than 30 hours per week 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 2 1% 0 0% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% d. Relaxing or socializing csocial 0 hours per week 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% (watching TV, partying, etc.) 1-5 hours per week 57 19% 47 22% 9 11% 32 21% 18 15% 6-10 hours per week 106 35% 77 36% 29 35% 53 34% 45 38% 11-15 hours per week 78 26% 57 27% 20 24% 37 24% 33 28% 16-20 hours per week 32 11% 18 8% 14 17% 19 12% 12 10% 21-25 hours per week 18 6% 11 5% 7 8% 8 5% 7 6% 26-30 hours per week 3 1% 1 0% 2 2% 2 1% 1 1% More than 30 hours per week 5 2% 2 1% 3 4% 3 2% 1 1% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 117 100% 14. During the coming school year , about how often do you expect to do each of the following? a. Ask questions in class or cclquest Never 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% contribute to class discussions Sometimes 72 24% 51 24% 21 25% 40 26% 28 24% Often 153 51% 106 50% 46 55% 72 47% 64 54% Very often 74 25% 56 26% 17 20% 41 27% 26 22% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% b. Make a class presentation cclprese Never 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Sometimes 101 34% 74 35% 26 31% 53 35% 41 35% Often 157 53% 104 49% 52 62% 75 49% 64 54% Very often 40 13% 34 16% 6 7% 24 16% 13 11% Total 298 100% 212 100% 84 100% 152 100% 118 100% c. Work on a paper or project cintegra Never 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% that requires integrating ideas Sometimes 27 9% 18 8% 9 11% 14 9% 10 8% or information from various Often 149 50% 100 47% 47 56% 67 44% 60 51% sources Very often 123 41% 95 45% 28 33% 72 47% 48 41% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 10 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Work with other students on cclassgr Never 114%105%11%53%54% projects during class Sometimes 116 39% 83 39% 33 39% 63 41% 45 38% Often 126 42% 88 41% 36 43% 57 37% 54 46% Very often 46 15% 32 15% 14 17% 28 18% 14 12% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% e. Work with classmates outside coccgrp Never 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% of class to prepare class Sometimes 93 31% 60 28% 32 39% 51 34% 33 28% assignments Often 140 47% 101 47% 39 48% 64 42% 61 52% Very often 65 22% 53 25% 11 13% 37 24% 24 20% Total 298 100% 214 100% 82 100% 152 100% 118 100% f. Put together ideas or concepts cintidea Never 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 2 1% 1 1% from different courses when Sometimes 75 26% 51 24% 24 29% 40 27% 27 23% completing assignments or Often 156 53% 104 50% 50 60% 73 49% 69 59% diduring c lass discuss ions Very often 60 20% 52 25% 8 10% 35 23% 20 17% Total 294 100% 209 100% 83 100% 150 100% 117 100% g. Discuss grades or assignments cfacgrad Never 3 1% 2 1% 1 1% 2 1% 1 1% with an instructor Sometimes 112 38% 80 38% 32 38% 58 38% 41 35% Often 140 47% 100 47% 40 48% 74 49% 57 48% Very often 42 14% 30 14% 11 13% 18 12% 19 16% Total 297 100% 212 100% 84 100% 152 100% 118 100% h. Discuss ideas from your cfacidea Never 33 11% 26 12% 7 8% 18 12% 13 11% readings or classes with faculty Sometimes 171 57% 119 56% 51 61% 88 57% 67 57% members outside of class Often 70 23% 51 24% 18 21% 36 23% 27 23% Very often 25 8% 17 8% 8 10% 12 8% 10 9% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 117 100% i. Receive prompt feedback from cfacfeed Never 9 3% 6 3% 3 4% 6 4% 2 2% faculty on your academic Sometimes 96 32% 69 32% 26 31% 49 32% 39 33% performance (written or oral) Often 144 48% 102 48% 41 49% 67 44% 60 51% Very often 50 17% 36 17% 14 17% 31 20% 17 14% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% j. Work with faculty members on cfacothe Never 44 15% 30 14% 14 17% 21 14% 19 16% activities other than Sometimes 180 60% 129 60% 50 60% 96 62% 68 58% coursework (committees, Often 66 22% 48 22% 17 20% 30 19% 29 25% orientation, student life Very often 10 3% 7 3% 3 4% 7 5% 2 2% activities, etc.) Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 12 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 15. During the coming school year , how certain are you that you will do the following? a. Study when there are other cotherint 1 Not at all certain 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 2 1% 0 0% interesting things to do 2 155%105%56%75%54% 3 68 23% 39 18% 29 35% 34 22% 27 23% 4 109 36% 82 38% 27 32% 49 32% 50 42% 5 72 24% 54 25% 17 20% 43 28% 24 20% 6 Very certain 34 11% 28 13% 5 6% 19 12% 12 10% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% b. Find additional information for cfindinfo 1 Not at all certain 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% course assignments when you 2 5 2% 3 1% 2 2% 2 1% 3 3% don't understand the material 3 31 10% 20 9% 11 13% 15 10% 13 11% 4 87 29% 58 27% 29 35% 42 27% 33 28% 5 101 33%4% 71 33% 30 36% 54 35% 42 36% 6 Very certain 75 25% 61 29% 12 14% 41 27% 27 23% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% c. Participate regularly in course ccourdis 1 Not at all certain 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% discussions, even when you 2 25 8% 16 7% 9 11% 16 10% 8 7% don't feel like it 3 71 24% 49 23% 21 25% 34 22% 26 22% 4 104 35% 76 36% 28 33% 52 34% 46 39% 5 64 21% 44 21% 20 24% 31 20% 28 24% 6 Very certain 34 11% 27 13% 6 7% 19 12% 10 8% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% d. Ask instructors for help when caskinst 1 Not at all certain 4 1% 2 1% 2 2% 3 2% 1 1% you struggle with course 2 9 3% 3 1% 6 7% 6 4% 2 2% assignments 3 34 11% 23 11% 11 13% 18 12% 10 8% 4 60 20% 39 18% 21 25% 35 23% 16 14% 5 98 33% 76 36% 22 26% 43 28% 52 44% 6 Very certain 95 32% 71 33% 22 26% 49 32% 37 31% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% e. Finish something you have cfinish 1 Not at all certain 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% started when you encounter 2 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% challenges 3 23 8% 15 7% 8 10% 13 8% 5 4% 4 60 20% 49 23% 11 13% 32 21% 22 19% 5 118 39% 79 37% 39 46% 58 38% 54 46% 6 Very certain 97 32% 69 32% 26 31% 49 32% 37 31% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 13 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Stay positive, even when you cstaypos 1 Not at all certain 1 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% do poorly on a test assignment 2 24 8% 18 8% 6 7% 13 8% 9 8% 3 46 15% 37 17% 9 11% 28 18% 16 14% 4 84 28% 66 31% 18 21% 31 20% 47 40% 5 86 29% 54 25% 32 38% 53 35% 24 20% 6 Very certain 57 19% 36 17% 19 23% 27 18% 22 19% Total 298 100% 212 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% 16. During the coming school year , how difficult do you expect the following to be? a. Learning course material clearnma 1 Not at all difficult 2 1% 2 1% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 2 134%73%67%64%65% 3 55 19% 40 19% 15 18% 26 17% 22 19% 4 135 45% 93 44% 41 49% 69 45% 56 48% 5 7425% 56 27% 17 20% 39 25% 28 24% 6 Very difficult 18 6% 13 6% 5 6% 13 8% 5 4% Total 297 100% 211 100% 84 100% 154 100% 117 100% b. Managing your time cmantime 1 Not at all difficult 9 3% 5 2% 4 5% 4 3% 4 3% 2 155%115%45%64%65% 3 45 15% 36 17% 9 11% 22 14% 17 14% 4 73 24% 51 24% 21 25% 40 26% 30 25% 5 100 33% 75 35% 25 30% 47 31% 43 36% 6 Very difficult 57 19% 36 17% 20 24% 35 23% 18 15% Total 299 100% 214 100% 83 100% 154 100% 118 100% c. Paying college expenses cpaycoll 1 Not at all difficult 22 7% 16 8% 6 7% 11 7% 9 8% 2 27 9% 17 8% 10 12% 12 8% 13 11% 3 50 17% 35 16% 15 18% 23 15% 21 18% 4 52 17% 40 19% 11 13% 29 19% 19 16% 5 71 24% 52 24% 19 23% 35 23% 30 25% 6 Very difficult 77 26% 53 25% 23 27% 43 28% 26 22% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% d. Getting help with school work cgethelp 1 Not at all difficult 33 11% 24 11% 9 11% 16 10% 16 14% 2 74 25% 54 25% 20 24% 40 26% 29 25% 3 98 33% 72 34% 26 31% 50 32% 40 34% 4 64 21% 42 20% 20 24% 31 20% 21 18% 5 27 9% 19 9% 8 10% 16 10% 9 8% 6 Very difficult 4 1% 3 1% 1 1% 1 1% 3 3% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 14 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % e. Making new friends cmakefr 1 Not at all difficult 68 23% 45 21% 23 27% 33 22% 30 25% 2 85 28% 60 28% 25 30% 47 31% 30 25% 3 64 21% 46 22% 17 20% 32 21% 25 21% 4 49 16% 39 18% 10 12% 26 17% 22 19% 5 227%157%67%96%98% 6 Very difficult 11 4% 8 4% 3 4% 6 4% 2 2% Total 299 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% f. Interacting with faculty cintfac 1 Not at all difficult 34 11% 25 12% 9 11% 15 10% 16 14% 2 72 24% 51 24% 20 24% 36 23% 29 25% 3 100 33% 65 30% 34 40% 51 33% 38 32% 4 69 23% 54 25% 15 18% 39 25% 27 23% 5 20 7% 15 7% 5 6% 11 7% 7 6% 6 Very difficult 5 2% 4 2% 1 1% 2 1% 1 1% Total 300 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% 17. How prepared are you to do the following in your academic work at this college? a. Write clearly and effectively cgnwrite 1 Not at all prepared 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 2 16 5% 11 5% 5 6% 10 7% 3 3% 3 48 16% 30 14% 18 21% 29 19% 14 12% 4 100 34% 77 36% 22 26% 52 34% 37 31% 5 88 30% 62 29% 26 31% 40 26% 43 36% 6 Very prepared 44 15% 32 15% 12 14% 22 14% 20 17% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% b. Speak clearly and effectively cgnspeak 1 Not at all prepared 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 2 18 6% 14 7% 4 5% 11 7% 3 3% 3 57 19% 39 18% 18 21% 32 21% 19 16% 4 93 31% 65 31% 27 32% 47 31% 36 31% 5 86 29% 62 29% 24 29% 39 25% 44 38% 6 Very prepared 42 14% 32 15% 10 12% 24 16% 14 12% Total 297 100% 212 100% 84 100% 153 100% 117 100% c. Think critically and cgnanaly 1 Not at all prepared 2 1% 0 0% 2 2% 1 1% 1 1% analytically 2 9 3% 7 3% 2 2% 3 2% 3 3% 3 53 18% 41 19% 12 14% 27 18% 20 17% 4 118 40% 83 39% 34 40% 59 39% 47 40% 5 83 28% 60 28% 23 27% 47 31% 34 29% 6 Very prepared 32 11% 21 10% 11 13% 15 10% 13 11% Total 297 100% 212 100% 84 100% 152 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 16 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 18. How important is it to you that your college or university provides each of the following? a. A challenging academic cenvscho 1 Not important 3 1% 1 0% 2 2% 3 2% 0 0% experience 2 2 1% 0 0% 2 2% 1 1% 0 0% 3 34 11% 23 11% 11 13% 17 11% 12 10% 4 92 31% 64 30% 28 33% 46 30% 38 32% 5 113 38% 89 42% 24 29% 59 39% 46 39% 6 Very important 54 18% 36 17% 17 20% 27 18% 22 19% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% b. Support to help you succeed cenvsupr 1 Not important 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% academically 2 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 0 0% 1 1% 3 5 2% 0 0% 5 6% 3 2% 0 0% 4 28 9% 18 8% 10 12% 12 8% 10 8% 5 78 26% 5224% 26 33%1% 41 27% 29 25% 6 Very important 185 62% 142 67% 42 50% 97 63% 78 66% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% c. Opportunities to interact with cenvdivr 1 Not important 4 1% 2 1% 2 2% 2 1% 1 1% students from different 2 114%52%67%43%65% economic, social, and racial or 3 36 12% 22 10% 14 17% 20 13% 10 8% ethnic backgrounds 4 83 28% 59 28% 24 29% 40 26% 40 34% 5 85 29% 64 30% 20 24% 48 31% 30 25% 6 Very important 79 27% 61 29% 18 21% 39 25% 31 26% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% d. Assistance with coping with cenvnaca 1 Not important 6 2% 2 1% 4 5% 3 2% 1 1% your non-academic 2 21 7% 12 6% 9 11% 13 8% 7 6% responsibilities (work, family, 3 49 16% 31 15% 18 21% 25 16% 19 16% etc.) 4 94 32% 67 31% 26 31% 45 29% 38 32% 5 77 26% 60 28% 17 20% 39 25% 35 30% 6 Very important 51 17% 41 19% 10 12% 28 18% 18 15% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% e. Support to help you thrive cenvsoca 1 Not important 6 2% 3 1% 3 4% 4 3% 1 1% socially 2 155%84%78%64%87% 3 39 13% 23 11% 16 19% 21 14% 13 11% 4 72 24% 52 24% 19 23% 31 20% 31 26% 5 105 35% 78 37% 27 33% 57 37% 42 36% 6 Very important 60 20% 49 23% 11 13% 34 22% 22 19% Total 297 100% 213 100% 83 100% 153 100% 117 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 17 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Opportunities to attend cenveven 1 Not important 2 1% 1 0% 1 1% 2 1% 0 0% campus events and activities 2 103%42%67%32%54% 3 26 9% 13 6% 13 15% 13 8% 8 7% 4 62 21% 44 21% 17 20% 32 21% 23 19% 5 104 35% 78 37% 26 31% 51 33% 44 37% 6 Very important 94 32% 73 34% 21 25% 52 34% 38 32% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 153 100% 118 100% 19. About how much of your college expenses (tuition, fees, books, room & board) this year will be provided be each of the following sources? a. Scholarships and grants cschgr None 7 2% 5 2% 2 2% 1 1% 5 4% Less than half 139 47% 97 46% 42 50% 73 47% 56 47% Half or more 123 41% 93 44% 29 35% 66 43% 47 40% All or nearly all 20 7% 14 7% 6 7% 11 7% 6 5% Doootow not know 9 3% 42% 5 6% 3 2% 4 3% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% b. Student loans cstudlo None 68 23% 51 24% 16 19% 25 16% 40 34% Less than half 112 38% 85 40% 27 33% 66 43% 37 31% Half or more 77 26% 53 25% 24 29% 43 28% 26 22% All or nearly all 27 9% 17 8% 10 12% 15 10% 10 8% Do not know 13 4% 7 3% 6 7% 5 3% 5 4% Total 297 100% 213 100% 83 100% 154 100% 118 100% c. Parents/family cparfam None 56 19% 41 19% 14 17% 40 26% 10 8% Less than half 112 38% 82 38% 30 36% 58 38% 45 38% Half or more 68 23% 49 23% 19 23% 33 21% 30 25% All or nearly all 45 15% 32 15% 13 15% 15 10% 26 22% Do not know 17 6% 9 4% 8 10% 8 5% 7 6% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% d. Self (work on-campus or off- cself None 40 13% 33 16% 7 8% 20 13% 18 15% campus, savings) Less than half 196 66% 138 65% 58 69% 108 70% 74 63% Half or more 31 10% 24 11% 7 8% 15 10% 13 11% All or nearly all 9 3% 7 3% 1 1% 4 3% 3 3% Do not know 21 7% 10 5% 11 13% 7 5% 10 8% Total 297 100% 212 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 20 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College All Students Gender First Generationa Carroll College Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 28.Are you an international cinterna No 289 97% 206 97% 82 98% 149 97% 115 98% student or foreign national? Yes 8 3% 6 3% 2 2% 4 3% 2 2% Total 297 100% 212 100% 84 100% 153 100% 117 100% 29.What is your racial or ethnic crace American Indian or other Native 10%00%11%11%00% identification? American (Select only one.) Asian, Asian American, or 31%31%00%32%00% Pacific Islander Black or African American 10 3% 6 3% 4 5% 3 2% 2 2% White (non-Hispanic) 260 87% 189 88% 70 83% 134 87% 106 90% Mexican or Mexican American 62%31%34%53%11% Puerto Rican 52%42%11%32%22% Other Hispanic or Latino 21%10%11%00%22% Multiracial 62%42%22%32%22% Other 00%00%00%00%00% I prefer not to respond 62%42%22%21%33% Total 299 100% 214 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% 30. Please indicate whether your parents completed a 4-year college degree. a. Mother (or guardian) cmothred Did not complete 4-year degree 191 64% 139 65% 51 61% 154 100% 29 25% Did complete 4-year degree 91 31% 66 31% 25 30% 0 0% 89 75% Do not know 15 5% 8 4% 7 8% 0 0% 0 0% Total 297 100% 213 100% 83 100% 154 100% 118 100% b. Father (or guardian) cfathred Did not complete 4-year degree 187 63% 139 66% 48 57% 154 100% 31 26% Did complete 4-year degree 93 32% 62 30% 31 37% 0 0% 87 74% Do not know 15 5% 9 4% 5 6% 0 0% 0 0% Total 295 100% 210 100% 84 100% 154 100% 118 100% 31.How far is your home from cdistanc 20 miles or less 69 23% 54 25% 15 18% 29 19% 31 26% this college? 21-50 miles 74 25% 54 25% 19 23% 46 30% 23 20% 51-100 miles 66 22% 44 21% 22 26% 33 21% 28 24% 101-200 miles 54 18% 38 18% 16 19% 30 19% 20 17% 201-400 miles 25 8% 17 8% 8 10% 13 8% 9 8% more than 400 miles 10 3% 6 3% 4 5% 3 2% 6 5% Total 298 100% 213 100% 84 100% 154 100% 117 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 21 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

Carroll College

Mean Scale Scores and Selected Student Comparisons 2007 BCSSE 2007 Respondent Characteristics Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College

Respondents

Count % Number of Surveys Completed 300 100%

Mode of Completion Paper 300 100% Web 00%

When Student Completed BCSSE Before attending orientation 00% While attending orientation 31% After attending orientation 272 92% Not applicable, not attending orientation 22 7% Student Characteristics Enrollment Status Full-time 294 99% Less than full-time 41%

Gender Female 214 72% Male 84 28%

Race/Ethnicity American Indian or other Native American 10% Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 31% Black or African American 10 3% White (non-Hispanic) 260 87% Mexican or Mexican American 62% Puerto Rican 52% Other Hispanic or Latino 21% Multiracial 62% Other 00% I prefer not to respond 62%

High School Graduation Year 2004 or earlier 0 0% 2005 00% 2006 62% 2007 294 98%

First Generation Status Yes 154 57% No 118 43%

International or Foreign National Student Yes 83% No 289 97% BCSSE 2007 Mean Scale Scores and Selected Student Comparisons Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement Carroll College

Gender Comparisons First Generationd All Students Comparisons Means by Tests of mean Means by Tests of mean Carroll College Gender differences First Generation differences

Scale a Variable Mean SD N Female Male Sig b Effect size c Yes No Sig b Effect size c

High School Academic Engagement Engagement in educationally relevant behaviors HS_acad 4.98 1.26 300 5.08 4.74 * .27 4.95 5.09 -.11 during high school

Expected First-Year Academic Engagement Expected engagement in educationally relevant Exp_acad 5.74 1.53 300 5.83 5.49 .23 5.74 5.74 .00 behaviors during the first-year of college

Academic Persistence Student certainty that they will persist in the Acad_per 6.96 1.53 300 7.02 6.74 .19 6.94 7.02 -.05 midst of difficult circumstances

Academic Preparation Student perception of their academic Acad_prep 6.78 1.40 300 6.78 6.80 -.02 6.75 7.01 -.19 preparation

Importance of Campus Environment Student-rated importance that the institution Imp_env 7.38 1.54 300 7.61 6.81 *** .507.42 7.47 -.03 provides a challenging and supportive environment

1 BCSSE Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

Norms Report - 2007 All Institutions

NSSE’s Precollege Student Experiences and Expectations Survey BCSSE 2007 Respondent Characteristics Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions

Respondents

Count % Number of Surveys Completed 62941 100%

Number of Participating US Institutions 122 100%

Mode of Completion Paper 49236 78% Web 13705 22%

When Student Completed BCSSE Before attending orientation 6705 11% While attending orientation 38902 63% After attending orientation 14015 23% Not applicable, not attending orientation 1956 3% Student Characteristics Enrollment Status Full-time 59983 99% Less than full-time 862 1%

Gender Female 35135 58% Male 25809 42%

Race/Ethnicity American Indian or other Native American 442 1% Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander 4103 7% Black or African American 6916 11% White (non-Hispanic) 41871 69% Mexican or Mexican American 1210 2% Puerto Rican 537 1% Other Hispanic or Latino 1487 2% Multiracial 1586 3% Other 958 2% I prefer not to respond 1892 3%

High School Graduation Year 2004 or earlier 1327 2% 2005 614 1% 2006 1655 3% 2007 58918 94%

First Generation Status Yes 21260 39% No 33319 61%

International or Foreign National Student Yes 2621 4% No 58075 96% Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

All U.S. Institutions

Grand Frequency Distributions 2007 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % You are taking this survey: tksrvy Before attending orientation 6,705 11% 3,941 11% 2,465 10% 1,829 9% 4,091 12% While attending orientation 38,902 63% 21,658 63% 16,407 65% 13,149 63% 20,953 64% After attending orientation 14,015 23% 7,840 23% 5,580 22% 5,107 25% 6,834 21% N/A, not attending orientation 1,956 3% 1,070 3% 766 3% 722 3% 860 3% Total 61,578 100% 34,509 100% 25,218 100% 20,807 100% 32,738 100% 1. Please write in the year you hgradyr_r 2004 and earlier 1,327 2% 542 2% 689 3% 597 3% 483 1% graduated from high school. 2005 614 1% 300 1% 286 1% 224 1% 286 1% (for example, "2007"): 2006 1,655 3% 775 2% 807 3% 605 3% 738 2% 2007 58,918 94% 33,370 95% 23,891 93% 19,736 93% 31,674 95% Total 62,514 100% 34,987 100% 25,673 100% 21,162 100% 33,181 100% 2. From which type of high htype Public 52,778 84% 29,948 85% 21,274 83% 18,893 89% 26,929 81% school did you graduate? Private, religiously-affiliated 6,825 11% 3,597 10% 3,031 12% 1,679 8% 4,289 13% (Select only one.) Private, independent 2,307 4% 1,122 3% 1,105 4% 392 2% 1,638 5% Home school 394 1% 210 1% 166 1% 84 0% 260 1% Other (e.g., GED) 387 1% 196 1% 173 1% 163 1% 152 0% Total 62,691 100% 35,073 100% 25,749 100% 21,211 100% 33,268 100% 3. What were most of your high hgrades C- or lower 150 0% 47 0% 94 0% 57 0% 53 0% school grades? C 1,084 2% 409 1% 628 2% 415 2% 407 1% (Select only one.) C+ 2,415 4% 998 3% 1,344 5% 992 5% 914 3% B- 4,184 7% 1,755 5% 2,274 9% 1,573 7% 1,859 6% B 13,378 22% 6,685 19% 6,271 25% 4,750 23% 6,619 20% B+ 13,198 21% 7,263 21% 5,551 22% 4,631 22% 6,779 21% A- 12,776 21% 7,692 22% 4,703 18% 4,090 19% 7,301 22% A 14,746 24% 9,821 28% 4,578 18% 4,489 21% 8,975 27% Grades not used 203 0% 96 0% 93 0% 66 0% 85 0% Total 62,134 100% 34,766 100% 25,536 100% 21,063 100% 32,992 100% 4. To date, in which of the following math classes did you earn a passing grade? a. Pre-calculus/Trigonometry hprecalc Did not pass 646 1% 321 1% 296 1% 243 1% 288 1% Passed 43,464 70% 24,011 69% 18,286 72% 13,676 65% 24,904 76% Did not take 17,683 29% 10,312 30% 6,788 27% 7,017 34% 7,712 23% Total 61,793 100% 34,644 100% 25,370 100% 20,936 100% 32,904 100% b. Calculus hcalc Did not pass 578 1% 274 1% 279 1% 221 1% 261 1% Passed 16,145 27% 8,452 26% 7,302 30% 4,438 22% 10,196 33% Did not take 42,003 72% 24,377 74% 16,387 68% 15,236 77% 20,881 67% Total 58,726 100% 33,103 100% 23,968 100% 19,895 100% 31,338 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 3 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Probability or Statistics hstats Did not pass 357 1% 174 1% 167 1% 109 1% 169 1% Passed 15,029 26% 8,214 25% 6,406 27% 4,750 24% 8,518 28% Did not take 42,435 73% 24,278 74% 16,957 72% 14,807 75% 22,092 72% Total 57,821 100% 32,666 100% 23,530 100% 19,666 100% 30,779 100% 5. During high school , how many years of the following subjects did you complete? a. English/Literature heng 0 years 50 0% 22 0% 23 0% 15 0% 23 0% 1 year 79 0% 32 0% 42 0% 25 0% 28 0% 2 years 305 0% 127 0% 163 1% 103 0% 148 0% 3 years 1,442 2% 723 2% 651 3% 474 2% 714 2% 4 years 57,588 92% 32,264 92% 23,743 93% 19,609 93% 30,622 92% 5 or more years 2,901 5% 1,780 5% 1,020 4% 913 4% 1,624 5% Total 62,365 100% 34,948 100% 25,642 100% 21,139 100% 33,159 100% b. Math hmath 0 years 35 0% 17 0% 15 0% 10 0% 18 0% 1 year 110 0% 56 0% 45 0% 43 0% 39 0% 2 years 1,137 2% 617 2% 468 2% 436 2% 513 2% 3 years 13,159 21% 7,715 22% 5,000 19% 4,933 23% 6,341 19% 4 years 42,669 68% 23,885 68% 17,657 69% 14,032 66% 23,251 70% 5 or more years 5,243 8% 2,642 8% 2,466 10% 1,672 8% 3,005 9% Total 62,353 100% 34,932 100% 25,651 100% 21,126 100% 33,167 100% c. Science hsci 0 years 66 0% 33 0% 26 0% 21 0% 30 0% 1 year 190 0% 106 0% 73 0% 67 0% 81 0% 2 years 2,570 4% 1,341 4% 1,125 4% 959 5% 1,180 4% 3 years 21,569 35% 12,395 36% 8,521 33% 7,839 37% 10,744 32% 4 years 33,436 54% 18,643 53% 13,935 54% 10,807 51% 18,525 56% 5 or more years 4,413 7% 2,357 7% 1,922 8% 1,410 7% 2,538 8% Total 62,244 100% 34,875 100% 25,602 100% 21,103 100% 33,098 100% d. History/Social Science hhist 0 years 70 0% 25 0% 41 0% 26 0% 29 0% 1 year 260 0% 134 0% 111 0% 106 1% 108 0% 2 years 2,683 4% 1,417 4% 1,154 5% 968 5% 1,291 4% 3 years 18,378 30% 10,601 30% 7,296 29% 6,551 31% 9,451 29% 4 years 37,806 61% 20,947 60% 15,806 62% 12,526 59% 20,435 62% 5 or more years 2,948 5% 1,685 5% 1,181 5% 889 4% 1,750 5% Total 62,145 100% 34,809 100% 25,589 100% 21,066 100% 33,064 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 4 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % e. Foreign Language hforlan 0 years 2,154 3% 939 3% 1,123 4% 870 4% 859 3% 1 year 3,303 5% 1,537 4% 1,633 6% 1,373 7% 1,378 4% 2 years 20,461 33% 10,566 30% 9,295 36% 7,590 36% 9,898 30% 3 years 19,684 32% 11,287 32% 7,879 31% 6,511 31% 10,785 33% 4 years 14,259 23% 9,038 26% 4,887 19% 4,139 20% 8,675 26% 5 or more years 2,396 4% 1,531 4% 788 3% 626 3% 1,524 5% Total 62,257 100% 34,898 100% 25,605 100% 21,109 100% 33,119 100% 6. During high school , how many of the following types of classes did you complete? a. Advanced Placement (AP) hapcl 0 classes 26,393 44% 14,242 42% 11,430 46% 10,154 50% 12,225 38% classes 1 class 10,914 18% 6,223 18% 4,365 18% 3,847 19% 5,654 18% 2 classes 7,740 13% 4,455 13% 3,058 12% 2,510 12% 4,363 14% 3 classes 5,234 9% 3,086 9% 2,020 8% 1,463 7% 3,267 10% 4 classes 3,758 6% 2,239 7% 1,418 6% 960 5% 2,433 8% 5 or more classes 6,180 10% 3,617 11% 2,421 10% 1,437 7% 4,276 13% Total 60,219 100% 33,862 100% 24,712 100% 20,371 100% 32,218 100% b. Honors classes (not AP) taught hhonor 0 classes 22,491 37% 11,751 35% 10,054 41% 8,523 42% 10,482 33% at your high school 1 class 6,836 11% 3,857 11% 2,790 11% 2,382 12% 3,511 11% 2 classes 6,047 10% 3,429 10% 2,466 10% 2,028 10% 3,287 10% 3 classes 4,689 8% 2,747 8% 1,817 7% 1,530 7% 2,614 8% 4 classes 3,788 6% 2,313 7% 1,373 6% 1,264 6% 2,094 7% 5 or more classes 16,327 27% 9,816 29% 6,141 25% 4,717 23% 10,107 31% Total 60,178 100% 33,913 100% 24,641 100% 20,444 100% 32,095 100% 7. During your last year of high school , about how much reading and writing did you do? a. Assigned Reading (textbooks hreadasg None 430 1% 179 1% 236 1% 154 1% 202 1% or other course materials) Very little 4,446 7% 1,973 6% 2,361 9% 1,586 7% 2,275 7% Some 18,055 29% 8,798 25% 8,771 34% 6,394 30% 9,199 28% Quite a bit 23,633 38% 13,495 39% 9,512 37% 8,069 38% 12,626 38% Very much 15,725 25% 10,522 30% 4,770 19% 4,944 23% 8,861 27% Total 62,289 100% 34,967 100% 25,650 100% 21,147 100% 33,163 100% b. Writing short papers or reports hwrite5 None 278 0% 145 0% 119 0% 104 0% 115 0% (5 or fewer pages) Very little 3,362 5% 1,766 5% 1,489 6% 1,304 6% 1,520 5% Some 15,447 25% 7,808 22% 7,243 28% 5,511 26% 7,815 24% Quite a bit 24,518 39% 13,402 38% 10,471 41% 8,201 39% 13,246 40% Very much 18,702 30% 11,846 34% 6,341 25% 6,029 29% 10,478 32% Total 62,307 100% 34,967 100% 25,663 100% 21,149 100% 33,174 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 5 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Writing longer papers or hwrite5m None 4,750 8% 2,741 8% 1,872 7% 1,754 8% 2,311 7% reports (more than 5 pages) Very little 19,075 31% 10,289 29% 8,324 32% 6,689 32% 10,047 30% Some 21,888 35% 11,883 34% 9,422 37% 7,134 34% 12,034 36% Quite a bit 10,677 17% 6,182 18% 4,189 16% 3,539 17% 5,771 17% Very much 5,824 9% 3,826 11% 1,813 7% 1,984 9% 2,973 9% Total 62,214 100% 34,921 100% 25,620 100% 21,100 100% 33,136 100% 8. During your last year of high school , about how many hours did you spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following? a. Preparing for class (studying, hacadpr 0 hours per week 1,202 2% 313 1% 847 3% 419 2% 597 2% doing homework, rehearsing, 1-5 hours per week 25,380 41% 13,030 37% 11,642 45% 9,472 45% 12,472 38% etc.) 6-10 hours per week 18,136 29% 10,343 30% 7,384 29% 6,206 29% 9,714 29% 11-15 hours per week 9,250 15% 5,706 16% 3,334 13% 2,797 13% 5,338 16% 16-20 hours per week 4,495 7% 2,990 9% 1,399 5% 1,281 6% 2,699 8% 21-25 hours per week 2,210 4% 1,514 4% 640 2% 561 3% 1,405 4% 26-30 hours per week 924 1% 649 2% 241 1% 254 1% 561 2% More than 30 hours per week 713 1% 462 1% 230 1% 197 1% 424 1% Total 62,310 100% 35,007 100% 25,717 100% 21,187 100% 33,210 100% b. Working for pay (before or hwork 0 hours per week 18,323 29% 9,337 27% 8,545 33% 5,269 25% 10,646 32% after school, weekends) 1-5 hours per week 6,257 10% 3,634 10% 2,463 10% 1,606 8% 3,957 12% 6-10 hours per week 7,075 11% 4,249 12% 2,679 10% 2,075 10% 4,209 13% 11-15 hours per week 8,507 14% 5,213 15% 3,068 12% 2,932 14% 4,594 14% 16-20 hours per week 10,189 16% 6,011 17% 3,911 15% 4,011 19% 4,889 15% 21-25 hours per week 6,264 10% 3,539 10% 2,556 10% 2,698 13% 2,723 8% 26-30 hours per week 3,265 5% 1,832 5% 1,337 5% 1,487 7% 1,280 4% More than 30 hours per week 2,384 4% 1,162 3% 1,145 4% 1,094 5% 885 3% Total 62,264 100% 34,977 100% 25,704 100% 21,172 100% 33,183 100% c. Participating in co-curricular hcocurr 0 hours per week 5,907 9% 3,227 9% 2,493 10% 2,486 12% 2,406 7% activities (arts, clubs, athletics, 1-5 hours per week 13,709 22% 8,629 25% 4,741 18% 5,121 24% 6,667 20% etc.) 6-10 hours per week 11,223 18% 6,669 19% 4,255 17% 3,774 18% 6,051 18% 11-15 hours per week 11,706 19% 6,533 19% 4,874 19% 3,673 17% 6,676 20% 16-20 hours per week 9,446 15% 4,847 14% 4,397 17% 2,932 14% 5,513 17% 21-25 hours per week 4,872 8% 2,491 7% 2,266 9% 1,479 7% 2,866 9% 26-30 hours per week 1,992 3% 1,023 3% 915 4% 626 3% 1,133 3% More than 30 hours per week 3,466 6% 1,597 5% 1,783 7% 1,098 5% 1,905 6% Total 62,321 100% 35,016 100% 25,724 100% 21,189 100% 33,217 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 6 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Relaxing and socializing hsocial 0 hours per week 276 0% 153 0% 116 0% 104 0% 120 0% (watching TV, partying, etc.) 1-5 hours per week 11,056 18% 7,410 21% 3,350 13% 4,046 19% 5,370 16% 6-10 hours per week 17,195 28% 10,484 30% 6,286 24% 6,009 28% 9,119 27% 11-15 hours per week 13,319 21% 7,419 21% 5,574 22% 4,418 21% 7,315 22% 16-20 hours per week 9,348 15% 4,767 14% 4,373 17% 3,008 14% 5,286 16% 21-25 hours per week 4,628 7% 2,231 6% 2,280 9% 1,527 7% 2,543 8% 26-30 hours per week 2,164 3% 1,015 3% 1,082 4% 723 3% 1,165 4% More than 30 hours per week 4,312 7% 1,539 4% 2,647 10% 1,353 6% 2,287 7% Total 62,298 100% 35,018 100% 25,708 100% 21,188 100% 33,205 100% 9. During your last year of high school, about how often did you do each of the following? a. Asked questions in class or hclquest Never 720 1% 353 1% 354 1% 267 1% 351 1% contributed to class Sometimes 15,685 25% 8,523 24% 6,792 27% 5,559 26% 7,898 24% discussions Often 23,231 37% 12,516 36% 10,165 40% 7,921 37% 12,363 37% Very often 22,438 36% 13,582 39% 8,293 32% 7,393 35% 12,517 38% Total 62,074 100% 34,974 100% 25,604 100% 21,140 100% 33,129 100% b. Made a class presentation hclprese Never 1,077 2% 568 2% 472 2% 387 2% 492 1% Sometimes 29,729 48% 16,024 46% 13,030 51% 10,169 48% 15,895 48% Often 23,259 37% 13,386 38% 9,322 36% 7,793 37% 12,649 38% Very often 7,977 13% 4,983 14% 2,762 11% 2,778 13% 4,080 12% Total 62,042 100% 34,961 100% 25,586 100% 21,127 100% 33,116 100% c. Came to class without hclunpre Never 18,623 30% 12,376 35% 5,864 23% 6,353 30% 10,083 30% completing readings or Sometimes 37,891 61% 20,471 59% 16,496 64% 13,019 62% 20,048 61% assignments Often 4,144 7% 1,560 4% 2,459 10% 1,342 6% 2,222 7% Very often 1,349 2% 533 2% 757 3% 411 2% 741 2% Total 62,007 100% 34,940 100% 25,576 100% 21,125 100% 33,094 100% d. Discussed grades or hfacgrad Never 2,946 5% 1,510 4% 1,380 5% 1,063 5% 1,518 5% assignments with a teacher Sometimes 27,468 44% 15,605 45% 11,238 44% 9,093 43% 15,159 46% Often 22,432 36% 12,362 35% 9,514 37% 7,708 37% 11,915 36% Very often 8,998 15% 5,384 15% 3,371 13% 3,210 15% 4,425 13% Total 61,844 100% 34,861 100% 25,503 100% 21,074 100% 33,017 100% e. Worked with other students hclassgr Never 1,095 2% 575 2% 490 2% 331 2% 608 2% on projects during class Sometimes 20,780 34% 11,552 33% 8,743 34% 6,798 32% 11,404 34% Often 29,183 47% 16,206 46% 12,289 48% 10,060 48% 15,586 47% Very often 10,883 18% 6,588 19% 4,018 16% 3,910 19% 5,472 17% Total 61,941 100% 34,921 100% 25,540 100% 21,099 100% 33,070 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 7 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Worked with classmates hoccgrp Never 8,754 14% 4,508 13% 4,045 16% 3,295 16% 4,256 13% outside of class to prepare for Sometimes 34,353 55% 19,272 55% 14,286 56% 11,639 55% 18,645 56% assignments Often 14,465 23% 8,455 24% 5,662 22% 4,731 22% 7,901 24% Very often 4,442 7% 2,722 8% 1,591 6% 1,465 7% 2,310 7% Total 62,014 100% 34,957 100% 25,584 100% 21,130 100% 33,112 100% g. Prepared two or more drafts of hrewropa Never 9,184 15% 4,235 12% 4,775 19% 3,123 15% 5,021 15% a paper or assignment before Sometimes 25,947 42% 14,025 40% 11,304 44% 8,838 42% 13,706 41% turning it in Often 17,582 28% 10,486 30% 6,696 26% 6,035 29% 9,378 28% Very often 9,199 15% 6,208 18% 2,790 11% 3,126 15% 4,993 15% Total 61,912 100% 34,954 100% 25,565 100% 21,122 100% 33,098 100% h. Had serious conversations hdivrstu Never 10,765 17% 6,359 18% 4,186 16% 4,030 19% 5,449 16% with students of a different Sometimes 20,501 33% 11,841 34% 8,228 32% 6,872 33% 11,239 34% race or ehtnicity than your own Often 15,049 24% 8,032 23% 6,656 26% 4,987 24% 8,081 24% Very often 15,523 25% 8,676 25% 6,476 25% 5,223 25% 8,293 25% Total 61,838 100% 34,908 100% 25,546 100% 21,112 100% 33,062 100% i. Discussed ideas from your hfacidea Never 16,850 27% 9,514 27% 6,979 27% 6,039 29% 8,870 27% readings or classes with Sometimes 28,705 46% 16,324 47% 11,742 46% 9,703 46% 15,488 47% teachers outside of class Often 11,496 19% 6,331 18% 4,892 19% 3,776 18% 6,172 19% Very often 4,765 8% 2,733 8% 1,919 8% 1,578 7% 2,519 8% Total 61,816 100% 34,902 100% 25,532 100% 21,096 100% 33,049 100% j. Discussed ideas from your hoocidea Never 5,821 9% 2,616 7% 3,086 12% 2,249 11% 2,716 8% readings or classes with others Sometimes 28,528 46% 15,540 44% 12,325 48% 10,194 48% 14,728 45% outside of class (students, Often 19,144 31% 11,347 32% 7,393 29% 6,140 29% 10,782 33% family members, etc.) Very often 8,389 14% 5,445 16% 2,752 11% 2,548 12% 4,854 15% Total 61,882 100% 34,948 100% 25,556 100% 21,131 100% 33,080 100% k. Talked with a counselor, hfacplan Never 3,135 5% 1,508 4% 1,563 6% 1,012 5% 1,725 5% teacher, or other staff member Sometimes 23,890 39% 12,690 36% 10,665 42% 7,472 35% 13,592 41% about college or career plans Often 22,087 36% 12,563 36% 9,038 35% 7,671 36% 11,739 35% Very often 12,746 21% 8,169 23% 4,283 17% 4,958 23% 6,026 18% Total 61,858 100% 34,930 100% 25,549 100% 21,113 100% 33,082 100% l. Had serious conversations hdiffstu Never 7,667 12% 4,257 12% 3,247 13% 2,941 14% 3,642 11% with students who are very Sometimes 23,351 38% 13,422 38% 9,425 37% 8,138 39% 12,286 37% different from you in terms of Often 16,779 27% 9,256 27% 7,174 28% 5,606 27% 9,168 28% their religious beliefs, political Very often 13,985 23% 7,957 23% 5,680 22% 4,412 21% 7,951 24% opinions, or personal values Total 61,782 100% 34,892 100% 25,526 100% 21,097 100% 33,047 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 8 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % m. Missed a day of school hmisssch Never 8,727 14% 4,132 12% 4,393 17% 2,701 13% 4,881 15% Sometimes 44,361 72% 25,677 74% 17,719 70% 15,268 73% 23,717 72% Often 5,775 9% 3,427 10% 2,224 9% 2,059 10% 2,956 9% Very often 2,828 5% 1,602 5% 1,147 5% 1,016 5% 1,451 4% Total 61,691 100% 34,838 100% 25,483 100% 21,044 100% 33,005 100% 10. Did you take the SAT and/or hsatact No 1086 2% 518 1% 533 2% 421 2% 429 1% ACT? Yes 60271 98% 34144 99% 24810 98% 20512 98% 32423 99% Total 61357 100% 34662 100% 25343 100% 20933 100% 32852 100% a. SAT Composite Score SAT_ACTr 1000 or lower 15984 31% 9544 33% 6152 28% 7075 41% 6323 22% categories 1001 - 1100 9210 18% 5195 18% 3909 18% 3461 20% 4809 17% (SAT scores or ACT scores 1101 - 1200 11423 22% 6274 22% 5016 23% 3643 21% 6819 24% convertd to SAT scale) 1201 - 1300 8308 16% 4467 16% 3749 17% 2055 12% 5707 20% 1301 - 1400 3880 8% 1984 7% 1854 9% 727 4% 2966 10% 1401 - 1600 2166 4% 1041 4% 1106 5% 292 2% 1793 6% Total 50971 100% 28505 100% 21786 100% 17253 100% 28417 100% 11. During your high school years , how involved were you in the following activities at your school or elsewhere? a. Performing or visual arts hinvarts 1 Not involved 26,108 42% 12,262 35% 13,347 52% 9,800 47% 13,008 39% programs (band, chorus, 2 6,990 11% 3,981 11% 2,846 11% 2,353 11% 3,739 11% theater, art, etc.) 3 5,668 9% 3,542 10% 2,010 8% 1,865 9% 3,067 9% 4 5,265 9% 3,367 10% 1,783 7% 1,673 8% 2,907 9% 5 4,552 7% 2,959 8% 1,501 6% 1,350 6% 2,690 8% 6 Highly involved 12,994 21% 8,728 25% 4,009 16% 4,000 19% 7,612 23% Total 61,577 100% 34,839 100% 25,496 100% 21,041 100% 33,023 100% b. Athletic teams (varsity, junior hinvathl 1 Not involved 16,198 26% 10,593 30% 5,291 21% 6,207 29% 7,810 24% varsity, club sport, etc.) 2 5,169 8% 3,061 9% 1,987 8% 1,798 9% 2,728 8% 3 5,833 9% 3,409 10% 2,294 9% 2,027 10% 3,089 9% 4 6,292 10% 3,535 10% 2,648 10% 2,144 10% 3,426 10% 5 6,029 10% 3,336 10% 2,564 10% 1,880 9% 3,508 11% 6 Highly involved 22,067 36% 10,915 31% 10,714 42% 7,006 33% 12,464 38% Total 61,588 100% 34,849 100% 25,498 100% 21,062 100% 33,025 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 9 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Student government hstugov 1 Not involved 41,132 67% 22,280 64% 17,995 71% 14,158 68% 21,839 66% 2 6,912 11% 3,899 11% 2,879 11% 2,282 11% 3,778 11% 3 4,628 8% 2,674 8% 1,895 7% 1,590 8% 2,492 8% 4 2,902 5% 1,794 5% 1,046 4% 979 5% 1,595 5% 5 1,975 3% 1,335 4% 598 2% 618 3% 1,140 3% 6 Highly involved 3,777 6% 2,704 8% 999 4% 1,320 6% 2,090 6% Total 61,326 100% 34,686 100% 25,412 100% 20,947 100% 32,934 100% d. Publications (student hinvpubs 1 Not involved 41,481 68% 21,785 63% 18,903 74% 14,110 67% 22,339 68% newspaper, yearbook, etc.) 2 6,434 10% 3,791 11% 2,510 10% 2,170 10% 3,478 11% 3 4,473 7% 2,775 8% 1,605 6% 1,534 7% 2,379 7% 4 2,945 5% 1,941 6% 933 4% 1,035 5% 1,517 5% 5 1,891 3% 1,326 4% 521 2% 668 3% 1,010 3% 6 Highly involved 4,149 7% 3,099 9% 956 4% 1,468 7% 2,203 7% Total 61,373 100% 34,717 100% 25,428 100% 20,985 100% 32,926 100% e. Academic honor societies hinvhono 1 Not involved 31,350 51% 15,820 46% 14,862 58% 11,355 54% 15,582 47% 2 5,471 9% 2,943 8% 2,410 9% 1,810 9% 2,910 9% 3 5,997 10% 3,315 10% 2,556 10% 1,911 9% 3,426 10% 4 6,136 10% 3,710 11% 2,316 9% 1,826 9% 3,722 11% 5 5,349 9% 3,750 11% 1,503 6% 1,646 8% 3,260 10% 6 Highly involved 7,024 11% 5,150 15% 1,762 7% 2,428 12% 3,998 12% Total 61,327 100% 34,688 100% 25,409 100% 20,976 100% 32,898 100% f. Academic clubs (debate, hinvaccl 1 Not involved 39,915 65% 22,372 64% 16,716 66% 14,260 68% 20,559 62% mathematics, science, etc.) 2 6,735 11% 3,726 11% 2,886 11% 2,127 10% 3,850 12% 3 5,613 9% 3,097 9% 2,407 9% 1,730 8% 3,256 10% 4 3,828 6% 2,168 6% 1,571 6% 1,213 6% 2,194 7% 5 2,211 4% 1,416 4% 760 3% 669 3% 1,312 4% 6 Highly involved 3,120 5% 1,967 6% 1,100 4% 1,008 5% 1,775 5% Total 61,422 100% 34,746 100% 25,440 100% 21,007 100% 32,946 100% g. Vocational clubs (business, hinvvccl 1 Not involved 44,042 72% 25,061 72% 18,103 71% 14,956 71% 23,811 72% health, technology, etc.) 2 5,294 9% 2,841 8% 2,345 9% 1,698 8% 2,909 9% 3 4,199 7% 2,157 6% 1,962 8% 1,398 7% 2,289 7% 4 2,961 5% 1,632 5% 1,258 5% 1,038 5% 1,526 5% 5 1,793 3% 1,076 3% 680 3% 632 3% 940 3% 6 Highly involved 3,119 5% 1,976 6% 1,089 4% 1,285 6% 1,453 4% Total 61,408 100% 34,743 100% 25,437 100% 21,007 100% 32,928 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 10 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % h. Religious youth groups hrelgrp 1 Not involved 37,064 60% 20,049 58% 16,311 64% 13,719 65% 18,436 56% 2 5,038 8% 2,900 8% 2,033 8% 1,627 8% 2,790 8% 3 5,199 8% 2,986 9% 2,091 8% 1,620 8% 2,996 9% 4 4,047 7% 2,374 7% 1,577 6% 1,216 6% 2,380 7% 5 2,931 5% 1,786 5% 1,093 4% 860 4% 1,821 6% 6 Highly involved 7,198 12% 4,701 14% 2,348 9% 1,974 9% 4,562 14% Total 61,477 100% 34,796 100% 25,453 100% 21,016 100% 32,985 100% 12. Overall, how academically hacachal 1 Not at all challenging 1,414 2% 535 2% 842 3% 573 3% 621 2% challenging was your high 2 4,995 8% 2,401 7% 2,515 10% 2,025 10% 2,329 7% school? 3 12,864 21% 6,926 20% 5,644 22% 4,945 24% 6,093 19% 4 24,232 39% 14,112 41% 9,661 38% 8,729 42% 12,547 38% 5 14,417 23% 8,740 25% 5,403 21% 4,005 19% 8,950 27% 6 Extremely challenging 3,493 6% 2,027 6% 1,380 5% 742 4% 2,381 7% Total 61,415 100% 34,741 100% 25,445 100% 21,019 100% 32,921 100% 13. During the coming school year , about how many hours do you think you will spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following? a. Preparing for class (studying, cacadpr 0 hours per week 66 0% 17 0% 43 0% 22 0% 22 0% reading, writing, doing 1-5 hours per week 1,949 3% 913 3% 968 4% 714 3% 811 2% homework or lab work, 6-10 hours per week 9,528 16% 4,911 14% 4,411 17% 3,546 17% 4,555 14% analyzing data, rehearsing, and 11-15 hours per week 15,837 26% 8,653 25% 6,908 27% 5,525 26% 8,430 26% other academic activities) 16-20 hours per week 16,112 26% 9,230 27% 6,602 26% 5,406 26% 8,947 27% 21-25 hours per week 10,196 17% 6,224 18% 3,799 15% 3,316 16% 5,833 18% 26-30 hours per week 4,817 8% 3,068 9% 1,666 7% 1,543 7% 2,786 8% More than 30 hours per week 2,827 5% 1,716 5% 1,052 4% 940 4% 1,543 5% Total 61,332 100% 34,732 100% 25,449 100% 21,012 100% 32,927 100% b. Working for pay on- or off- cwork 0 hours per week 15,947 26% 8,685 25% 6,980 27% 3,948 19% 10,347 31% campus 1-5 hours per week 6,676 11% 3,900 11% 2,665 10% 1,783 8% 4,127 13% 6-10 hours per week 12,635 21% 7,475 22% 4,961 20% 4,413 21% 6,775 21% 11-15 hours per week 11,133 18% 6,379 18% 4,542 18% 4,226 20% 5,492 17% 16-20 hours per week 8,738 14% 4,915 14% 3,637 14% 3,774 18% 3,810 12% 21-25 hours per week 3,341 5% 1,843 5% 1,420 6% 1,514 7% 1,356 4% 26-30 hours per week 1,485 2% 843 2% 600 2% 689 3% 552 2% More than 30 hours per week 1,285 2% 653 2% 598 2% 635 3% 426 1% Total 61,240 100% 34,693 100% 25,403 100% 20,982 100% 32,885 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 11 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % c. Participating in co-curricular ccocurr 0 hours per week 4,206 7% 2,251 6% 1,851 7% 1,780 8% 1,753 5% activities (organizations, 1-5 hours per week 15,607 25% 9,666 28% 5,657 22% 5,911 28% 7,730 23% campus publications, student 6-10 hours per week 18,076 29% 10,545 30% 7,213 28% 6,006 29% 9,971 30% government, fraternity or 11-15 hours per week 11,836 19% 6,602 19% 5,017 20% 3,822 18% 6,701 20% sorority, intercollegiate or 16-20 hours per week 6,560 11% 3,390 10% 3,051 12% 1,952 9% 3,861 12% intramural sports, etc.) 21-25 hours per week 2,800 5% 1,360 4% 1,388 5% 839 4% 1,632 5% 26-30 hours per week 1,022 2% 490 1% 515 2% 319 2% 600 2% More than 30 hours per week 1,262 2% 463 1% 770 3% 389 2% 721 2% Total 61,369 100% 34,767 100% 25,462 100% 21,018 100% 32,969 100% d. Relaxing or socializing csocial 0 hours per week 467 1% 244 1% 217 1% 195 1% 162 0% (watching TV, partying, etc.) 1-5 hours per week 12,771 21% 8,380 24% 4,146 16% 5,110 24% 5,724 17% 6-10 hours per week 19,596 32% 11,714 34% 7,505 29% 7,004 33% 10,309 31% 11-15 hours per week 14,745 24% 8,041 23% 6,447 25% 4,694 22% 8,510 26% 16-20 hours per week 8,092 13% 4,004 12% 3,950 16% 2,359 11% 4,861 15% 21-25 hours per week 3,225 5% 1,481 4% 1,683 7% 960 5% 1,936 6% 26-30 hours per week 1,039 2% 462 1% 554 2% 292 1% 626 2% More than 30 hours per week 1,466 2% 449 1% 981 4% 423 2% 840 3% Total 61,401 100% 34,775 100% 25,483 100% 21,037 100% 32,968 100% 14. During the coming school year , about how often do you expect to do each of the following? a. Ask questions in class or cclquest Never 303 0% 170 0% 124 0% 123 1% 140 0% contribute to class discussions Sometimes 12,481 20% 6,941 20% 5,317 21% 4,331 21% 6,581 20% Often 28,249 46% 15,467 44% 12,320 48% 9,626 46% 15,286 46% Very often 20,459 33% 12,310 35% 7,795 31% 7,024 33% 11,062 33% Total 61,492 100% 34,888 100% 25,556 100% 21,104 100% 33,069 100% b. Make a class presentation cclprese Never 864 1% 493 1% 350 1% 284 1% 430 1% Sometimes 23,270 38% 12,930 37% 9,939 39% 7,633 36% 12,933 39% Often 28,314 46% 15,992 46% 11,884 47% 9,803 47% 15,301 46% Very often 8,921 15% 5,412 16% 3,329 13% 3,343 16% 4,358 13% Total 61,369 100% 34,827 100% 25,502 100% 21,063 100% 33,022 100% c. Work on a paper or project cintegra Never 159 0% 64 0% 90 0% 48 0% 67 0% that requires integrating ideas Sometimes 5,832 9% 2,630 8% 3,066 12% 1,986 9% 2,866 9% or information from various Often 28,359 46% 14,733 42% 13,166 52% 9,629 46% 15,363 47% sources Very often 27,045 44% 17,408 50% 9,206 36% 9,413 45% 14,725 45% Total 61,395 100% 34,835 100% 25,528 100% 21,076 100% 33,021 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 12 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Work with other students on cclassgr Never 2,837 5% 1,761 5% 1,024 4% 860 4% 1,723 5% projects during class Sometimes 22,661 37% 13,294 38% 8,999 35% 7,404 35% 12,874 39% Often 24,830 40% 13,369 38% 11,074 43% 8,722 41% 13,014 39% Very often 10,990 18% 6,378 18% 4,391 17% 4,067 19% 5,369 16% Total 61,318 100% 34,802 100% 25,488 100% 21,053 100% 32,980 100% e. Work with classmates outside coccgrp Never 974 2% 497 1% 454 2% 354 2% 465 1% of class to prepare class Sometimes 16,947 28% 9,357 27% 7,280 29% 5,857 28% 9,054 27% assignments Often 28,177 46% 15,643 45% 12,133 48% 9,499 45% 15,424 47% Very often 15,261 25% 9,340 27% 5,634 22% 5,356 25% 8,056 24% Total 61,359 100% 34,837 100% 25,501 100% 21,066 100% 32,999 100% f. Put together ideas or concepts cintidea Never 612 1% 362 1% 234 1% 242 1% 275 1% from different courses when Sometimes 13,793 22% 7,154 21% 6,381 25% 4,806 23% 7,138 22% completing assignments or Often 29,745 48% 16,276 47% 12,988 51% 10,200 48% 16,125 49% during class discussions Very often 17,200 28% 11,033 32% 5,905 23% 5,815 28% 9,476 29% Total 61,350 100% 34,825 100% 25,508 100% 21,063 100% 33,014 100% g. Discuss grades or assignments cfacgrad Never 726 1% 350 1% 366 1% 278 1% 358 1% with an instructor Sometimes 19,478 32% 10,736 31% 8,418 33% 6,321 30% 10,961 33% Often 26,288 43% 14,666 42% 11,208 44% 8,885 42% 14,439 44% Very often 14,853 24% 9,081 26% 5,507 22% 5,585 27% 7,244 22% Total 61,345 100% 34,833 100% 25,499 100% 21,069 100% 33,002 100% h. Discuss ideas from your cfacidea Never 3,627 6% 2,144 6% 1,426 6% 1,332 6% 1,852 6% readings or classes with faculty Sometimes 28,197 46% 16,045 46% 11,713 46% 9,555 45% 15,534 47% members outside of class Often 20,520 33% 11,254 32% 8,918 35% 6,977 33% 11,049 33% Very often 8,996 15% 5,373 15% 3,457 14% 3,212 15% 4,558 14% Total 61,340 100% 34,816 100% 25,514 100% 21,076 100% 32,993 100% i. Receive prompt feedback from cfacfeed Never 1,200 2% 682 2% 496 2% 447 2% 594 2% faculty on your academic Sometimes 18,739 31% 10,475 30% 7,980 31% 6,437 31% 10,069 31% performance (written or oral) Often 28,311 46% 15,753 45% 12,142 48% 9,547 45% 15,629 47% Very often 13,013 21% 7,910 23% 4,888 19% 4,632 22% 6,707 20% Total 61,263 100% 34,820 100% 25,506 100% 21,063 100% 32,999 100% j. Work with faculty members on cfacothe Never 4,538 7% 2,353 7% 2,110 8% 1,610 8% 2,397 7% activities other than Sometimes 29,840 49% 16,507 47% 12,905 51% 10,056 48% 16,515 50% coursework (committees, Often 19,844 32% 11,558 33% 7,974 31% 6,799 32% 10,690 32% orientation, student life Very often 6,998 11% 4,384 13% 2,500 10% 2,593 12% 3,377 10% activities, etc.) Total 61,220 100% 34,802 100% 25,489 100% 21,058 100% 32,979 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 13 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % k. Discuss ideas from your coocidea Never 1,747 3% 788 2% 932 4% 637 3% 861 3% readings or classes with others Sometimes 22,676 37% 12,190 35% 10,135 40% 8,090 38% 11,817 36% outside of class (students, Often 25,259 41% 14,445 42% 10,449 41% 8,471 40% 13,967 42% family members, co-workers, Very often 11,508 19% 7,376 21% 3,953 16% 3,841 18% 6,332 19% etc.) Total 61,190 100% 34,799 100% 25,469 100% 21,039 100% 32,977 100% l. Have serious conversations cdivrstu Never 2,138 3% 1,018 3% 1,073 4% 763 4% 1,039 3% with students of a different Sometimes 19,513 32% 10,975 32% 8,258 32% 6,772 32% 10,423 32% race or ethnicity than your own Often 23,716 39% 13,371 38% 10,001 39% 7,990 38% 13,030 40% Very often 15,797 26% 9,415 27% 6,133 24% 5,503 26% 8,476 26% Total 61,164 100% 34,779 100% 25,465 100% 21,028 100% 32,968 100% m. Try to better understand cothrvie Never 559 1% 177 1% 371 1% 192 1% 279 1% someone else's views by Sometimes 12,846 21% 6,175 18% 6,467 25% 4,485 21% 6,750 20% imagining how an issue looks Often 28,120 46% 15,881 46% 11,828 46% 9,711 46% 15,104 46% from his or her perspective Very often 19,679 32% 12,559 36% 6,831 27% 6,665 32% 10,845 33% Total 61,204 100% 34,792 100% 25,497 100% 21,053 100% 32,978 100% n. Learn something that changes cchngvie Never 293 0% 97 0% 192 1% 97 0% 146 0% the way you understand an Sometimes 11,226 18% 5,349 15% 5,699 22% 3,871 18% 5,897 18% issue or idea Often 28,656 47% 15,839 46% 12,401 49% 9,853 47% 15,461 47% Very often 20,947 34% 13,478 39% 7,155 28% 7,216 34% 11,432 35% Total 61,122 100% 34,763 100% 25,447 100% 21,037 100% 32,936 100% o. Have serious conversations cdiffstu Never 1,793 3% 790 2% 960 4% 629 3% 860 3% with students who are very Sometimes 17,822 29% 9,585 28% 7,969 31% 6,211 30% 9,406 29% different from you in terms of Often 23,214 38% 13,113 38% 9,778 38% 7,937 38% 12,642 38% their religious beliefs, political Very often 18,319 30% 11,280 32% 6,765 27% 6,265 30% 10,045 30% opinions, or personal values Total 61,148 100% 34,768 100% 25,472 100% 21,042 100% 32,953 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 14 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 15. During the coming school year , how certain are you that you will do the following? a. Study when there are other cotherint 1 Not at all certain 748 1% 315 1% 418 2% 266 1% 335 1% interesting things to do 2 2,926 5% 1,318 4% 1,558 6% 1,005 5% 1,517 5% 3 13,233 22% 7,026 20% 6,002 24% 4,559 22% 6,912 21% 4 21,914 36% 12,419 36% 9,215 36% 7,458 35% 11,993 36% 5 13,736 22% 8,364 24% 5,182 20% 4,684 22% 7,664 23% 6 Very certain 8,678 14% 5,411 16% 3,146 12% 3,111 15% 4,611 14% Total 61,235 100% 34,853 100% 25,521 100% 21,083 100% 33,032 100% b. Find additional information for cfindinfo 1 Not at all certain 291 0% 139 0% 147 1% 101 0% 121 0% course assignments when you 2 1,439 2% 609 2% 799 3% 426 2% 783 2% don't understand the material 3 7,305 12% 3,391 10% 3,800 15% 2,398 11% 3,909 12% 4 17,103 28% 8,943 26% 7,894 31% 5,630 27% 9,475 29% 5 19,687 32% 11,678 33% 7,746 30% 6,784 32% 10,879 33% 6 Very certain 15,423 25% 10,110 29% 5,137 20% 5,751 27% 7,868 24% Total 61,248 100% 34,870 100% 25,523 100% 21,090 100% 33,035 100% c. Participate regularly in course ccourdis 1 Not at all certain 815 1% 447 1% 356 1% 296 1% 386 1% discussions, even when you 2 4,548 7% 2,512 7% 1,977 8% 1,476 7% 2,506 8% don't feel like it 3 14,178 23% 7,707 22% 6,258 25% 4,908 23% 7,512 23% 4 19,126 31% 10,702 31% 8,170 32% 6,595 31% 10,357 31% 5 14,149 23% 8,411 24% 5,548 22% 4,842 23% 7,809 24% 6 Very certain 8,393 14% 5,074 15% 3,195 13% 2,962 14% 4,454 13% Total 61,209 100% 34,853 100% 25,504 100% 21,079 100% 33,024 100% d. Ask instructors for help when caskinst 1 Not at all certain 372 1% 186 1% 176 1% 123 1% 176 1% you struggle with course 2 1,627 3% 798 2% 801 3% 472 2% 925 3% assignments 3 6,075 10% 2,978 9% 2,999 12% 1,910 9% 3,394 10% 4 12,931 21% 6,748 19% 6,000 24% 4,234 20% 7,224 22% 5 18,296 30% 10,537 30% 7,519 29% 6,177 29% 10,225 31% 6 Very certain 21,890 36% 13,592 39% 8,010 31% 8,149 39% 11,080 34% Total 61,191 100% 34,839 100% 25,505 100% 21,065 100% 33,024 100% e. Finish something you have cfinish 1 Not at all certain 249 0% 131 0% 111 0% 84 0% 106 0% started when you encounter 2 769 1% 360 1% 387 2% 237 1% 390 1% challenges 3 4,536 7% 2,327 7% 2,121 8% 1,514 7% 2,298 7% 4 13,587 22% 7,402 21% 5,973 23% 4,536 22% 7,369 22% 5 21,412 35% 12,329 35% 8,825 35% 7,294 35% 11,889 36% 6 Very certain 20,659 34% 12,312 35% 8,097 32% 7,420 35% 10,983 33% Total 61,212 100% 34,861 100% 25,514 100% 21,085 100% 33,035 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 15 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Stay positive, even when you cstaypos 1 Not at all certain 788 1% 431 1% 342 1% 277 1% 369 1% do poorly on a test assignment 2 2,385 4% 1,444 4% 906 4% 752 4% 1,343 4% 3 8,564 14% 5,102 15% 3,329 13% 2,775 13% 4,823 15% 4 16,733 27% 9,864 28% 6,644 26% 5,599 27% 9,315 28% 5 16,945 28% 9,572 27% 7,167 28% 5,746 27% 9,425 29% 6 Very certain 15,774 26% 8,435 24% 7,113 28% 5,926 28% 7,746 23% Total 61,189 100% 34,848 100% 25,501 100% 21,075 100% 33,021 100% 16. During the coming school year , how difficult do you expect the following to be? a. Learning course material clearnma 1 Not at all difficult 1,165 2% 490 1% 652 3% 406 2% 537 2% 2 3,984 7% 1,944 6% 1,968 8% 1,331 6% 2,118 6% 3 13,927 23% 7,518 22% 6,218 24% 4,881 23% 7,256 22% 4 25,180 41% 14,377 41% 10,516 41% 8,598 41% 13,843 42% 5 13,311 22% 8,220 24% 4,940 19% 4,548 22% 7,436 23% 6 Very difficult 3,477 6% 2,253 6% 1,172 5% 1,279 6% 1,799 5% Total 61,044 100% 34,802 100% 25,466 100% 21,043 100% 32,989 100% b. Managing your time cmantime 1 Not at all difficult 1,717 3% 970 3% 724 3% 678 3% 753 2% 2 4,774 8% 2,822 8% 1,872 7% 1,639 8% 2,505 8% 3 10,713 18% 6,174 18% 4,383 17% 3,665 17% 5,600 17% 4 16,098 26% 9,214 26% 6,688 26% 5,503 26% 8,720 26% 5 16,403 27% 9,142 26% 7,075 28% 5,499 26% 9,284 28% 6 Very difficult 11,345 19% 6,479 19% 4,736 19% 4,046 19% 6,133 19% Total 61,050 100% 34,801 100% 25,478 100% 21,030 100% 32,995 100% c. Paying college expenses cpaycoll 1 Not at all difficult 7,616 12% 3,933 11% 3,579 14% 1,853 9% 5,061 15% 2 8,311 14% 4,488 13% 3,717 15% 2,155 10% 5,333 16% 3 10,435 17% 5,646 16% 4,669 18% 3,249 15% 5,972 18% 4 10,941 18% 6,076 17% 4,719 19% 3,754 18% 5,806 18% 5 10,763 18% 6,401 18% 4,236 17% 4,234 20% 5,265 16% 6 Very difficult 12,892 21% 8,228 24% 4,493 18% 5,771 27% 5,509 17% Total 60,958 100% 34,772 100% 25,413 100% 21,016 100% 32,946 100% d. Getting help with school work cgethelp 1 Not at all difficult 7,444 12% 4,405 13% 2,948 12% 2,624 12% 3,902 12% 2 16,064 26% 9,242 27% 6,628 26% 5,332 25% 9,108 28% 3 19,491 32% 10,851 31% 8,408 33% 6,683 32% 10,624 32% 4 12,298 20% 7,000 20% 5,126 20% 4,304 20% 6,510 20% 5 4,393 7% 2,550 7% 1,790 7% 1,598 8% 2,218 7% 6 Very difficult 1,301 2% 737 2% 540 2% 497 2% 594 2% Total 60,991 100% 34,785 100% 25,440 100% 21,038 100% 32,956 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 16 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % e. Making new friends cmakefr 1 Not at all difficult 17,280 28% 9,043 26% 7,997 31% 6,166 29% 8,993 27% 2 17,018 28% 9,672 28% 7,144 28% 5,746 27% 9,558 29% 3 13,184 22% 7,917 23% 5,100 20% 4,453 21% 7,252 22% 4 7,901 13% 4,774 14% 3,039 12% 2,648 13% 4,344 13% 5 3,706 6% 2,242 6% 1,417 6% 1,332 6% 1,909 6% 6 Very difficult 1,947 3% 1,160 3% 760 3% 698 3% 941 3% Total 61,036 100% 34,808 100% 25,457 100% 21,043 100% 32,997 100% f. Interacting with faculty cintfac 1 Not at all difficult 11,125 18% 5,839 17% 5,144 20% 4,047 19% 5,600 17% 2 16,100 26% 8,945 26% 6,961 27% 5,438 26% 8,981 27% 3 17,903 29% 10,322 30% 7,370 29% 6,091 29% 9,817 30% 4 10,414 17% 6,312 18% 3,971 16% 3,564 17% 5,704 17% 5 4,037 7% 2,528 7% 1,447 6% 1,375 7% 2,188 7% 6 Very difficult 1,483 2% 889 3% 570 2% 549 3% 700 2% Total 61,062 100% 34,835 100% 25,463 100% 21,064 100% 32,990 100% 17. How prepared are you to do the following in your academic work at this college? a. Write clearly and effectively cgnwrite 1 Not at all prepared 518 1% 221 1% 284 1% 169 1% 238 1% 2 2,256 4% 966 3% 1,257 5% 835 4% 1,106 3% 3 9,338 15% 4,578 13% 4,643 18% 3,389 16% 4,612 14% 4 19,087 31% 10,270 29% 8,597 34% 6,614 31% 10,146 31% 5 16,875 28% 10,243 29% 6,463 25% 5,578 26% 9,780 30% 6 Very prepared 13,006 21% 8,587 25% 4,264 17% 4,504 21% 7,146 22% Total 61,080 100% 34,865 100% 25,508 100% 21,089 100% 33,028 100% b. Speak clearly and effectively cgnspeak 1 Not at all prepared 440 1% 262 1% 172 1% 181 1% 192 1% 2 2,463 4% 1,415 4% 1,007 4% 911 4% 1,181 4% 3 9,567 16% 5,244 15% 4,212 17% 3,460 16% 4,810 15% 4 18,115 30% 9,965 29% 7,951 31% 6,288 30% 9,726 29% 5 17,398 28% 9,996 29% 7,218 28% 5,773 27% 9,922 30% 6 Very prepared 13,087 21% 7,977 23% 4,949 19% 4,472 21% 7,194 22% Total 61,070 100% 34,859 100% 25,509 100% 21,085 100% 33,025 100% c. Think critically and cgnanaly 1 Not at all prepared 213 0% 131 0% 79 0% 74 0% 82 0% analytically 2 1,375 2% 857 2% 490 2% 525 2% 625 2% 3 8,310 14% 5,065 15% 3,138 12% 3,159 15% 3,983 12% 4 18,897 31% 11,012 32% 7,673 30% 6,795 32% 9,810 30% 5 19,547 32% 10,887 31% 8,470 33% 6,476 31% 11,207 34% 6 Very prepared 12,713 21% 6,902 20% 5,651 22% 4,049 19% 7,319 22% Total 61,055 100% 34,854 100% 25,501 100% 21,078 100% 33,026 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 17 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % d. Analyze math or quantitative cgnquant 1 Not at all prepared 2,082 3% 1,472 4% 573 2% 779 4% 1,011 3% problems 2 6,673 11% 4,404 13% 2,184 9% 2,381 11% 3,495 11% 3 13,614 22% 8,295 24% 5,154 20% 4,853 23% 7,134 22% 4 16,328 27% 9,193 26% 6,945 27% 5,594 27% 8,783 27% 5 13,491 22% 7,195 21% 6,179 24% 4,610 22% 7,532 23% 6 Very prepared 8,849 14% 4,290 12% 4,457 17% 2,871 14% 5,049 15% Total 61,037 100% 34,849 100% 25,492 100% 21,088 100% 33,004 100% e. Use computing and cgncompt 1 Not at all prepared 680 1% 506 1% 167 1% 209 1% 377 1% information technology 2 3,290 5% 2,266 7% 967 4% 1,045 5% 1,861 6% 3 10,521 17% 6,735 19% 3,678 14% 3,518 17% 5,820 18% 4 17,563 29% 10,318 30% 7,031 28% 6,145 29% 9,374 28% 5 17,178 28% 9,362 27% 7,657 30% 6,069 29% 9,285 28% 6 Very prepared 11,819 19% 5,668 16% 6,002 24% 4,099 19% 6,313 19% Total 61,051 100% 34,855 100% 25,502 100% 21,085 100% 33,030 100% f. Work effectively with others cgnother 1 Not at all prepared 197 0% 96 0% 99 0% 73 0% 73 0% 2 705 1% 327 1% 361 1% 240 1% 332 1% 3 4,017 7% 1,834 5% 2,135 8% 1,434 7% 1,922 6% 4 13,318 22% 6,691 19% 6,469 25% 4,674 22% 6,962 21% 5 22,134 36% 12,851 37% 9,064 36% 7,506 36% 12,408 38% 6 Very prepared 20,692 34% 13,058 37% 7,382 29% 7,151 34% 11,337 34% Total 61,063 100% 34,857 100% 25,510 100% 21,078 100% 33,034 100% g. Learn effectively on your own cgninq 1 Not at all prepared 238 0% 125 0% 109 0% 80 0% 102 0% 2 1,102 2% 608 2% 474 2% 433 2% 502 2% 3 5,815 10% 3,084 9% 2,652 10% 2,057 10% 2,911 9% 4 15,655 26% 8,579 25% 6,905 27% 5,479 26% 8,249 25% 5 20,714 34% 11,952 34% 8,550 34% 7,002 33% 11,606 35% 6 Very prepared 17,498 29% 10,490 30% 6,804 27% 6,020 29% 9,645 29% Total 61,022 100% 34,838 100% 25,494 100% 21,071 100% 33,015 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 18 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 18. How important is it to you that your college or university provides each of the following? a. A challenging academic cenvscho 1 Not important 414 1% 131 0% 280 1% 145 1% 206 1% experience 2 1,132 2% 488 1% 634 2% 384 2% 598 2% 3 6,746 11% 3,442 10% 3,241 13% 2,474 12% 3,310 10% 4 18,859 31% 10,240 29% 8,476 33% 6,706 32% 10,019 30% 5 18,824 31% 11,099 32% 7,601 30% 6,417 30% 10,632 32% 6 Very important 15,132 25% 9,576 27% 5,440 21% 5,047 24% 8,414 25% Total 61,107 100% 34,976 100% 25,672 100% 21,173 100% 33,179 100% b. Support to help you succeed cenvsupr 1 Not important 95 0% 34 0% 60 0% 29 0% 43 0% academically 2 281 0% 83 0% 191 1% 73 0% 150 0% 3 2,192 4% 809 2% 1,356 5% 713 3% 1,105 3% 4 8,063 13% 3,598 10% 4,404 17% 2,618 12% 4,344 13% 5 16,755 27% 8,973 26% 7,669 30% 5,730 27% 9,417 28% 6 Very important 33,653 55% 21,441 61% 11,971 47% 11,996 57% 18,081 55% Total 61,039 100% 34,938 100% 25,651 100% 21,159 100% 33,140 100% c. Opportunities to interact with cenvdivr 1 Not important 857 1% 298 1% 552 2% 282 1% 487 1% students from different 2 2,303 4% 922 3% 1,364 5% 787 4% 1,303 4% economic, social, and racial or 3 7,378 12% 3,502 10% 3,820 15% 2,503 12% 4,031 12% ethnic backgrounds 4 14,535 24% 7,802 22% 6,648 26% 4,940 23% 7,934 24% 5 17,080 28% 10,150 29% 6,794 26% 5,931 28% 9,395 28% 6 Very important 18,884 31% 12,263 35% 6,473 25% 6,715 32% 10,002 30% Total 61,037 100% 34,937 100% 25,651 100% 21,158 100% 33,152 100% d. Assistance with coping with cenvnaca 1 Not important 1,681 3% 722 2% 952 4% 574 3% 931 3% your non-academic 2 4,588 8% 2,166 6% 2,394 9% 1,383 7% 2,766 8% responsibilities (work, family, 3 11,125 18% 5,775 17% 5,278 21% 3,638 17% 6,290 19% etc.) 4 17,009 28% 9,328 27% 7,551 29% 5,708 27% 9,432 28% 5 14,383 24% 8,801 25% 5,486 21% 5,213 25% 7,647 23% 6 Very important 12,210 20% 8,131 23% 3,971 15% 4,643 22% 6,052 18% Total 60,996 100% 34,923 100% 25,632 100% 21,159 100% 33,118 100% e. Support to help you thrive cenvsoca 1 Not important 1,579 3% 697 2% 872 3% 581 3% 813 2% socially 2 3,848 6% 1,833 5% 1,984 8% 1,306 6% 2,149 6% 3 9,256 15% 4,731 14% 4,466 17% 3,125 15% 5,093 15% 4 15,740 26% 8,630 25% 7,001 27% 5,431 26% 8,558 26% 5 16,117 26% 9,667 28% 6,337 25% 5,503 26% 8,979 27% 6 Very important 14,433 24% 9,358 27% 4,961 19% 5,199 25% 7,536 23% Total 60,973 100% 34,916 100% 25,621 100% 21,145 100% 33,128 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 19 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % f. Opportunities to attend cenveven 1 Not important 697 1% 302 1% 387 2% 279 1% 313 1% campus events and activities 2 1,796 3% 809 2% 971 4% 672 3% 892 3% 3 5,965 10% 2,818 8% 3,105 12% 2,179 10% 3,019 9% 4 13,688 22% 7,131 20% 6,455 25% 4,777 23% 7,278 22% 5 18,578 30% 10,908 31% 7,537 29% 6,204 29% 10,544 32% 6 Very important 20,261 33% 12,960 37% 7,169 28% 7,035 33% 11,093 33% Total 60,985 100% 34,928 100% 25,624 100% 21,146 100% 33,139 100% 19. About how much of your college expenses (tuition, fees, books, room & board) this year will be provided be each of the following sources? a. Scholarships and grants cschgr None 13,049 22% 6,981 20% 5,980 23% 3,696 18% 7,994 24% Less than half 24,109 40% 14,115 41% 9,848 39% 8,068 38% 13,897 42% Half or more 12,904 21% 7,656 22% 5,160 20% 4,890 23% 6,520 20% All or nearly all 7,208 12% 4,262 12% 2,899 11% 3,145 15% 3,109 9% Do not know 3,371 6% 1,773 5% 1,583 6% 1,260 6% 1,447 4% Total 60,641 100% 34,787 100% 25,470 100% 21,059 100% 32,967 100% b. Student loans cstudlo None 22,097 37% 12,437 36% 9,542 38% 5,633 27% 14,458 44% Less than half 16,390 27% 9,452 27% 6,829 27% 6,136 29% 8,683 27% Half or more 10,653 18% 6,312 18% 4,258 17% 4,560 22% 4,734 14% All or nearly all 5,446 9% 3,270 9% 2,139 8% 2,699 13% 2,081 6% Do not know 5,583 9% 3,074 9% 2,481 10% 1,897 9% 2,734 8% Total 60,169 100% 34,545 100% 25,249 100% 20,925 100% 32,690 100% c. Parents/family cparfam None 9,508 16% 5,700 16% 3,747 15% 5,070 24% 3,208 10% Less than half 15,905 26% 9,260 27% 6,547 26% 6,529 31% 7,777 24% Half or more 13,778 23% 7,625 22% 6,073 24% 3,931 19% 8,402 26% All or nearly all 16,878 28% 9,799 28% 6,968 27% 3,776 18% 11,685 36% Do not know 4,262 7% 2,233 6% 2,005 8% 1,600 8% 1,809 6% Total 60,331 100% 34,617 100% 25,340 100% 20,906 100% 32,881 100% d. Self (work on-campus or off- cself None 17,077 28% 9,649 28% 7,327 29% 4,955 24% 10,395 32% campus, savings) Less than half 27,719 46% 16,033 46% 11,522 46% 9,918 48% 15,240 47% Half or more 6,001 10% 3,536 10% 2,420 10% 2,339 11% 2,853 9% All or nearly all 2,874 5% 1,774 5% 1,081 4% 1,326 6% 1,173 4% Do not know 6,436 11% 3,520 10% 2,879 11% 2,341 11% 3,059 9% Total 60,107 100% 34,512 100% 25,229 100% 20,879 100% 32,720 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 20 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 20. Did you receive a Federal Pell cpell No 25,005 41% 14,516 42% 10,344 41% 7,104 34% 16,028 49% Grant? Yes 10,442 17% 6,445 19% 3,913 15% 5,558 26% 3,190 10% Do not know 25,237 42% 13,822 40% 11,270 44% 8,432 40% 13,760 42% Total 60,684 100% 34,783 100% 25,527 100% 21,094 100% 32,978 100% 21. What do you expect most of cgrades C- or lower 25 0% 8 0% 17 0% 9 0% 8 0% your grades will be at this C 395 1% 197 1% 195 1% 175 1% 157 0% college during the coming C+ 1,065 2% 556 2% 498 2% 457 2% 416 1% year? B- 3,612 6% 2,003 6% 1,584 6% 1,458 7% 1,619 5% (Select only one.) B 14,678 24% 8,305 24% 6,272 25% 5,462 26% 7,479 23% B+ 16,635 28% 9,805 28% 6,733 27% 5,884 28% 8,969 27% A- 15,220 25% 9,023 26% 6,120 24% 4,778 23% 9,119 28% A 8,564 14% 4,585 13% 3,926 15% 2,670 13% 4,986 15% Grades not used 53 0% 34 0% 19 0% 8 0% 32 0% Total 60,247 100% 34,516 100% 25,364 100% 20,901 100% 32,785 100% 22. Do you intend to graduate cintgrad No 1,997 3% 1,003 3% 970 4% 678 3% 1,116 3% from this college? Yes 48,238 79% 28,062 81% 19,908 78% 16,758 79% 26,492 80% Uncertain 10,543 17% 5,781 17% 4,706 18% 3,666 17% 5,465 17% Total 60,778 100% 34,846 100% 25,584 100% 21,102 100% 33,073 100% 23 What is the highest academic chighdeg Associate's degree 860 1% 463 1% 383 2% 370 2% 335 1% degree you intend to obtain at Bachelor's degree 17,331 29% 9,718 28% 7,520 29% 6,697 32% 8,627 26% this or any college? Master's degree 21,184 35% 12,355 36% 8,708 34% 7,163 34% 12,076 37% Doctoral degree 10,958 18% 6,505 19% 4,389 17% 3,542 17% 6,312 19% Uncertain 10,256 17% 5,694 16% 4,508 18% 3,272 16% 5,621 17% Total 60,589 100% 34,735 100% 25,508 100% 21,044 100% 32,971 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 21 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 24. Do you know what your major cmajor No 16,188 27% 8,360 24% 7,737 31% 4,833 23% 9,542 29% will be? Yes 43,814 73% 26,025 76% 17,547 69% 15,936 77% 23,227 71% Total 60,002 100% 34,385 100% 25,284 100% 20,769 100% 32,769 100% Created by recoding xmajrcol Arts and humanities 4,903 12% 3,192 13% 1,681 10% 1,470 10% 2,969 14% 'xmajcod1' into one of ten Biological sciences 3,968 9% 2,568 10% 1,385 8% 1,325 9% 2,235 10% major categories listed at right Business 7,798 19% 3,698 15% 4,050 24% 2,880 19% 3,998 18% Education 4,558 11% 3,618 15% 911 5% 1,836 12% 2,263 10% Engineering 2,035 5% 315 1% 1,708 10% 635 4% 1,197 5% Physical science 1,457 3% 751 3% 699 4% 461 3% 879 4% Professional 6,449 15% 4,959 20% 1,456 9% 2,685 18% 3,036 14% Social science 4,249 10% 3,018 12% 1,210 7% 1,626 11% 2,185 10% Other 6,349 15% 2,728 11% 3,587 21% 2,383 16% 3,185 14% Undecided 53 0% 24 0% 29 0% 18 0% 26 0% Total 41,819 100% 24,871 100% 16,716 100% 15,319 100% 21,973 100% 25. Are you, or will you be, a full- cenrlmen No 862 1% 449 1% 407 2% 302 1% 402 1% time student this fall term? Yes 59,983 99% 34,470 99% 25,224 98% 20,837 99% 32,729 99% Total 60,845 100% 34,919 100% 25,631 100% 21,139 100% 33,131 100% 26. How many of your close cfriends None 26,708 44% 16,253 46% 10,334 40% 8,665 41% 15,452 47% friends will attend this college 1 11,580 19% 6,860 20% 4,673 18% 4,135 20% 6,178 19% during the coming year? 2 7,838 13% 4,341 12% 3,460 13% 2,908 14% 4,005 12% 3 4,617 8% 2,536 7% 2,061 8% 1,826 9% 2,233 7% 4 or more 10,228 17% 5,004 14% 5,171 20% 3,654 17% 5,316 16% Total 60,971 100% 34,994 100% 25,699 100% 21,188 100% 33,184 100% 27. Your sex: csex Male 25,809 42% 0 0% 25,809 100% 8,023 38% 14,672 44% Female 35,135 58% 35,135 100% 0 0% 13,150 62% 18,498 56% Total 60,944 100% 35,135 100% 25,809 100% 21,173 100% 33,170 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 22 BCSSE 2007 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions All Students Gender First Generationa Grand Results Female Male Yes No Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 28. Are you an international cinterna No 58,075 96% 33,469 96% 24,359 95% 20,296 96% 31,689 96% student or foreign national? Yes 2,621 4% 1,359 4% 1,251 5% 803 4% 1,379 4% Total 60,696 100% 34,828 100% 25,610 100% 21,099 100% 33,068 100% 29. What is your racial or ethnic crace American Indian or other Native 442 1% 268 1% 173 1% 180 1% 185 1% identification? American (Select only one.) Asian, Asian American, or 4,103 7% 2,153 6% 1,929 8% 1,455 7% 2,019 6% Pacific Islander Black or African American 6,916 11% 4,256 12% 2,615 10% 3,109 15% 2,195 7% White (non-Hispanic) 41,871 69% 24,019 69% 17,672 69% 13,439 63% 25,330 76% Mexican or Mexican American 1,210 2% 690 2% 516 2% 756 4% 295 1% Puerto Rican 537 1% 295 1% 238 1% 266 1% 180 1% Other Hispanic or Latino 1,487 2% 877 3% 604 2% 657 3% 580 2% Multiracial 1,586 3% 992 3% 584 2% 570 3% 775 2% Other 958 2% 497 1% 458 2% 284 1% 495 1% I prefer not to respond 1,892 3% 980 3% 904 4% 488 2% 1,172 4% Total 61,002 100% 35,027 100% 25,693 100% 21,204 100% 33,226 100% 30. Please indicate whether your parents completed a 4-year college degree. a. Mother (or guardian) cmothred Did not complete 4-year degree 30,455 50% 18548 53% 11,778 46% 21260 100% 7,859 24% Did complete 4-year degree 26,859 44% 14742 42% 11,978 47% 0 0% 25,460 76% Do not know 3,082 5% 1438 4% 1,621 6% 0 0% 0 0% Total 60,396 100% 34728 100% 25,377 100% 21260 100% 33,319 100% b. Father (or guardian) cfathred Did not complete 4-year degree 28,377 47% 17262 50% 10,987 44% 21260 100% 6,613 20% Did complete 4-year degree 27,546 46% 15023 44% 12,402 49% 0 0% 26,706 80% Do not know 4,055 7% 2166 6% 1,866 7% 0 0% 0 0% Total 59,978 100% 34451 100% 25,255 100% 21260 100% 33,319 100% 31. How far is your home from cdistanc 20 miles or less 13,205 22% 7,534 22% 5,608 22% 5,321 25% 6,071 18% this college? 21-50 miles 11,489 19% 6,630 19% 4,783 19% 4,563 22% 5,584 17% 51-100 miles 9,668 16% 5,595 16% 4,026 16% 3,541 17% 5,079 15% 101-200 miles 9,609 16% 5,486 16% 4,081 16% 3,247 15% 5,516 17% 201-400 miles 8,713 14% 4,895 14% 3,785 15% 2,686 13% 5,304 16% more than 400 miles 7,892 13% 4,546 13% 3,313 13% 1,683 8% 5,507 17% Total 60,576 100% 34,686 100% 25,596 100% 21,041 100% 33,061 100%

a First generation is defined as no parent or guardian having graduated with a 4-year college degree. 23 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement

All U.S. Institutions

Grand Mean Scale Scores and Selected Student Comparisons 2007 BCSSE 2007 Mean Scale Scores and Selected Student Comparisons Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement All U.S. Institutions

Gender Comparisons First Generationd Comparisons All Students Means by Tests of mean Means by Tests of mean Grand Results Gender differences First Generation differences

Scale a Variable Mean SD N Female Male Sig b Effect size c Yes No Sig b Effect size c

High School Academic Engagement Engagement in educationally relevant behaviors HS_acad 5.26 1.40 62,941 5.42 5.05 *** .27 5.20 5.31 *** -.08 during high school

Expected First-Year Academic Engagement Expected engagement in educationally relevant Exp_acad 5.99 1.58 62,941 6.07 5.88 *** .12 6.02 5.97 *** .03 behaviors during the first-year of college

Academic Persistence Student certainty that they will persist in the Acad_per 7.06 1.62 62,941 7.18 6.91 *** .17 7.14 7.04 *** .06 midst of difficult circumstances

Academic Preparation Student perception of their academic preparation Acad_prep 6.99 1.55 62,941 7.00 7.00 .00 6.95 7.07 *** -.08

Importance of Campus Environment Student-rated importance that the institution Imp_env 7.33 1.69 62,941 7.59 6.98 *** .36 7.37 7.33 ** .02 provides a challenging and supportive environment

25 Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement BCSSE 2007 Scale Descriptions

www.bcsse.iub.edu

Center for Postsecondary Research School of Education Indiana University Bloomington 1900 E. Tenth Street Eigenmann Hall, Suite 419 Bloomington, IN 47406-7512

Phone: 812-856-5824 Fax: 812-856-5150 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.bcsse.iub.edu

TO : Joanne Passaro

FROM: Beth Towell

RE: NSSE Results

DATE: August 13, 2008

The results of the National Survey of Student Engagement conducted spring 2008 are included here. There results were received just as this 2007‐2008 Institutional Assessment Report was to be published. Analysis of this data will take place in a variety of venues in the fall and a summary report, of both results and initiatives based on those results, will be included in the 2008‐2009 Institutional Assessment Report. CarrollC o Colle Co egege

Respondent Characteristics August 2008 NSSE 2008 Respondent Characteristics Carroll College

Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 FY SR FY SR FY SR FY SR Response Ratea Overall 44%41% 34% 33% By class 43% 44% 40% 42% 31% 37% 31% 35% NSSE sample sizeb 560 635 37,718 35,929 26,110 23,306 589,121 562,828 Sampling Errorc Overall 3.2%0.4% 0.6% 0.1% By class 4.8% 4.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2% Number of respondentsb 240 281 15,068 14,936 8,007 8,622 182,960 194,631 Total population 560 635 38,989 38,129 30,027 24,937 768,453 754,540

Student Characteristicsd Mode of Completion Paper 0%0%2%2%4%5%2%3% Web 100% 100% 98% 98% 96% 95% 98% 97% Class Level e 46% 54% 50% 50% 48% 52% 49% 51% Enrollment Status e Full-time 97% 80% 97% 88% 95% 80% 95% 85% Less than full-time 3% 20% 3% 12% 5% 20% 5% 15% Gender e Female 80% 75% 64% 65% 69% 70% 64% 64% Male 20% 25% 36% 35% 31% 30% 36% 36% Race/Ethnicity Am. Indian/Native American 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Asian/Asian Am./Pacific Isl. 2% 2% 4% 4% 3% 3% 6% 5% Black/African American 2% 1% 5% 6% 13% 13% 7% 7% White (non-Hispanic) 86% 87% 75% 76% 68% 70% 70% 71% Mexican/Mexican American 1% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% Puerto Rican 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% Other Hispanic or Latino 0% 0% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% Multiracial 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% Other 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% I prefer not to respond 4% 6% 6% 7% 5% 7% 6% 7% International Student 2% 4% 5% 4% 5% 4% 5% 5% Place of Residence On-campus 81% 19% 77% 29% 71% 20% 72% 21% Off-campus 19% 81% 23% 71% 29% 80% 28% 79% Transfer Status Transfer students 3% 36% 8% 35% 11% 49% 9% 41% Age Non-traditional (24 or older) 1% 31% 5% 26% 8% 44% 6% 32% Traditional (less than 24) 99% 69% 95% 74% 92% 56% 94% 68% a Response rate (number of respondents divided by sample size) is adjusted for non-deliverable mailing addresses, students for whom contact information was not available, and other students who were sampled yet unavailable during the survey administration.

b This report is based on information from all randomly selected students for both your institution and your comparison institutions. Targeted and locally administered oversamples (i.e., non-randomly selected students) are not included in this report.

c Sampling error is an estimate of the margin by which the true score for your institution on a given item could differ from the reported score. To interpret the sampling error, assume that 60% of your students reply "very often" to a particular item. If the sampling error is +/-5%, then the true population value is most likely between 55% and 65%.

d Percent of total respondents within each category. These results are not weighted.

e Institution-reported data. This information was used to weight your Mean Comparisons, Frequency Distributions, and Benchmark Comparisons reports. Carroll College

Frequency Distributions August 2008 Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report

Sample Weighting The Frequency Distributions report is based on information from all randomly selected Weights adjusting for gender, enrollment status, and institutional size are students for both your institution and your comparison institutions. Targeted oversamples and applied to the percentage column (%) of this report. Weights are computed other non-randomly selected students are not included in this report. separately for first-year students and seniors. Weighted results present a more accurate representation of your institution and comparison group students. Variables Only the column percents are weighted. The counts are the actual number of The items from the NSSE survey appear in the left column in the same order and wording as respondents. Because the counts are unweighted and the column percentages they appear on the instrument. are weighted, you will not be able to calculate the column percent directly from the count numbers. For more information about weighting, please visit Variable Names the NSSE Web site at The name of each variable appears in the first column for easy reference to your raw data file www.nsse.iub.edu/2008_Institutional_Report/NSSE_2008_Weighting.cfm. and the Mean Comparisons report. Class Benchmark Frequency distributions are reported separately for first-year students and Items that comprise the five “Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice” are indicated by seniors. Institution-reported class ranks are used. the following: LAC=Level of Academic Challenge NSSE 2008 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions a ACL=Active and NSSEville State University Collaborative Learning First-Year Students Seniors Count Mid East Public Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 SFI=Student-Faculty Mid East Public Carnegie Class The Count column Asked questions in class or NSSEville StateNSSE 2008 NSSEville State Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % contributed to class discussions Interaction 1a. CLQUEST Never 14 3% 451 4% 1,565 5% 4,836 4% 5 1% 251 3% 955 3% 2,712 2% represents the actual number EEE=Enriching Educational (ACL) Sometimes 211 37% 5099 44% 13,661 45% 55,638 39% 84 19% 3555 34% 10,461 33% 38,525 28% of students who responded Often 202 34% 4111 35% 10,071 33% 52,664 35% 156 32% 3737 33% 10,549 33% 49,105 33% Experiences Very often 144 26% 2152 17% 5,693 17% 34,795 22% 232 48% 3674 30% 10,465 31% 57,604 36% to the particular option in Made a class presentation CLPRESEN Total 571 100% 11813 100% 30,990 100% 147,933 100% 477 100% 11217 100% 32,430 100% 147,946 100% SCE=Supportive Campus b. (ACL) Never 44 8% 1959 19% 5,777 20% 20,344 16% 14 3% 566 6% 1,892 7% 6,697 6% each question. Counts are Sometimes 334 58% 6759 57% 17,509 56% 80,660 53% 147 32% 4536 44% 12,648 41% 48,977 35% Environment Often 157 27% 2460 18% 6,060 18% 36,269 23% 206 43% 3957 33% 11,116 33% 55,559 36% unweighted. Very often 36 7% 626 5% 1,639 5% 10,626 7% 111 22% 2155 17% 6,764 19% 36,673 23% Prepared two or more drafts of REWROPAP Total 571 100% 11804 100% 30,985 100% 147,899 100% 478 100% 11214 100% 32,420 100% 147,906 100% c. a paper or assignment before Never 73 15% 1831 17% 5,084 17% 19,478 14% 72 15% 2298 21% 6,235 20% 24,486 17% turning it in Sometimes 174 31% 3761 34% 9,922 32% 46,750 31% 183 38% 4508 41% 12,655 39% 56,891 38% Often 204 33% 3602 30% 9,622 31% 47,395 32% 113 23% 2750 24% 8,268 25% 39,304 27% Column Percentage (%) Very often 120 21% 2610 20% 6,342 19% 34,222 23% 110 24% 1654 14% 5,243 16% 27,190 18% Worked on a paper or project INTEGRAT Total 571 100% 11804 100% 30,970 100% 147,845 100% 478 100% 11210 100% 32,401 100% 147,871 100% This column represents the d. Never 7 1% 294 3% 905 3% 2,948 3% 5 1% 126 1% 405 1% 1,472 1% that required integrating ideas Sometimes 123 21% 2768 26% 7,646 26% 31,606 23% 57 12% 1676 17% 4,813 16% 18,243 14% Response Options or information from various weighted percentage of sources Often 274 49% 5241 44% 13,382 43% 66,317 44% 184 38% 4517 40% 12,781 40% 57,611 40% Response options listed just as Very often 167 28% 3503 27% 9,032 28% 46,937 31% 232 49% 4890 42% 14,395 43% 70,535 46% students responding to the Total 571 100% 11806 100% 30,965 100% 147,808 100% 478 100% 11209 100% 32,394 100% 147,861 100% they appear on the instrument. e. Included diverse perspectives DIVCLASS Never 26 6% 773 7% 2,198 8% 8,966 7% 23 6% 777 9% 2,711 9% 9,446 7% particular option in each (different races, religions, Sometimes 178 31% 4048 34% 10,465 34% 48,551 33% 137 28% 3655 34% 10,845 34% 46,541 32% genders, political beliefs, etc.) Often 222 38% 4537 38% 11,603 38% 56,651 38% 182 39% 3872 34% 10,742 33% 51,304 34% question. in class discussions or writing Very often 145 26% 2434 20% 6,678 21% 33,553 22% 135 27% 2896 24% 8,066 25% 40,456 27% assignments Total 571 100% 11792 100% 30,944 100% 147,721 100% 477 100% 11200 100% 32,364 100% 147,747 100% NSSE 2008 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions a Carroll College First-Year Students Seniors Great Lakes Great Lakes Carroll CollegePrivate Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 1a. Asked questions in class or CLQUEST Never 9 5% 253 2% 161 2% 6,352 4% 0 0% 146 1% 146 2% 3,780 2% contributed to class (ACL) Sometimes 96 39% 4,534 29% 2,568 31% 65,715 37% 64 23% 2,847 19% 1,495 17% 47,317 27% discussions Often 94 41% 5,640 37% 3,011 38% 64,723 35% 92 33% 4,865 33% 2,702 33% 62,620 33% Very often 39 15% 4,598 32% 2,239 29% 44,807 24% 123 44% 6,896 47% 4,150 48% 78,388 38% Total 238 100% 15,025 100% 7,979 100% 181,597 100% 279 100% 14,754 100% 8,493 100% 192,105 100% 1b. Made a class presentation CLPRESEN Never 5 3% 1,134 7% 853 11% 23,486 15% 4 1% 290 2% 531 5% 8,448 5% (ACL) Sometimes 114 48% 7,895 50% 3,829 46% 96,266 52% 51 18% 4,144 28% 2,281 27% 61,840 34% Often 99 41% 4,497 31% 2,432 31% 46,890 25% 115 41% 5,933 39% 3,187 38% 72,545 36% Very often 19 8% 1,466 12% 836 12% 14,569 8% 111 39% 4,380 31% 2,488 30% 49,099 24% Total 237 100% 14,992 100% 7,950 100% 181,211 100% 281 100% 14,747 100% 8,487 100% 191,932 100% 1c. Prepared two or more drafts of REWROPAP Never 7 3% 1,859 12% 960 11% 23,678 13% 38 13% 2,552 17% 1,191 13% 31,109 16% a paper or assignment before Sometimes 58 26% 5,273 34% 2,561 30% 58,315 31% 125 45% 5,954 39% 3,048 35% 74,918 38% turning it in Often 94 38% 4,737 32% 2,580 34% 59,010 32% 69 25% 3,690 26% 2,266 28% 50,393 27% Very often 79 33% 3,143 22% 1,855 25% 40,385 23% 49 17% 2,543 19% 1,992 24% 35,534 18% Total 238 100% 15,012 100% 7,956 100% 181,388 100% 281 100% 14,739 100% 8,497 100% 191,954 100% 1d. Worked on a paper or project INTEGRAT Never 2 1% 166 1% 144 2% 3,638 2% 3 1% 83 1% 73 1% 1,926 1% that required integrating ideas Sometimes 35 16% 2,807 18% 1,456 18% 36,700 21% 28 10% 1,550 11% 834 11% 23,198 13% or information from various Often 119 49% 6,852 45% 3,626 44% 82,343 45% 113 41% 5,699 38% 3,085 36% 74,981 40% sources Very often 82 34% 5,179 36% 2,731 35% 58,771 32% 137 48% 7,402 51% 4,515 52% 91,852 46% Total 238 100% 15,004 100% 7,957 100% 181,452 100% 281 100% 14,734 100% 8,507 100% 191,957 100% 1e. Included diverse perspectives DIVCLASS Never 19 8% 649 4% 404 6% 10,810 7% 15 5% 632 5% 372 5% 12,024 7% (different races, religions, Sometimes 93 38% 4,575 30% 2,417 31% 57,494 32% 91 32% 4,405 29% 2,295 28% 59,172 31% genders, political beliefs, etc.) Often 85 38% 6,048 40% 3,155 37% 70,817 38% 110 39% 5,329 36% 2,971 34% 66,498 34% in class discussions or writing Very often 41 16% 3,716 26% 1,979 26% 42,057 23% 65 23% 4,342 31% 2,846 33% 53,984 27% assignments Total 238 100% 14,988 100% 7,955 100% 181,178 100% 281 100% 14,708 100% 8,484 100% 191,678 100% 1f. Come to class without CLUNPREP Never 62 24% 3,698 25% 2,244 27% 43,490 23% 77 28% 3,246 24% 2,590 29% 38,954 20% completing readings or Sometimes 144 61% 8,835 58% 4,534 57% 105,543 58% 157 56% 8,586 57% 4,550 55% 111,667 58% assignments Often 21 10% 1,648 11% 774 10% 22,221 13% 28 10% 1,930 13% 886 11% 27,464 15% Very often 10 5% 754 5% 368 5% 9,267 6% 14 5% 913 6% 420 5% 13,019 7% Total 237 100% 14,935 100% 7,920 100% 180,521 100% 276 100% 14,675 100% 8,446 100% 191,104 100% 1g. Worked with other students CLASSGRP Never 18 6% 1,657 10% 859 11% 22,862 13% 19 7% 1,368 9% 938 10% 20,360 11% on projects during class (ACL) Sometimes 131 56% 7,014 46% 3,566 43% 82,773 45% 127 45% 6,607 43% 3,507 40% 82,768 43% Often 69 30% 4,701 32% 2,618 33% 57,001 32% 89 32% 4,549 31% 2,656 33% 58,858 31% Very often 18 8% 1,614 12% 910 13% 18,552 11% 45 16% 2,203 16% 1,387 17% 29,801 16% Total 236 100% 14,986 100% 7,953 100% 181,188 100% 280 100% 14,727 100% 8,488 100% 191,787 100%

a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 7 NSSE 2008 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions a Carroll College First-Year Students Seniors Great Lakes Great Lakes Carroll CollegePrivate Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 5. Select the circle that best EXAMS 1 Very little 0 0% 94 1% 70 1% 1,045 1% 3 1% 174 1% 156 2% 2,218 1% represents the extent to which 2 1 0% 183 2% 108 2% 2,030 1% 7 3% 279 2% 144 2% 3,438 2% your examinations during the 3 9 5% 476 4% 268 4% 5,958 4% 17 7% 576 4% 297 4% 7,580 4% current school year challenged 4 27 13% 1,605 12% 1,036 15% 20,905 13% 22 8% 1,690 12% 1,004 12% 22,171 12% you to do your best work 5 69 32% 4,149 30% 2,277 30% 50,258 30% 65 25% 4,059 28% 2,191 27% 52,164 28% 6 75 32% 4,895 34% 2,234 29% 55,029 32% 90 33% 4,600 32% 2,403 30% 57,749 31% 7 Very much 41 19% 2,516 18% 1,316 19% 31,623 19% 61 23% 2,712 20% 1,860 24% 37,308 21% Total 222 100% 13,918 100% 7,309 100% 166,848 100% 265 100% 14,090 100% 8,055 100% 182,628 100% 6a. Attended an art exhibit, play, ATDART07 Never 64 30% 2,320 18% 1,389 21% 32,696 23% 104 40% 3,052 23% 2,183 27% 47,308 28% dance, music, theater, or other Sometimes 103 46% 6,183 44% 3,330 45% 75,821 45% 116 43% 6,400 45% 3,742 46% 84,640 46% performance Often 43 19% 3,117 22% 1,516 20% 35,028 20% 27 10% 2,649 18% 1,323 17% 29,877 16% Very often 12 5% 2,213 16% 993 14% 21,671 12% 18 7% 1,907 13% 815 10% 19,692 10% Total 222 100% 13,833 100% 7,228 100% 165,216 100% 265 100% 14,008 100% 8,063 100% 181,517 100% 6b. Exercised or participated in EXRCSE05 Never 23 10% 1,464 12% 867 14% 18,235 13% 50 19% 1,895 15% 1,297 17% 24,073 14% physical fitness activities Sometimes 65 28% 3,742 27% 2,015 27% 45,832 28% 90 33% 4,425 32% 2,632 32% 57,951 32% Often 59 26% 3,348 24% 1,862 26% 42,164 26% 46 18% 3,124 22% 1,869 23% 42,915 24% Very often 75 36% 5,250 37% 2,474 33% 58,703 33% 78 30% 4,544 31% 2,248 27% 56,252 29% Total 222 100% 13,804 100% 7,218 100% 164,934 100% 264 100% 13,988 100% 8,046 100% 181,191 100% 6c. Participated in activities to WORSHP05 Never 110 49% 4,886 38% 2,712 37% 66,198 42% 116 44% 4,832 36% 2,756 34% 68,642 39% enhance your spirituality Sometimes 62 30% 4,120 29% 2,208 31% 46,771 27% 81 30% 4,408 31% 2,477 31% 52,594 28% (worship, meditation, prayer, Often 23 10% 2,293 16% 1,089 15% 24,813 15% 32 13% 2,226 16% 1,254 16% 26,632 14% etc.) Very often 26 11% 2,520 17% 1,204 17% 27,243 16% 35 13% 2,528 17% 1,559 20% 33,363 18% Total 221 100% 13,819 100% 7,213 100% 165,025 100% 264 100% 13,994 100% 8,046 100% 181,231 100% 6d. Examined the strengths and OWNVIEW Never 36 17% 1,045 8% 619 9% 14,819 10% 24 9% 877 6% 557 7% 13,696 8% weaknesses of your own views Sometimes 106 48% 5,078 36% 2,739 38% 63,177 38% 116 43% 4,635 33% 2,686 33% 63,778 35% on a topic or issue Often 63 27% 5,139 37% 2,534 35% 57,909 35% 85 32% 5,395 38% 3,047 37% 66,286 36% Very often 16 8% 2,552 19% 1,328 18% 29,128 18% 40 15% 3,084 22% 1,762 23% 37,596 20% Total 221 100% 13,814 100% 7,220 100% 165,033 100% 265 100% 13,991 100% 8,052 100% 181,356 100% 6e. Tried to better understand OTHRVIEW Never 21 11% 638 5% 346 6% 8,893 6% 22 8% 543 4% 339 5% 8,231 5% someone else's views by Sometimes 103 45% 4,415 31% 2,377 33% 55,611 34% 91 34% 4,182 29% 2,314 28% 55,536 31% imagining how an issue looks Often 69 30% 5,606 40% 2,852 38% 64,372 38% 105 40% 5,636 40% 3,322 41% 72,992 40% from his or her perspective Very often 28 14% 3,163 24% 1,650 23% 36,232 22% 47 18% 3,631 26% 2,081 26% 44,626 24% Total 221 100% 13,822 100% 7,225 100% 165,108 100% 265 100% 13,992 100% 8,056 100% 181,385 100% 6f. Learned something that CHNGVIEW Never 16 9% 406 3% 214 4% 5,604 4% 10 4% 312 2% 198 3% 4,907 3% changed the way you Sometimes 80 38% 4,279 31% 2,232 31% 52,180 32% 104 40% 3,990 28% 2,300 29% 54,273 31% understand an issue or Often 85 34% 5,565 40% 2,907 40% 66,547 40% 95 36% 5,838 42% 3,344 41% 74,618 41% concept Very often 41 18% 3,563 26% 1,868 25% 40,723 24% 54 21% 3,871 28% 2,218 28% 47,621 26% Total 222 100% 13,813 100% 7,221 100% 165,054 100% 263 100% 14,011 100% 8,060 100% 181,419 100% a Column percentages (%) are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. Because the counts are not weighted, you cannot calculate the column % directly from the counts. 8 NSSE 2008 Engagement Item Frequency Distributions a Carroll College First-Year Students Seniors Great Lakes Great Lakes Carroll CollegePrivate Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Variable Response Options Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 7a. Practicum, internship, field INTERN04 Have not decided 23 11% 1,374 11% 815 12% 19,832 13% 13 5% 852 7% 656 8% 12,589 8% experience, co-op experience, (EEE) Do not plan to do 4 2% 457 4% 251 4% 6,485 5% 30 12% 2,184 17% 1,376 16% 27,692 16% or clinical assignment Plan to do 187 85% 10,489 76% 5,388 74% 123,091 74% 59 22% 2,145 17% 1,637 21% 37,246 23% Done 3 2% 1,274 9% 639 10% 13,053 8% 161 61% 8,690 59% 4,299 54% 102,039 53% Total 217 100% 13,594 100% 7,093 100% 162,461 100% 263 100% 13,871 100% 7,968 100% 179,566 100% 7b. Community service or VOLNTR04 Have not decided 27 13% 1,529 13% 868 13% 20,523 14% 22 9% 1,034 9% 723 9% 15,218 9% volunteer work (EEE) Do not plan to do 13 8% 717 7% 326 6% 9,811 7% 42 17% 1,991 16% 1,201 14% 26,807 17% Plan to do 91 40% 5,129 38% 2,743 38% 66,288 41% 34 13% 1,598 13% 1,107 15% 23,979 15% Done 86 39% 6,188 43% 3,144 43% 65,526 38% 164 62% 9,232 62% 4,929 62% 113,276 60% Total 217 100% 13,563 100% 7,081 100% 162,148 100% 262 100% 13,855 100% 7,960 100% 179,280 100% 7c. Participate in a learning LRNCOM04 Have not decided 84 38% 5,104 37% 2,415 32% 55,042 32% 32 12% 1,697 13% 1,195 15% 24,093 14% community or some other (EEE) Do not plan to do 64 29% 3,204 24% 1,508 21% 41,462 26% 150 57% 7,428 54% 3,701 45% 91,999 51% formal program where groups Plan to do 52 24% 3,437 25% 1,981 29% 41,018 26% 15 6% 929 7% 735 11% 14,052 9% oftdf studen ttktts take two or more Done 18 9% 1,820 14% 1,170 18% 24,658 16% 64 24% 3,778 26% 2,320 29% 49,007 26% classes together Total 218 100% 13,565 100% 7,074 100% 162,180 100% 261 100% 13,832 100% 7,951 100% 179,151 100% 7d. Work on a research project RESRCH04 Have not decided 103 48% 5,294 39% 2,699 38% 62,379 38% 32 12% 1,816 15% 1,349 18% 27,388 17% with a faculty member outside (SFI) Do not plan to do 54 24% 3,103 23% 1,658 23% 37,886 24% 163 62% 7,638 55% 4,236 50% 93,165 51% of course or program Plan to do 52 24% 4,497 33% 2,255 32% 53,445 32% 35 13% 1,286 10% 842 12% 20,595 13% requirements Done 8 4% 648 5% 460 8% 8,216 5% 33 13% 3,095 20% 1,514 20% 37,940 20% Total 217 100% 13,542 100% 7,072 100% 161,926 100% 263 100% 13,835 100% 7,941 100% 179,088 100% 7e. Foreign language coursework FORLNG04 Have not decided 46 22% 2,056 17% 1,305 19% 27,686 18% 23 9% 904 8% 687 9% 13,560 8% (EEE) Do not plan to do 106 48% 3,158 25% 1,738 24% 40,774 27% 151 58% 5,574 43% 3,364 41% 72,974 41% Plan to do 36 16% 4,295 31% 2,564 38% 53,402 33% 14 5% 964 8% 713 10% 14,474 9% Done 30 14% 4,047 27% 1,467 19% 40,235 22% 75 28% 6,403 41% 3,190 40% 78,299 41% Total 218 100% 13,556 100% 7,074 100% 162,097 100% 263 100% 13,845 100% 7,954 100% 179,307 100% 7f. Study abroad STDABR04 Have not decided 82 38% 3,536 26% 1,964 28% 44,039 28% 31 11% 1,163 10% 992 14% 20,073 13% (EEE) Do not plan to do 69 32% 3,146 25% 1,843 26% 38,857 26% 180 70% 8,710 64% 5,196 64% 112,544 63% Plan to do 66 29% 6,559 46% 3,039 41% 74,790 43% 14 6% 902 7% 579 8% 14,462 9% Done 1 1% 325 3% 234 5% 4,355 3% 36 13% 3,061 19% 1,168 14% 32,029 15% Total 218 100% 13,566 100% 7,080 100% 162,041 100% 261 100% 13,836 100% 7,935 100% 179,108 100% 7g. Independent study or self- INDSTD04 Have not decided 64 31% 4,678 35% 2,300 32% 54,108 33% 19 7% 1,198 10% 896 12% 18,954 12% designed major (EEE) Do not plan to do 132 59% 6,008 43% 2,951 39% 74,037 45% 206 78% 8,205 59% 4,232 52% 108,841 61% Plan to do 18 9% 2,485 19% 1,480 23% 27,952 18% 11 4% 964 8% 767 10% 14,716 9% Done 3 2% 376 3% 345 6% 5,877 4% 26 10% 3,449 23% 2,060 25% 36,522 18% Total 217 100% 13,547 100% 7,076 100% 161,974 100% 262 100% 13,816 100% 7,955 100% 179,033 100%

Selected Comparison Groups August 2008 Reviewing Your NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups Report

NSSE participants are able to customize their Institutional Reports by tailoring up to three comparison groups. In May and June of 2008, your institution was invited to select comparison groups via the "Report Info Form" on the Institution Interface. This Selected Comparison Groups Report summarizes how your institution selected its comparison groups and lists the institutions within them.

NSSE reports display results for each institution alongside three comparison group columns. Institutions have the option to customize each column or select a recommended default group of institutions. NSSE comparison groups may be customized in several ways. Contactsmay identify specific institutions from the list of all current-year NSSE participants, create the list using institutional criteria, or begin with institutional criteria, then add or remove specific institutions to refine the comparison group.

If an institution does not select a customized comparison group, NSSE provides default comparison groups which we have found to provide relevant comparisons for most institutions. If your institution opted for any of the default groups, they are:

Comparison Group 1 - For institutions not participating in a NSSE consortium, this group contains current-year NSSE institutions in the same geographic region and sector (private/public). For consortium institutions, this groups contains results for the other consortium members and is not customizable.

Comparison Group 2 - All other current-year U.S. NSSE institutions sharing your institution's Basic Carnegie Classification.

Comparison Group 3 - All other current-year U.S. NSSE institutions (Canadian participants are also included in this group for Canadian institutions).

The terms "comp. group 1," "comp. group 2," and "comp. group 3" correspond to the selected comparison group locations in the institutional reports. In NSSEville's example below, comp. group 1 is "Mid East Public", comp. group 2 "Carnegie Class" and comp. group 3 "NSSE 2008". Your Institution' s Comppp. Group 1 Comp. Comp. Responses or Consortium Group 2 Group 3

NSSEville State compared with:

NSSEville State Mid East Public Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the 1. Academic and Intellectual Experiences following? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often Asked questions in class or contributed to class FY 2.84 2.65 *** .23 2.62 *** .27 2.74 ** .12 a. CLQUEST ACL discussions SR 3.27 2.90 *** .43 2.91 *** .41 3.03 *** .27 FY 2.33 2.09 *** .33 2.08 *** .33 2.21 *** .15 b. Made a class presentation CLPRESEN ACL SR 2.85 2.62 *** .27 2.65 *** .24 2.77 * .10

The Selected Comparison Groups report consists of a summary page that details when and how your comparison groups were selected (or if you received the default due to not completing the Report Info Form) and three sections that provide comparison group details for each of the three report columns. Comparison Group 1 Details How Group was Selected This report displays the 2008 comparison group 1 institutions for NSSEville State University. The institutions listed below are represented Comp. Group Name in the 'Mid East Public' column of the Respondent Characteristics, Mean Comparisons, Frequency Distributions, and Benchmark Indicates whether your group Comparisons reports. was drawn from a list, built Comparison group name HOW GROUP WAS SELECTED in your reports. Your institution did not identify a comparison group 1. The default group includes all institutions in your geographic region and sector based on criteria, or is the (public/private). default group. SELECTED PEER GROUP CRITERIA a

Basic 2005 Carnegie Classification(s):

Carnegie - Undergraduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Graduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Enrollment Profile(s): Carnegie - Undergraduate Profile(s): Selection Criteria Carnegie - Size and Setting(s): If criteria were used to Institution Names Sector(s) (public/private): 1 The name, city and Undergraduate enrollment(s): build your comparison state of the Locale(s): group, they are listed comparison Geographic Region(s): 2 here. The criterion codes State(s): are explained on the institutions are Barron's admissions selectivity ratings(s): listed for your COMPARISON GROUP 1 INSTITUTIONS Comparison Group Selection Criteria review. Institution Name City State Binghamton University (State University of New York) Binghamton NY Codelist. Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania Bloomsburg PA Cheyney University of Pennsylvania Cheyney PA NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups Carroll College

SUMMARY - Comparison Group Selection This page provides an overview of how your three NSSE 2008 comparison groups were selected. These groups were either (a) submitted by your institution through the Report Info Form located on the NSSE Institution Interface or (b) defaults assigned because your institution did not complete the Report Info Form . Included below are the date the groups were submitted, the method used to pick them, the column labels your institutional contact provided for each group, the number of institutions in each group, and a short description of the group written by the contact at the time of submission. The following pages list the institutions selected for each comparison group.

COMPARISON GROUP 1 SELECTION Date Submitted: N/A Selection Method: ASSIGNED DEFAULT GROUP - Your institution did not select a comparison group 1. Column Label: Great Lakes Private Number of Institutions: 72 The Reason Your Institution Provided For Choosing This Group:

COMPARISON GROUP 2 SELECTION Date Submitted: N/A Selection Method: ASSIGNED DEFAULT GROUP - Your institution did not select a comparison group 2. Column Label: Carnegie Class Number of Institutions: 46 The Reason Your Institution Provided For Choosing This Group:

COMPARISON GROUP 3 SELECTION Date Submitted: N/A Selection Method: ASSIGNED DEFAULT GROUP - Your institution did not select a comparison group 3. Column Label: NSSE 2008 Number of Institutions: 714 The Reason Your Institution Provided For Choosing This Group:

NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups Page 3 of 9 NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups Carroll College

Comparison Group 1 Details

This report displays the 2008 comparison group 1 institutions for Carroll College. The institutions listed below are represented in the 'Great Lakes Private' column of the Respondent Characteristics, Mean Comparisons, Frequency Distributions, and Benchmark Comparisons reports.

HOW GROUP WAS SELECTED Your institution did not identify a comparison group 1. The default group includes all institutions in your geographic region and sector (public/private).

SELECTED PEER GROUP CRITERIA a

Basic 2005 Carnegie Classification(s):

Carnegie - Undergraduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Graduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Enrollment Profile(s):

Carnegie - Undergraduate Profile(s):

Carnegie - Size and Setting(s):

Sector(s) (public/private): 2,3

Undergraduate enrollment(s):

Locale(s):

Geographic Region(s): 3

State(s):

Barron's admissions selectivity ratings(s): COMPARISON GROUP 1 INSTITUTIONS

Institution Name City State Adrian College Adrian MI Albion College Albion MI Anderson University Anderson IN Ashland University Ashland OH Baldwin-Wallace College Berea OH Beloit College Beloit WI Benedictine University Lisle IL Bradley University Peoria IL Butler University Indianapolis IN Cardinal Stritch University Milwaukee WI Cleary University Ann Arbor MI Columbia College Chicago Chicago IL Columbus College of Art and Design Columbus OH Concordia University Chicago River Forest IL Defiance College Defiance OH Denison University Granville OH

a. See the Comparison Group Selection Criteria Codelist for code details. NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups . Page 4 of 9 COMPARISON GROUP 1 INSTITUTIONS

Institution Name City State DePaul University Chicago IL DePauw University Greencastle IN Dominican University River Forest IL Earlham College Richmond IN Edgewood College Madison WI Elmhurst College Elmhurst IL Eureka College Eureka IL Franklin University Columbus OH Grace College and Theological Seminary Winona Lake IN Hanover College Hanover IN Hope College Holland MI Illinois College Jacksonville IL Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago IL Indiana Institute of Technology Fort Wayne IN John Carroll University Cleveland OH Kenyon College Gambier OH Kettering College of Medical Arts Kettering OH Knox College Galesburg IL Kuyper College Grand Rapids MI Lake Forest College Lake Forest IL Lawrence Technological University Southfield MI Lawrence University Appleton WI Lewis University Romeoville IL Lincoln Christian College and Seminary Lincoln IL Loyola University Chicago Chicago IL MacMurray College Jacksonville IL Madonna University Livonia MI Manchester College North Manchester IN Marietta College Marietta OH Millikin University Decatur IL Monmouth College Monmouth IL Mount Mary College Milwaukee WI North Central College Naperville IL Ohio Dominican University Columbus OH Ohio Northern University Ada OH Olivet Nazarene University Bourbonnais IL Otterbein College Westerville OH Quincy University Quincy IL Ripon College Ripon WI Robert Morris College Chicago IL Rockford College Rockford IL Saint Josephs College Rensselaer IN Saint Mary's College Notre Dame IN Saint Xavier University Chicago IL School of the Art Institute of Chicago Chicago IL Spring Arbor University Spring Arbor MI Taylor University Upland IN Taylor University Fort Wayne Fort Wayne IN University of Detroit Mercy Detroit MI University of Evansville Evansville IN University of Indianapolis Indianapolis IN Ursuline College Pepper Pike OH

a. See the Comparison Group Selection Criteria Codelist for code details. NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups . Page 5 of 9 COMPARISON GROUP 1 INSTITUTIONS

Institution Name City State Wabash College Crawfordsville IN Walsh University North Canton OH Wilmington College Wilmington OH Xavier University Cincinnati OH

a. See the Comparison Group Selection Criteria Codelist for code details. NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups . Page 6 of 9 NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups Carroll College

Comparison Group 2 Details

This report displays the 2008 comparison group 2 institutions for Carroll College. The institutions listed below are represented in the 'Carnegie Class' column of the Respondent Characteristics, Mean Comparisons, Frequency Distributions, and Benchmark Comparisons reports.

HOW GROUP WAS SELECTED Your institution did not identify a comparison group 2. The default group includes all institutions in your 2005 Basic Carnegie Classification.

SELECTED COMPARISON GROUP CRITERIA a

Basic 2005 Carnegie Classification(s): 20

Carnegie - Undergraduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Graduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Enrollment Profile(s):

Carnegie - Undergraduate Profile(s):

Carnegie - Size and Setting(s):

Sector(s) (public/private):

Undergraduate enrollment(s):

Locale(s):

Geographic Region(s):

State(s):

Barron's admissions selectivity ratings(s): COMPARISON GROUP 2 INSTITUTIONS

Institution Name City State Alaska Pacific University Anchorage AK Benedictine College Atchison KS Castleton State College Castleton VT Delaware State University Dover DE Eastern New Mexico University Portales NM Elmhurst College Elmhurst IL Elon University Elon NC Fayetteville State University Fayetteville NC Fort Valley State University Fort Valley GA Francis Marion University Florence SC Hope International University Fullerton CA Johnson State College Johnson VT La Roche College Pittsburgh PA Lincoln University Jefferson City MO Lipscomb University Nashville TN Lock Haven University Lock Haven PA

a. See the Comparison Group Selection Criteria Codelist for code details. NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups . Page 7 of 9 COMPARISON GROUP 2 INSTITUTIONS

Institution Name City State Lubbock Christian University Lubbock TX Lynchburg College Lynchburg VA Lynn University Boca Raton FL Mansfield University of Pennsylvania Mansfield PA Mount Marty College Yankton SD Mount Mary College Milwaukee WI Mount St Mary's College Los Angeles CA Ohio Dominican University Columbus OH Prescott College Prescott AZ Ramapo College of New Jersey Mahwah NJ Salve Regina University Newport RI Savannah State University Savannah GA Southwest Minnesota State University Marshall MN Southwestern College Winfield KS Southwestern Oklahoma State University Weatherford OK Spring Hill College Mobile AL SUNY College at Oneonta Oneonta NY SUNY Empire State College Saratoga Springs NY The Evergreen State College Olympia WA The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey Pomona NJ Thomas More College Crestview Hills KY University of Evansville Evansville IN University of Great Falls Great Falls MT University of Mary Hardin -Baylor Belton TX University of Maryland-Eastern Shore Princess Anne MD University of the District of Columbia Washington DC University of Washington Bothell Bothell WA Walsh University North Canton OH Wheeling Jesuit University Wheeling WV Xavier University of Louisiana New Orleans LA

a. See the Comparison Group Selection Criteria Codelist for code details. NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups . Page 8 of 9 NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups Carroll College

Comparison Group 3 Details

This report displays the 2008 comparison group 3 institutions for Carroll College. The institutions listed below are represented in the 'NSSE 2008' column of the Respondent Characteristics, Mean Comparisons, Frequency Distributions, and Benchmark Comparisons reports.

HOW GROUP WAS SELECTED

Your institution did not identify a comparison group 3. The default group includes all U.S. NSSE 2008 institutions.

SELECTED COMPARISON GROUP CRITERIA a

Basic 2005 Carnegie Classification(s):

Carnegie - Undergraduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Graduate Instructional Program(s):

Carnegie - Enrollment Profile(s):

Carnegie - Undergraduate Profile(s):

Carnegie - Size and Setting(s):

Sector(s) (public/private):

Undergraduate enrollment(s):

Locale(s):

Geographic Region(s):

State(s):

Barron's admissions selectivity ratings(s): COMPARISON GROUP 3 INSTITUTIONS

Institution Name City State ALL U.S. NSSE 2008 INSTITUTIONS View list at http://nsse.iub.edu/nsse_2008/2008-colleges.cfm

NSSE 2008 Selected Comparison Groups a. See the Comparison Group Selection Criteria Codelist for code details. Page 9 of 9 Carroll College

Mean Comparisons August 2008 Interpreting the Mean Comparisons Report

Sample Statistical Significance The Mean Comparisons report is based on information from all randomly selected students Items with mean differences that are larger than would be expected by chance for both your institution and your comparison institutions. Targeted oversamples and other alone are noted with one, two, or three asterisks, referring to three significance non-randomly selected students are not included in this report. levels (p<.05, p< .01, and p<.001). The smaller the significance level, the Variables smaller the likelihood that the difference is due to chance. Statistical significance does not guarantee the result is substantive or important. Large The items from the NSSE survey appear in the left column in the same order and wording as sample sizes (like those produced by NSSE) tend to generate more statistically they appear on the instrument. The name of each variable appears in the second column for significant results even though the magnitude of mean differences may be easy reference to your data file and the summary statistics at the end of this section. Response inconsequential. It is recommended to consult effect sizes (see below) to judge options are also provided to help you interpret the statistics. the practical meaning of the results. Benchmark Items that make up the five “Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice” are indicated by the following: Effect Size LAC=Level of Academic Effect size indicates the Challenge NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons “practical significance” of NSSEville State University ACL=Active and the mean difference. It is Collaborative Learning NSSEville State compared with: calculated by dividing the

SFI=Student-Faculty NSSEville StateMid East Public Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 mean difference by the Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c pooled standard deviation. Interaction Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the In practice, an effect size of EEE=Enriching Educational 1. Academic and Intellectual Experiences following? 1=never, 2=sometimes, 3=often, 4=very often Asked questions in class or contributed to class FY 2.84 2.65 *** .23 2.62 *** .27 2.74 ** .12 .2 is often considered small, Experiences a. CLQUEST ACL discussions SR 3.27 2.90 *** .43 2.91 *** .41 3.03 *** .27 .5 moderate, and .8 large. A SCE=Supportive Campus FY 2.33 2.09 *** .33 2.08 *** .33 2.21 *** .15 b. CLPRESEN positive sign indicates that Environment Made a class presentation ACL SR 2.85 2.62 *** .27 2.65 *** .24 2.77 * .10 your institution's mean was REWROPAP FY 2.59 2.53 .07 2.53 .06 2.64 -.05 Preparedc. two or more drafts of a paper or Mean assignment before turning it in SR 2.57 2.30 *** .28 2.37 *** .20 2.47 * .10 greater, thus showing an The mean is the weighted Worked on a paper or project that required affirmative result for your d. integrating ideas or information from INTEGRAT FY 3.04 2.96 ** .11 2.95 ** .11 3.03 .02 arithmetic average of student various sources SR 3.34 3.22 ** .15 3.24 ** .13 3.29 .06 institution. A negative sign Included diverse perspectives (different races, responses on a particular item. FY indicates the institution lags e. religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class DIVCLASS 2.84 2.71 *** .14 2.72 ** .13 2.75 * .09 Means are provided for your discussions or writing assignments SR 2.88 2.73 *** .17 2.73 *** .16 2.80 * .09 behind the comparison institution and all comparison FY 1.97 2.07 ** -.12 2.09 *** -.15 2.02 -.06 group, suggesting that the f. Come to class without completing readings or CLUNPREP SR 1.95 2.23 *** -.36 2.22 *** -.33 2.11 *** -.20 groups. For more information assignments student behavior or about weighting go to: institutional practice represented by the item may warrant attention. An exception to this www.nsse.iub.edu/2008_Institutional_Report/NSSE_2008_Weighting.cfm. interpretation is the “coming to class unprepared” item (item 1f.) where a negative sign is preferred (i.e., meaning fewer students reporting coming to class unprepared). Class Results are reported separately for first-year students (FY) and seniors (SR). Institution-reported class ranks are used. NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you done each of 1. Academic and Intellectual Experiences the following? 1=Never, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Very often Asked questions in class or contributed to class FY 2.67 3.00 *** -.40 2.93 *** -.31 2.78 * -.13 a. CLQUEST ACL discussions SR 3.22 3.27 -.06 3.28 -.08 3.07 ** .18 FY 2.55 2.47 .10 2.44 * .14 2.27 *** .34 b. Made a class presentation CLPRESEN ACL SR 3.18 2.99 *** .23 2.91 *** .30 2.80 *** .44 Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or FY 3.01 2.65 *** .38 2.73 *** .29 2.65 *** .37 c. REWROPAP assignment before turning it in SR 2.46 2.46 .00 2.62 ** -.16 2.47 -.01 Worked on a paper or project that required d. in tegra ting ideas or in forma tion from INTEGRAT FY 3173.17 3153.15 .02 3123.12 .06 3063.06 * .13 various sources SR 3.36 3.39 -.04 3.40 -.05 3.30 .08 Included diverse perspectives (different races, e. religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class DIVCLASS FY 2.63 2.87 *** -.29 2.82 *** -.22 2.78 ** -.18 discussions or writing assignments SR 2.81 2.93 * -.14 2.96 ** -.17 2.81 -.01 Come to class without completing readings or FY 1.97 1.96 .01 1.93 .05 2.01 -.05 f. CLUNPREP assignments SR 1.92 2.02 * -.12 1.92 .01 2.10 *** -.23 Worked with other students on projects during FY 2.39 2.46 -.08 2.48 -.11 2.41 -.02 g. CLASSGRP ACL class SR 2.58 2.55 .03 2.56 .02 2.52 .06 Worked with classmates outside of class to FY 2.62 2.50 * .14 2.46 ** .18 2.40 *** .25 h. OCCGRP ACL prepare class assignments SR 2.85 2.79 .06 2.66 *** .21 2.75 * .11 Put together ideas or concepts from different i. courses when completing assignments or during INTIDEAS FY 2.41 2.72 *** -.38 2.64 *** -.28 2.63 *** -.28 class discussions SR 2.97 2.99 -.03 2.97 .00 2.94 .03 Tutored or taught other students FY 1.50 1.72 *** -.25 1.74 *** -.28 1.70 *** -.24 j. TUTOR ACL (paid or voluntary) SR 2.01 1.90 .11 1.85 * .16 1.88 .13 Participated in a community-based project (e.g. FY 1.56 1.67 * -.14 1.72 ** -.18 1.60 -.05 k. COMMPROJ ACL service learning) as part of a regular course SR 1.71 1.78 -.08 1.86 ** -.16 1.74 -.04

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 23 NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Used an electronic medium (listserv, chat group, l. Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or ITACADEM EEE FY 2.48 2.58 -.10 2.55 -.07 2.59 -.11 complete an assignment SR 2.81 2.82 .00 2.82 -.01 2.82 -.01 FY 3.28 3.25 .04 3.13 ** .17 3.11 *** .20 m. Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor EMAIL SR 3.46 3.49 -.05 3.39 .09 3.38 .11 FY 2.49 2.69 *** -.23 2.75 *** -.30 2.62 * -.14 n. Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor FACGRADE SFI SR 2.77 2.87 -.11 2.95 *** -.21 2.81 -.04 Talked about career plans with a faculty member FY 2.15 2.24 -.10 2.31 ** -.17 2.19 -.05 o. FACPLANS SFI or advisor SR 2.43 2.51 -.08 2.60 ** -.17 2.42 .01 Discussed ideas from your readings or classes FY 1.83 1.97 * -.16 2.00 ** -.19 1.91 -.09 p. FACIDEAS SFI with faculty members outside of class SR 2.17 2.21 -.05 2.24 -.08 2.12 .05 Received prompt written or oral feedback from FY 2.65 2.78 * -.17 2.72 -.08 2.65 -.01 q. FACFEED SFI faculty on your academic performance SR 2.78 2.94 ** -.20 2.92 ** -.18 2.80 -.02 Worked harder than you thought you could to meet FY 2.60 2.69 -.11 2.73 * -.15 2.65 -.06 r. WORKHARD LAC an instructor's standards or expectations SR 2.74 2.77 -.03 2.84 -.12 2.73 .01 Worked with faculty members on activities other s. than coursework (committees, orientation, student FACOTHER SFI FY 1.51 1.73 *** -.26 1.81 *** -.32 1.65 ** -.17 life activities, etc.) SR 1.87 1.95 -.08 1.93 -.06 1.84 .03 Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with t. others outside of class (students, family members, OOCIDEAS ACL FY 2.39 2.76 *** -.44 2.74 *** -.41 2.69 *** -.35 co-workers, etc.) SR 2.82 2.87 -.06 2.90 -.10 2.84 -.03 Had serious conversations with students of a FY 2.24 2.66 *** -.43 2.59 *** -.34 2.60 *** -.36 u. DIVRSTUD EEE different race or ethnicity than your own SR 2.43 2.67 *** -.24 2.64 *** -.21 2.67 *** -.24 Had serious conversations with students who are v. very different from you in terms of their religious DIFFSTU2 EEE FY 2.41 2.76 *** -.36 2.67 *** -.26 2.70 *** -.29 beliefs, political opinions, or personal values SR 2.58 2.73 ** -.16 2.68 -.11 2.72 * -.14

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 24 NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following mental activities? 2. Mental Activities 1=Very little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a bit, 4=Very much Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your a. courses and readings so you can repeat them in MEMORIZE FY 2.93 2.81 .13 2.88 .06 2.90 .04 pretty much the same form SR 2.79 2.66 * .13 2.69 .10 2.75 .03 Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a b. ANALYZE LAC particular case or situation in depth and considering FY 2.91 3.17 *** -.34 3.06 ** -.19 3.10 *** -.25 its components SR 3.22 3.31 * -.12 3.27 -.08 3.24 -.03 Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or c. expp,pperiences into new, more complex interpretations SYNTHESZ LAC FY 2.60 2.97 *** -.44 2.88 *** -.33 2.89 *** -.34 and relationships SR 3.04 3.13 -.11 3.11 -.08 3.05 -.01 Making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as d. EVALUATE LAC examining how others gathered and interpreted FY 2.73 2.97 *** -.29 2.93 *** -.24 2.90 ** -.20 data and assessing the soundness of their SR 3.06 3.08 -.02 3.08 -.03 3.01 .06 Applying theories or concepts to practical FY 2.83 3.08 *** -.31 3.02 *** -.23 3.03 *** -.23 e. APPLYING LAC problems or in new situations SR 3.22 3.25 -.04 3.25 -.03 3.19 .04 During the current school year, about how much reading and writing have you done? 3. Reading and Writing 1=None, 2=1-4, 3=5-10, 4=11-20, 5=More than 20 Number of assigned textbooks, books, or FY 3.34 3.42 -.09 3.27 .07 3.24 .10 a. READASGN LAC book-length packs of course readings SR 3.22 3.34 -.11 3.24 -.02 3.20 .03 Number of books read on your own (not assigned) FY 1.83 2.06 *** -.25 2.11 *** -.29 2.06 *** -.25 b. READOWN for personal enjoyment or academic enrichment SR 2.14 2.20 -.07 2.24 -.10 2.19 -.05 Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or FY 1.13 1.27 *** -.20 1.34 *** -.28 1.28 *** -.21 c. WRITEMOR LAC more SR 1.65 1.69 -.05 1.68 -.04 1.64 .01 Number of written papers or reports between 5 and FY 2.48 2.47 .01 2.30 ** .21 2.29 *** .23 d. WRITEMID LAC 19 pages SR 2.67 2.79 * -.12 2.64 .03 2.58 .10 Number of written papers or reports of fewer than FY 2.85 3.35 *** -.48 3.09 *** -.22 3.04 ** -.18 e. WRITESML LAC 5 pages SR 3.21 3.24 -.03 3.02 ** .16 3.00 ** .18 a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 25 NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size In a typical week, how many homework problem sets do you complete? 4. Problem Sets 1=None, 2=1-2, 3=3-4, 4=5-6, 5=More than 6 Number of problem sets that take you more than an FY 2.62 2.71 -.08 2.66 -.04 2.69 -.06 a. PROBSETA hour to complete SR 2.70 2.64 .05 2.66 .03 2.61 .07 Number of problem sets that take you less than an FY 2.74 2.75 .00 2.79 -.04 2.75 .00 b. PROBSETB hour to complete SR 2.42 2.38 .03 2.42 -.01 2.35 .05 5. Examinations 1=Very little to 7=Very much Select the circle that best represents the extent to which your examinations during the current school EXAMS FY 5.46 5.42 .04 5.33 .11 5.41 .04 yygyyear challenged you to do your best work. SR 5.44 5.39 .04 5.44 .00 5.39 .04 During the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following? 6. Additional Collegiate Experiences 1=Never, 2=Sometimes, 3=Often, 4=Very often Attended an art exhibit, play, dance, music, theatre FY 1.99 2.35 *** -.38 2.27 *** -.30 2.22 *** -.24 a. ATDART07 or other performance SR 1.84 2.21 *** -.39 2.09 *** -.28 2.07 *** -.26 Exercised or participated in physical fitness FY 2.89 2.86 .03 2.77 .11 2.79 .09 b. EXRCSE05 activities SR 2.58 2.69 -.11 2.60 -.02 2.68 -.10 Participated in activities to enhance your FY 1.83 2.12 *** -.26 2.12 *** -.26 2.06 ** -.20 c. WORSHP05 spirituality (worship, meditation, prayer, etc.) SR 1.95 2.15 ** -.18 2.22 *** -.25 2.11 * -.15 Examined the strengths and weaknesses of your FY 2.27 2.68 *** -.47 2.63 *** -.41 2.60 *** -.37 d. OWNVIEW own views on a topic or issue SR 2.54 2.77 *** -.26 2.75 *** -.24 2.69 ** -.16 Tried to better understand someone else's views by e. imagining how an issue looks from his or her OTHRVIEW FY 2.46 2.83 *** -.43 2.77 *** -.35 2.76 *** -.35 perspective SR 2.68 2.89 *** -.25 2.88 *** -.24 2.83 ** -.18 Learned something that changed the way you FY 2.62 2.89 *** -.32 2.87 *** -.30 2.85 *** -.27 f. CHNGVIEW understand an issue or concept SR 2.74 2.95 *** -.26 2.94 *** -.24 2.89 ** -.18 Which of the following have you done or do you plan to do before you graduate from your institution? (Recoded: 0=Have not decided, Do not plan to do, Plan to do; 1=Done. Thus, the mean is the proportion 7. Enriching Educational Experiences responding "Done" among all valid respondents.) Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op FY .02 .09 *** -.27 .10 *** -.28 .08 *** -.24 a. INTERN04 EEE experience, or clinical assignment SR .61 .59 .05 .54 * .15 .53 ** .16 a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 26 NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size FY .39 .43 -.07 .43 -.08 .38 .03 b. Community service or volunteer work VOLNTR04 EEE SR .62 .62 -.01 .62 .00 .60 .05 Participate in a learning community or some other c. formal program where groups of students take two LRNCOM04 EEE FY .09 .14 * -.14 .18 *** -.23 .16 *** -.19 or more classes together SR .24 .26 -.04 .29 -.11 .26 -.04 Work on a research project with a faculty member d. RESRCH04 SFI FY .04 .05 -.06 .08 ** -.15 .05 -.08 outside of course or program requirements SR .13 .20 *** -.20 .20 *** -.20 .20 *** -.18 FY .14 .27 *** -.30 .19 * -.13 .22 *** -.20 e. Foreign language coursework FORLNG04 EEE SR .28 .41 *** -.28 .40 *** -.24 .41 *** -.27 FY .01 .03 ** -.12 .05 *** -.19 .03 *** -.13 f. Study abroad STDABR04 EEE SR .13 .19 ** -.15 .14 -.01 .15 -.05 FY .02 .03 -.09 .06 *** -.20 .04 ** -.13 g. Independent study or self-designed major INDSTD04 EEE SR .10 .23 *** -.31 .25 *** -.35 .18 *** -.22 Culminating senior experience (capstone course, FY .01 .02 -.04 .03 * -.10 .02 -.06 h. SNRX04 EEE senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, etc.) SR .55 .43 *** .25 .34 *** .44 .32 *** .49 Select the circle that best represents the quality of your relationships with people at your institution. 8. Quality of Relationships 1=Unfriendly, Unsupportive, Sense of alienation to 7=Friendly, Supportive, Sense of belonging FY 5.43 5.60 -.12 5.53 -.07 5.47 -.03 a. Relationships with other students ENVSTU SCE SR 5.54 5.63 -.06 5.63 -.07 5.59 -.04 1=Unavailable, Unhelpful, Unsympathetic to 7=Available, Helpful, Sympathetic FY 4.97 5.47 *** -.39 5.36 *** -.29 5.19 * -.16 b. Relationships with faculty members ENVFAC SCE SR 5.27 5.64 *** -.28 5.68 *** -.30 5.41 -.10 1=Unhelpful, Inconsiderate, Rigid to 7=Helpful, Considerate, Flexible Relationships with administrative personnel and FY 4.42 4.84 *** -.27 4.82 *** -.25 4.65 * -.14 c. ENVADM SCE offices SR 4.26 4.67 *** -.24 4.79 *** -.31 4.53 ** -.16

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 27 NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size About how many hours do you spend in a typical 7-day week doing each of the following? 1=0 hrs/wk, 2=1-5 hrs/wk, 3=6-10 hrs/wk, 4=11-15 hrs/wk, 5=16-20 hrs/wk, 6=21-25 hrs/wk, 7=26-30 hrs/wk, 9. Time Usage 8=More than 30 hrs/wk Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, a. doing homework or lab work, analyzing data, FY 4.23 4.27 -.03 3.91 ** .20 4.04 .12 ACADPR01 LAC rehearsing, and other academic activities) SR 4.45 4.27 .10 4.12 ** .19 4.14 ** .18 FY 2.14 1.59 *** .47 1.61 *** .41 1.55 *** .48 b. Working for pay on campus WORKON01 SR 1.85 1.83 .02 1.77 .05 1.79 .04 FY 2.04 2.28 -.11 2.50 *** -.20 2.46 *** -.18 c. Working for pay off campus WORKOF01 SR 4.80 3.92 *** .31 4.17 *** .22 3.79 *** .36 Participating in co-curricular activities (organizations, campus publications, student d. government, fraternity or sorority, intercollegiate COCURR01 EEE FY 2.26 2.49 * -.14 2.29 -.02 2.26 .00 or intramural sports, etc.) SR 1.96 2.23 ** -.17 2.08 -.08 2.11 -.10 Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, FY 3.65 3.74 -.05 3.76 -.06 3.77 -.07 e. SOCIAL05 partying, etc.) SR 3.24 3.44 * -.13 3.35 -.07 3.49 ** -.16 Providing care for dependents living with you FY 1.27 1.67 *** -.26 1.93 *** -.36 1.79 *** -.31 f. CAREDE01 (parents, children, spouse, etc.) SR 2.35 2.31 .02 2.89 *** -.20 2.38 -.01 FY 1.90 2.08 ** -.18 2.28 *** -.30 2.26 *** -.33 g. Commuting to class (driving, walking, etc.) COMMUTE SR 2.25 2.24 .01 2.33 -.07 2.36 -.11 To what extent does your institution emphasize each of the following? 10. Institutional Environment 1=Very little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a bit, 4=Very much Spending significant amounts of time studying and FY 3.13 3.18 -.06 3.11 .03 3.14 -.01 a. ENVSCHOL LAC on academic work SR 3.13 3.19 -.08 3.16 -.03 3.14 -.01 Providing the support you need to help you FY 3.09 3.18 -.11 3.09 .00 3.07 .03 b. ENVSUPRT SCE succeed academically SR 2.89 3.05 ** -.21 3.09 *** -.24 2.93 -.06 Encouraging contact among students from different FY 2.54 2.82 *** -.29 2.72 ** -.18 2.70 * -.16 c. ENVDIVRS EEE economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds SR 2.32 2.59 *** -.27 2.61 *** -.29 2.50 ** -.18

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 28 NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Helping you cope with your non-academic FY 2.34 2.33 .02 2.34 .01 2.27 .08 d. ENVNACAD SCE responsibilities (work, family, etc.) SR 1.88 2.06 ** -.19 2.13 *** -.26 1.99 -.12 FY 2.38 2.54 * -.16 2.53 * -.16 2.49 -.11 e. Providing the support you need to thrive socially ENVSOCAL SCE SR 2.06 2.25 *** -.20 2.30 *** -.25 2.23 ** -.18 Attending campus events and activities (special f. speakers, cultural performances, athletic ENVEVENT FY 2.80 2.89 -.11 2.87 -.08 2.84 -.04 events, etc.) SR 2.58 2.62 -.04 2.61 -.03 2.61 -.04 FY 3.28 3.29 -.02 3.27 .01 3.31 -.05 g. Using computers in academic work ENVCOMPT SR 3.45 3.46 -.01 3.44 .02 3.46 -.01 To what extent has your experience at this institutioinstitutionn contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in the following areas? 11. Educational and Personal Growth 1=Very little, 2=Some, 3=Quite a bit, 4=Very much FY 3.08 3.24 ** -.20 3.18 -.13 3.20 * -.15 a. Acquiring a broad general education GNGENLED SR 3.23 3.36 ** -.17 3.36 ** -.17 3.29 -.07 Acquiring job or work-related knowledge FY 2.89 2.90 -.01 2.82 .07 2.80 .10 b. GNWORK and skills SR 3.05 3.11 -.07 3.15 * -.12 3.07 -.03 FY 2.98 3.10 * -.14 3.07 -.10 3.02 -.04 c. Writing clearly and effectively GNWRITE SR 2.89 3.21 *** -.38 3.23 *** -.41 3.11 *** -.26 FY 2.76 2.91 * -.17 2.92 * -.18 2.85 -.09 d. Speaking clearly and effectively GNSPEAK SR 2.80 3.10 *** -.35 3.13 *** -.38 3.00 *** -.23 FY 3.06 3.28 *** -.29 3.20 * -.18 3.21 ** -.19 e. Thinking critically and analytically GNANALY SR 3.27 3.44 *** -.23 3.41 ** -.19 3.36 -.12 FY 2.78 2.96 ** -.20 2.94 ** -.18 2.96 ** -.21 f. Analyzing quantitative problems GNQUANT SR 3.00 3.09 -.10 3.11 -.12 3.08 -.09 FY 3.07 3.02 .06 3.02 .06 3.04 .03 g. Using computing and information technology GNCMPTS SR 3.06 3.17 -.12 3.25 *** -.22 3.22 ** -.18 FY 2.97 3.06 -.11 3.04 -.08 2.99 -.03 h. Working effectively with others GNOTHERS SR 3.05 3.23 *** -.22 3.23 *** -.22 3.17 * -.14 a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 29 NSSE 2008 Mean Comparisons Carroll College

Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Bench- Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Variable mark Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size FY 2.08 2.04 .04 2.20 -.11 2.24 * -.15 i. Voting in local, state, or national elections GNCITIZN SR 1.97 1.99 -.02 2.13 * -.15 2.11 * -.13 FY 2.80 2.94 * -.17 2.98 ** -.20 2.96 * -.18 j. Learning effectively on your own GNINQ SR 2.88 3.08 *** -.23 3.14 *** -.30 3.05 ** -.19 FY 2.72 2.85 -.13 2.88 * -.16 2.81 -.09 k. Understanding yourself GNSELF SR 2.53 2.90 *** -.38 2.95 *** -.42 2.83 *** -.30 Understanding people of other racial and ethnic FY 2.36 2.73 *** -.39 2.69 *** -.34 2.67 *** -.32 l. GNDIVERS backgrounds SR 2.33 2.68 *** -.36 2.76 *** -.43 2.64 *** -.32 FY 2462.46 2722.72 *** -.27 2702.70 *** -.26 2692.69 *** -.24 m.Solving complex real-world problems GNPROBSV SR 2.56 2.81 *** -.27 2.85 *** -.30 2.78 *** -.23 FY 2.52 2.78 *** -.27 2.78 *** -.28 2.70 ** -.18 n. Developing a personal code of values and ethics GNETHICS SR 2.47 2.82 *** -.35 2.87 *** -.40 2.71 *** -.23 FY 2.16 2.55 *** -.40 2.55 *** -.39 2.47 *** -.31 o. Contributing to the welfare of your community GNCOMMUN SR 2.27 2.52 *** -.24 2.62 *** -.34 2.48 *** -.20 FY 2.03 2.29 *** -.23 2.34 *** -.28 2.15 -.11 p. Developing a deepened sense of spirituality GNSPIRIT SR 1.82 2.11 *** -.26 2.21 *** -.34 1.96 * -.12

12. Academic Advising 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Excellent Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received at your ADVISE FY 3.02 3.06 -.05 3.03 -.02 3.00 .02 institution? SR 2.75 2.95 *** -.21 3.02 *** -.30 2.85 -.11

13. Satisfaction 1=Poor, 2=Fair, 3=Good, 4=Excellent How would you evaluate your entire educational FY 3.09 3.26 *** -.24 3.16 -.10 3.19 * -.14 ENTIREXP experience at this institution? SR 2.98 3.28 *** -.40 3.25 *** -.36 3.21 *** -.31 14. 1=Definitely no, 2=Probably no, 3=Probably yes, 4=Definitely yes If you could start over again, would you go to the FY 3.02 3.23 *** -.25 3.14 * -.14 3.23 *** -.25 SAMECOLL same institution you are now attending? SR 2.88 3.20 *** -.36 3.21 *** -.38 3.20 *** -.37 IPEDS: 238458 a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. 30 NSSE 2008 Detailed Statistics a Carroll College First-Year Students

N Mean Standard Error of the Mean b Standard Deviation c Degrees of Freedom d Significance e Effect Size f Carroll College Carroll College compared with: compared with: Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class Carroll College Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 College Carroll College Carroll NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 CLQUEST 238 2.67 3.00 2.93 2.78 .05 .01 .01 .00 .79 .82 .82 .85 16,819 12,693 324,968 .000 .000 .043 -.40 -.31 -.13 CLPRESEN 237 2.55 2.47 2.44 2.27 .04 .01 .01 .00 .68 .79 .84 .81 246 250 324,175 .068 .011 .000 .10 .14 .34 REWROPAP 238 3.01 2.65 2.73 2.65 .05 .01 .01 .00 .84 .95 .96 .98 246 250 238 .000 .000 .000 .38 .29 .37 INTEGRAT 238 3.17 3.15 3.12 3.06 .05 .01 .01 .00 .71 .75 .79 .79 16,798 12,659 324,676 .795 .384 .043 .02 .06 .13 DIVCLASS 238 2.63 2.87 2.82 2.78 .05 .01 .01 .00 .85 .85 .89 .88 16,781 12,621 324,159 .000 .001 .007 -.29 -.22 -.18 CLUNPREP 237 1.97 1.96 1.93 2.01 .05 .01 .01 .00 .74 .76 .76 .77 16,723 12,609 323,032 .848 .461 .436 .01 .05 -.05 CLASSGRP 236 2.39 2.46 2.48 2.41 .05 .01 .01 .00 .72 .83 .85 .84 244 247 235 .154 .053 .701 -.08 -.11 -.02 OCCGRP 237 2.62 2.50 2.46 2.40 .05 .01 .01 .00 .74 .85 .90 .88 246 250 237 .013 .001 .000 .14 .18 .25 INTIDEAS 227 2.41 2.72 2.64 2.63 .05 .01 .01 .00 .75 .81 .84 .82 15,878 236 226 .000 .000 .000 -.38 -.28 -.28 TUTOR 227 1.50 1.72 1.74 1.70 .05 .01 .01 .00 .72 .86 .89 .85 235 239 226 .000 .000 .000 -.25 -.28 -.24 COMMPROJ 227 1.56 1.67 1.72 1.60 .05 .01 .01 .00 .77 .86 .89 .84 235 238 304,339 .024 .002 .493 -.14 -.18 -.05 ITACADEM 227 2.48 2.58 2.55 2.59 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.03 15,876 11,981 304,660 .126 .276 .090 -.10 -.07 -.11 EMAIL 227 3.28 3.25 3.13 3.11 .05 .01 .01 .00 .71 .77 .83 .82 234 239 227 .490 .003 .000 .04 .17 .20 FACGRADE 227 2.49 2.69 2.75 2.62 .05 .01 .01 .00 .76 .86 .87 .88 235 238 227 .000 .000 .012 -.23 -.30 -.14 FACPLANS 227 2.15 2.24 2.31 2.19 .05 .01 .01 .00 .81 .89 .93 .90 234 238 227 .097 .004 .441 -.10 -.17 -.05 FACIDEAS 227 1.83 1.97 2.00 1.91 .06 .01 .01 .00 .83 .90 .94 .90 15,873 11,987 304,673 .018 .006 .164 -.16 -.19 -.09 FACFEED 225 2.65 2.78 2.72 2.65 .05 .01 .01 .00 .82 .80 .85 .84 15,545 11,771 298,265 .013 .218 .933 -.17 -.08 -.01 WORKHARD 226 2.60 2.69 2.73 2.65 .06 .01 .01 .00 .83 .84 .86 .85 15,535 11,760 297,966 .096 .024 .330 -.11 -.15 -.06 FACOTHER 225 1.51 1.73 1.81 1.65 .05 .01 .01 .00 .73 .87 .93 .86 233 238 224 .000 .000 .003 -.26 -.32 -.17 OOCIDEAS 226 2.39 2.76 2.74 2.69 .05 .01 .01 .00 .80 .85 .88 .87 15,500 236 225 .000 .000 .000 -.44 -.41 -.35 DIVRSTUD 226 2.24 2.66 2.59 2.60 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.01 .99 1.01 1.01 15,516 11,740 297,709 .000 .000 .000 -.43 -.34 -.36 DIFFSTU2 226 2.41 2.76 2.67 2.70 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.01 .96 .99 .98 15,528 11,743 297,786 .000 .000 .000 -.36 -.26 -.29 MEMORIZE 223 2.93 2.81 2.88 2.90 .06 .01 .01 .00 .86 .89 .89 .87 15,453 11,622 295,365 .052 .368 .557 .13 .06 .04 ANALYZE 222 2.91 3.17 3.06 3.10 .05 .01 .01 .00 .81 .76 .80 .78 15,417 11,609 294,842 .000 .006 .000 -.34 -.19 -.25 SYNTHESZ 220 2.60 2.97 2.88 2.89 .06 .01 .01 .00 .84 .82 .84 .84 225 11,556 294,219 .000 .000 .000 -.44 -.33 -.34 EVALUATE 222 2.73 2.97 2.93 2.90 .06 .01 .01 .00 .87 .82 .85 .85 227 230 294,502 .000 .001 .003 -.29 -.24 -.20 APPLYING 222 2.83 3.08 3.02 3.03 .06 .01 .01 .00 .86 .82 .83 .84 15,414 11,610 294,652 .000 .001 .000 -.31 -.23 -.23 READASGN 221 3.34 3.42 3.27 3.24 .06 .01 .01 .00 .90 .94 .96 .94 15,422 11,578 294,594 .174 .309 .145 -.09 .07 .10 a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption. e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

31 NSSE 2008 Detailed Statistics a Carroll College First-Year Students

N Mean Standard Error of the Mean b Standard Deviation c Degrees of Freedom d Significance e Effect Size f Carroll College Carroll College compared with: compared with: Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class Carroll College Carroll Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 College Carroll College Carroll NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 READOWN 222 1.83 2.06 2.11 2.06 .06 .01 .01 .00 .85 .91 .96 .93 15,432 11,600 294,771 .000 .000 .000 -.25 -.29 -.25 WRITEMOR 221 1.13 1.27 1.34 1.28 .03 .01 .01 .00 .49 .69 .76 .69 233 241 220 .000 .000 .000 -.20 -.28 -.21 WRITEMID 222 2.48 2.47 2.30 2.29 .05 .01 .01 .00 .77 .85 .84 .84 15,427 11,589 294,691 .936 .002 .001 .01 .21 .23 WRITESML 222 2.85 3.35 3.09 3.04 .06 .01 .01 .00 .85 1.03 1.07 1.04 231 235 222 .000 .000 .002 -.48 -.22 -.18 PROBSETA 221 2.62 2.71 2.66 2.69 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.02 1.12 1.11 1.12 227 230 220 .196 .554 .351 -.08 -.04 -.06 PROBSETB 220 2.74 2.75 2.79 2.75 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.10 1.19 1.19 1.20 15,314 11,516 292,768 .944 .576 .975 .00 -.04 .00 EXAMS 221 5.46 5.42 5.33 5.41 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.10 1.20 1.28 1.20 15,410 231 294,360 .554 .072 .536 .04 .11 .04 ATDART07 219 1.99 2.35 2.27 2.22 .06 .01 .01 .00 .83 .95 .94 .93 226 229 218 .000 .000 .000 -.38 -.30 -.24 EXRCSE05 219 2.89 2.86 2.77 2.79 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.02 1.05 1.06 1.04 15,269 11,393 290,698 .671 .106 .182 .03 .11 .09 WORSHP05 217 1.83 2.12 2.12 2.06 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.01 1.09 1.09 1.10 224 226 217 .000 .000 .001 -.26 -.26 -.20 OWNVIEW 218 2.27 2.68 2.63 2.60 .06 .01 .01 .00 .83 .87 .88 .89 224 227 217 .000 .000 .000 -.47 -.41 -.37 OTHRVIEW 218 2.46 2.83 2.77 2.76 .06 .01 .01 .00 .86 .84 .87 .86 15,292 11,414 290,984 .000 .000 .000 -.43 -.35 -.35 CHNGVIEW 219 2.62 2.89 2.87 2.85 .06 .01 .01 .00 .89 .83 .83 .83 223 225 218 .000 .000 .000 -.32 -.30 -.27 INTERN04 215 .02 .09 .10 .08 .01 .00 .00 .00 .13 .29 .30 .27 249 265 215 .000 .000 .000 -.27 -.28 -.24 VOLNTR04 215 .39 .43 .43 .38 .03 .00 .00 .00 .49 .49 .50 .49 220 222 285,166 .305 .223 .714 -.07 -.08 .03 LRNCOM04 216 .09 .14 .18 .16 .02 .00 .00 .00 .29 .34 .38 .37 224 230 215 .019 .000 .000 -.14 -.23 -.19 RESRCH04 214 .04 .05 .08 .05 .01 .00 .00 .00 .19 .22 .26 .23 14,977 230 213 .380 .002 .168 -.06 -.15 -.08 FORLNG04 216 .14 .27 .19 .22 .02 .00 .00 .00 .34 .44 .39 .41 225 226 215 .000 .030 .000 -.30 -.13 -.20 STDABR04 216 .01 .03 .05 .03 .01 .00 .00 .00 .09 .16 .22 .17 236 268 216 .003 .000 .000 -.12 -.19 -.13 INDSTD04 215 .02 .03 .06 .04 .01 .00 .00 .00 .12 .17 .24 .20 226 247 215 .076 .000 .003 -.09 -.20 -.13 SNRX04 215 .01 .02 .03 .02 .01 .00 .00 .00 .11 .13 .17 .14 15,004 234 285,171 .571 .031 .361 -.04 -.10 -.06 ENVSTU 217 5.43 5.60 5.53 5.47 .10 .01 .01 .00 1.51 1.40 1.44 1.42 15,037 11,173 285,110 .068 .310 .633 -.12 -.07 -.03 ENVFAC 217 4.97 5.47 5.36 5.19 .09 .01 .01 .00 1.30 1.27 1.37 1.36 15,033 11,175 285,360 .000 .000 .018 -.39 -.29 -.16 ENVADM 216 4.42 4.84 4.82 4.65 .10 .01 .02 .00 1.40 1.53 1.60 1.55 15,033 227 216 .000 .000 .020 -.27 -.25 -.14 ACADPR01 216 4.23 4.27 3.91 4.04 .11 .01 .02 .00 1.57 1.62 1.59 1.61 14,874 11,067 282,846 .691 .004 .085 -.03 .20 .12 WORKON01 215 2.14 1.59 1.61 1.55 .08 .01 .01 .00 1.20 1.16 1.31 1.25 220 11,070 214 .000 .000 .000 .47 .41 .48 WORKOF01 216 2.04 2.28 2.50 2.46 .12 .02 .02 .00 1.83 2.20 2.35 2.32 224 229 215 .052 .000 .001 -.11 -.20 -.18 COCURR01 214 2.26 2.49 2.29 2.26 .10 .01 .02 .00 1.45 1.66 1.63 1.56 221 224 282,785 .024 .785 .977 -.14 -.02 .00 a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption. e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

32 NSSE 2008 Detailed Statistics a Carroll College First-Year Students

N Mean Standard Error of the Mean b Standard Deviation c Degrees of Freedom d Significance e Effect Size f Carroll College Carroll College compared with: compared with: Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class Carroll College Carroll Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 College Carroll College Carroll NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 SOCIAL05 214 3.65 3.74 3.76 3.77 .11 .01 .02 .00 1.56 1.63 1.70 1.66 14,882 223 282,239 .425 .341 .328 -.05 -.06 -.07 CAREDE01 213 1.27 1.67 1.93 1.79 .05 .01 .02 .00 .71 1.59 1.84 1.70 244 271 214 .000 .000 .000 -.26 -.36 -.31 COMMUTE 215 1.90 2.08 2.28 2.26 .06 .01 .01 .00 .83 1.03 1.27 1.10 14,885 234 214 .009 .000 .000 -.18 -.30 -.33 ENVSCHOL 208 3.13 3.18 3.11 3.14 .05 .01 .01 .00 .71 .75 .78 .76 214 217 207 .333 .661 .833 -.06 .03 -.01 ENVSUPRT 207 3.09 3.18 3.09 3.07 .05 .01 .01 .00 .77 .78 .82 .80 14,734 10,937 278,494 .108 .989 .705 -.11 .00 .03 ENVDIVRS 209 2.54 2.82 2.72 2.70 .07 .01 .01 .00 .97 .96 .97 .97 14,722 10,932 278,438 .000 .010 .024 -.29 -.18 -.16 ENVNACAD 208 2.34 2.33 2.34 2.27 .06 .01 .01 .00 .91 .95 .98 .96 14,712 10,916 278,246 .787 .939 .238 .02 .01 .08 ENVSOCAL 208 2.38 2.54 2.53 2.49 .06 .01 .01 .00 .88 .93 .94 .93 14,671 10,859 277,386 .019 .023 .106 -.16 -.16 -.11 ENVEVENT 209 2.80 2.89 2.87 2.84 .06 .01 .01 .00 .87 .92 .93 .93 14,714 10,909 278,210 .128 .268 .552 -.11 -.08 -.04 ENVCOMPT 209 3.28 3.29 3.27 3.31 .05 .01 .01 .00 .75 .79 .81 .79 14,725 10,918 278,611 .747 .887 .498 -.02 .01 -.05 GNGENLED 206 3.08 3.24 3.18 3.20 .05 .01 .01 .00 .76 .78 .80 .78 212 215 206 .003 .058 .025 -.20 -.13 -.15 GNWORK 206 2.89 2.90 2.82 2.80 .06 .01 .01 .00 .84 .92 .94 .94 212 216 206 .825 .237 .123 -.01 .07 .10 GNWRITE 206 2.98 3.10 3.07 3.02 .05 .01 .01 .00 .78 .85 .85 .86 212 215 206 .035 .126 .540 -.14 -.10 -.04 GNSPEAK 206 2.76 2.91 2.92 2.85 .06 .01 .01 .00 .87 .90 .90 .92 14,501 10,702 273,678 .017 .012 .176 -.17 -.18 -.09 GNANALY 206 3.06 3.28 3.20 3.21 .05 .01 .01 .00 .78 .77 .79 .78 210 213 205 .000 .010 .006 -.29 -.18 -.19 GNQUANT 206 2.78 2.96 2.94 2.96 .06 .01 .01 .00 .87 .89 .88 .87 14,466 10,699 273,115 .004 .009 .003 -.20 -.18 -.21 GNCMPTS 206 3.07 3.02 3.02 3.04 .05 .01 .01 .00 .79 .89 .89 .89 14,493 10,701 206 .413 .413 .598 .06 .06 .03 GNOTHERS 206 2.97 3.06 3.04 2.99 .06 .01 .01 .00 .85 .86 .86 .88 14,482 10,646 273,460 .111 .231 .719 -.11 -.08 -.03 GNCITIZN 204 2.08 2.04 2.20 2.24 .07 .01 .01 .00 .96 1.02 1.07 1.06 14,249 213 203 .583 .075 .016 .04 -.11 -.15 GNINQ 202 2.80 2.94 2.98 2.96 .05 .01 .01 .00 .76 .84 .85 .86 14,235 10,522 268,772 .020 .004 .011 -.17 -.20 -.18 GNSELF 203 2.72 2.85 2.88 2.81 .07 .01 .01 .00 .94 .94 .95 .96 14,255 10,518 268,632 .060 .020 .197 -.13 -.16 -.09 GNDIVERS 202 2.36 2.73 2.69 2.67 .07 .01 .01 .00 .98 .96 .96 .96 14,261 10,538 268,850 .000 .000 .000 -.39 -.34 -.32 GNPROBSV 204 2.46 2.72 2.70 2.69 .06 .01 .01 .00 .92 .92 .93 .93 14,240 10,528 268,823 .000 .000 .001 -.27 -.26 -.24 GNETHICS 200 2.52 2.78 2.78 2.70 .07 .01 .01 .00 .98 .97 .96 .99 14,241 10,505 268,768 .000 .000 .010 -.27 -.28 -.18 GNCOMMUN 204 2.16 2.55 2.55 2.47 .06 .01 .01 .00 .90 .97 1.01 .99 210 213 203 .000 .000 .000 -.40 -.39 -.31 GNSPIRIT 204 2.03 2.29 2.34 2.15 .07 .01 .01 .00 .97 1.10 1.10 1.09 210 213 203 .000 .000 .087 -.23 -.28 -.11 ADVISE 204 3.02 3.06 3.03 3.00 .05 .01 .01 .00 .76 .83 .82 .84 210 10,658 272,232 .443 .773 .811 -.05 -.02 .02 ENTIREXP 204 3.09 3.26 3.16 3.19 .05 .01 .01 .00 .65 .72 .74 .72 210 213 203 .000 .115 .025 -.24 -.10 -.14 SAMECOLL 204 3.02 3.23 3.14 3.23 .06 .01 .01 .00 .88 .83 .85 .82 14,460 10,664 272,425 .000 .046 .000 -.25 -.14 -.25 a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. IPEDS: 238458 d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption. e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation. 33 NSSE 2008 Detailed Statistics a Carroll College Seniors

N Mean Standard Error of the Mean b Standard Deviation c Degrees of Freedom d Significance e Effect Size f Carroll College Carroll College compared with: compared with: Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 CLQUEST 279 3.22 3.27 3.28 3.07 .05 .01 .01 .00 .79 .79 .80 .86 16,883 11,065 328,966 .299 .205 .003 -.06 -.08 .18 CLPRESEN 281 3.18 2.99 2.91 2.80 .05 .01 .01 .00 .78 .82 .88 .87 16,876 299 281 .000 .000 .000 .23 .30 .44 REWROPAP 281 2.46 2.46 2.62 2.47 .06 .01 .01 .00 .93 .98 .99 .97 16,865 297 328,712 .966 .004 .805 .00 -.16 -.01 INTEGRAT 281 3.36 3.39 3.40 3.30 .04 .01 .01 .00 .70 .70 .72 .74 16,853 11,079 328,674 .527 .411 .177 -.04 -.05 .08 DIVCLASS 281 2.81 2.93 2.96 2.81 .05 .01 .01 .00 .85 .88 .89 .92 16,820 11,050 281 .020 .005 .878 -.14 -.17 -.01 CLUNPREP 276 1.92 2.02 1.92 2.10 .05 .01 .01 .00 .76 .78 .77 .79 16,776 11,003 327,169 .047 .903 .000 -.12 .01 -.23 CLASSGRP 280 2.58 2.55 2.56 2.52 .05 .01 .01 .00 .84 .88 .89 .88 16,837 11,056 328,384 .572 .721 .308 .03 .02 .06 OCCGRP 280 2.85 2.79 2.66 2.75 .05 .01 .01 .00 .82 .87 .94 .91 16,869 298 280 .297 .000 .043 .06 .21 .11 INTIDEAS 267 2.97 2.99 2.97 2.94 .05 .01 .01 .00 .76 .80 .82 .81 16,347 282 266 .628 .940 .570 -.03 .00 .03 TUTOR 267 2.01 1.90 1.85 1.88 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.07 .97 .96 .96 273 277 266 .089 .021 .052 .11 .16 .13 COMMPROJ 266 1.71 1.78 1.86 1.74 .05 .01 .01 .00 .84 .91 .95 .91 16,321 282 265 .206 .003 .526 -.08 -.16 -.04 ITACADEM 267 2.81 2.82 2.82 2.82 .06 .01 .01 .00 .99 1.02 1.04 1.02 16,339 10,763 317,609 .946 .874 .865 .00 -.01 -.01 EMAIL 266 3.46 3.49 3.39 3.38 .04 .01 .01 .00 .68 .69 .76 .75 16,324 282 265 .380 .120 .058 -.05 .09 .11 FACGRADE 267 2.77 2.87 2.95 2.81 .05 .01 .01 .00 .86 .87 .88 .88 16,330 10,719 317,359 .081 .001 .481 -.11 -.21 -.04 FACPLANS 266 2.43 2.51 2.60 2.42 .06 .01 .01 .00 .98 .98 .97 .96 16,332 10,761 317,379 .200 .006 .857 -.08 -.17 .01 FACIDEAS 266 2.17 2.21 2.24 2.12 .06 .01 .01 .00 .93 .95 .95 .93 16,336 10,749 317,547 .452 .218 .422 -.05 -.08 .05 FACFEED 268 2.78 2.94 2.92 2.80 .05 .01 .01 .00 .82 .79 .80 .81 276 281 314,213 .002 .005 .725 -.20 -.18 -.02 WORKHARD 268 2.74 2.77 2.84 2.73 .05 .01 .01 .00 .85 .85 .84 .85 16,193 10,674 313,945 .573 .061 .852 -.03 -.12 .01 FACOTHER 268 1.87 1.95 1.93 1.84 .06 .01 .01 .00 .98 .99 .99 .95 16,181 10,655 313,706 .202 .297 .642 -.08 -.06 .03 OOCIDEAS 267 2.82 2.87 2.90 2.84 .05 .01 .01 .00 .83 .85 .87 .85 16,180 10,669 313,686 .372 .117 .643 -.06 -.10 -.03 DIVRSTUD 268 2.43 2.67 2.64 2.67 .06 .01 .01 .00 .95 .98 .99 .99 16,178 283 313,826 .000 .001 .000 -.24 -.21 -.24 DIFFSTU2 268 2.58 2.73 2.68 2.72 .05 .01 .01 .00 .87 .96 .97 .96 278 285 268 .005 .055 .010 -.16 -.11 -.14 MEMORIZE 266 2.79 2.66 2.69 2.75 .06 .01 .01 .00 .91 .93 .94 .92 16,099 10,630 312,148 .035 .098 .571 .13 .10 .03 ANALYZE 266 3.22 3.31 3.27 3.24 .05 .01 .01 .00 .74 .72 .74 .75 16,093 10,609 311,790 .049 .226 .607 -.12 -.08 -.03 SYNTHESZ 266 3.04 3.13 3.11 3.05 .05 .01 .01 .00 .83 .81 .81 .83 16,072 10,599 311,149 .085 .185 .840 -.11 -.08 -.01 EVALUATE 266 3.06 3.08 3.08 3.01 .05 .01 .01 .00 .81 .85 .85 .87 16,073 10,614 311,542 .735 .673 .320 -.02 -.03 .06 APPLYING 266 3.22 3.25 3.25 3.19 .05 .01 .01 .00 .79 .79 .79 .82 16,089 10,614 311,725 .555 .613 .557 -.04 -.03 .04 READASGN 265 3.22 3.34 3.24 3.20 .06 .01 .01 .00 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.02 16,036 10,578 311,202 .079 .769 .646 -.11 -.02 .03 a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption. e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

34 NSSE 2008 Detailed Statistics a Carroll College Seniors

N Mean Standard Error of the Mean b Standard Deviation c Degrees of Freedom d Significance e Effect Size f Carroll College Carroll College compared with: compared with: Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 READOWN 266 2.14 2.20 2.24 2.19 .06 .01 .01 .00 .99 .98 1.00 .98 16,057 10,590 311,394 .272 .105 .385 -.07 -.10 -.05 WRITEMOR 266 1.65 1.69 1.68 1.64 .05 .01 .01 .00 .75 .80 .82 .79 16,060 10,590 311,339 .432 .512 .826 -.05 -.04 .01 WRITEMID 266 2.67 2.79 2.64 2.58 .06 .01 .01 .00 .91 .99 .97 .96 16,060 10,594 311,436 .048 .647 .118 -.12 .03 .10 WRITESML 264 3.21 3.24 3.02 3.00 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.18 1.16 1.20 1.16 16,062 10,580 311,421 .652 .009 .003 -.03 .16 .18 PROBSETA 262 2.70 2.64 2.66 2.61 .08 .01 .01 .00 1.24 1.23 1.19 1.21 15,908 10,476 309,112 .459 .608 .245 .05 .03 .07 PROBSETB 260 2.42 2.38 2.42 2.35 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.21 15,872 10,429 308,076 .600 .907 .414 .03 -.01 .05 EXAMS 264 5.44 5.39 5.44 5.39 .08 .01 .01 .00 1.36 1.30 1.34 1.29 16,034 10,508 310,791 .484 .991 .525 .04 .00 .04 ATDART07 264 1.84 2.21 2.09 2.07 .05 .01 .01 .00 .87 .94 .91 .91 274 10,515 308,587 .000 .000 .000 -.39 -.28 -.26 EXRCSE05 263 2.58 2.69 2.60 2.68 .07 .01 .01 .00 1.11 1.06 1.06 1.05 15,917 10,491 263 .088 .700 .146 -.11 -.02 -.10 WORSHP05 263 1.95 2.15 2.22 2.11 .06 .01 .01 .00 1.05 1.09 1.12 1.12 15,926 278 263 .004 .000 .012 -.18 -.25 -.15 OWNVIEW 264 2.54 2.77 2.75 2.69 .05 .01 .01 .00 .86 .87 .88 .89 15,924 10,502 308,388 .000 .000 .009 -.26 -.24 -.16 OTHRVIEW 264 2.68 2.89 2.88 2.83 .05 .01 .01 .00 .87 .84 .84 .85 272 276 308,421 .000 .000 .003 -.25 -.24 -.18 CHNGVIEW 262 2.74 2.95 2.94 2.89 .05 .01 .01 .00 .83 .81 .81 .82 270 274 308,473 .000 .000 .003 -.26 -.24 -.18 INTERN04 262 .61 .59 .54 .53 .03 .00 .00 .00 .49 .49 .50 .50 15,770 276 262 .422 .019 .007 .05 .15 .16 VOLNTR04 261 .62 .62 .62 .60 .03 .00 .00 .00 .49 .49 .49 .49 15,758 10,391 304,535 .920 .969 .458 -.01 .00 .05 LRNCOM04 260 .24 .26 .29 .26 .03 .00 .00 .00 .43 .44 .46 .44 15,734 274 304,331 .571 .059 .511 -.04 -.11 -.04 RESRCH04 262 .13 .20 .20 .20 .02 .00 .00 .00 .33 .40 .40 .40 275 282 262 .000 .000 .000 -.20 -.20 -.18 FORLNG04 262 .28 .41 .40 .41 .03 .00 .00 .00 .45 .49 .49 .49 272 278 262 .000 .000 .000 -.28 -.24 -.27 STDABR04 260 .13 .19 .14 .15 .02 .00 .00 .00 .34 .39 .34 .36 271 10,338 304,192 .007 .823 .432 -.15 -.01 -.05 INDSTD04 261 .10 .23 .25 .18 .02 .00 .00 .00 .30 .42 .43 .39 278 289 261 .000 .000 .000 -.31 -.35 -.22 SNRX04 262 .55 .43 .34 .32 .03 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 .48 .47 15,754 274 262 .000 .000 .000 .25 .44 .49 ENVSTU 262 5.54 5.63 5.63 5.59 .08 .01 .01 .00 1.30 1.36 1.39 1.37 15,775 10,371 304,674 .304 .296 .537 -.06 -.07 -.04 ENVFAC 262 5.27 5.64 5.68 5.41 .09 .01 .01 .00 1.51 1.29 1.34 1.37 268 272 304,823 .000 .000 .109 -.28 -.30 -.10 ENVADM 262 4.26 4.67 4.79 4.53 .10 .01 .02 .00 1.68 1.69 1.72 1.69 15,779 10,375 304,439 .000 .000 .010 -.24 -.31 -.16 ACADPR01 257 4.45 4.27 4.12 4.14 .11 .01 .02 .00 1.76 1.72 1.73 1.74 15,669 10,329 302,642 .104 .003 .004 .10 .19 .18 WORKON01 260 1.85 1.83 1.77 1.79 .09 .01 .02 .00 1.46 1.46 1.55 1.55 15,654 10,323 302,451 .804 .393 .509 .02 .05 .04 WORKOF01 261 4.80 3.92 4.17 3.79 .16 .02 .03 .01 2.53 2.87 2.93 2.81 272 279 261 .000 .000 .000 .31 .22 .36 COCURR01 261 1.96 2.23 2.08 2.11 .09 .01 .02 .00 1.51 1.65 1.56 1.55 271 10,316 302,738 .003 .219 .114 -.17 -.08 -.10 a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption. e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

35 NSSE 2008 Detailed Statistics a Carroll College Seniors

N Mean Standard Error of the Mean b Standard Deviation c Degrees of Freedom d Significance e Effect Size f Carroll College Carroll College compared with: compared with: Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Carroll College Carroll Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 SOCIAL05 260 3.24 3.44 3.35 3.49 .09 .01 .01 .00 1.40 1.51 1.50 1.54 269 10,312 260 .024 .238 .005 -.13 -.07 -.16 CAREDE01 260 2.35 2.31 2.89 2.38 .15 .02 .03 .00 2.39 2.27 2.64 2.31 15,636 276 301,826 .780 .000 .812 .02 -.20 -.01 COMMUTE 260 2.25 2.24 2.33 2.36 .06 .01 .01 .00 .96 1.05 1.16 1.04 270 279 260 .880 .212 .055 .01 -.07 -.11 ENVSCHOL 258 3.13 3.19 3.16 3.14 .05 .01 .01 .00 .73 .76 .77 .77 15,573 10,263 300,325 .216 .610 .858 -.08 -.03 -.01 ENVSUPRT 258 2.89 3.05 3.09 2.93 .05 .01 .01 .00 .81 .82 .83 .84 15,542 10,251 299,851 .001 .000 .358 -.21 -.24 -.06 ENVDIVRS 256 2.32 2.59 2.61 2.50 .06 .01 .01 .00 .94 .99 .99 .99 264 269 255 .000 .000 .002 -.27 -.29 -.18 ENVNACAD 258 1.88 2.06 2.13 1.99 .05 .01 .01 .00 .88 .95 .99 .94 15,535 274 299,451 .003 .000 .052 -.19 -.26 -.12 ENVSOCAL 253 2.06 2.25 2.30 2.23 .05 .01 .01 .00 .86 .94 .96 .94 263 269 253 .001 .000 .002 -.20 -.25 -.18 ENVEVENT 257 2.58 2.62 2.61 2.61 .06 .01 .01 .00 .93 .97 1.01 .96 15,509 271 299,018 .513 .610 .543 -.04 -.03 -.04 ENVCOMPT 257 3.45 3.46 3.44 3.46 .05 .01 .01 .00 .73 .74 .76 .74 15,550 10,240 300,026 .831 .774 .884 -.01 .02 -.01 GNGENLED 254 3.23 3.36 3.36 3.29 .05 .01 .01 .00 .75 .77 .76 .79 15,416 10,175 296,854 .009 .009 .251 -.17 -.17 -.07 GNWORK 254 3.05 3.11 3.15 3.07 .05 .01 .01 .00 .84 .92 .89 .93 263 267 253 .239 .047 .652 -.07 -.12 -.03 GNWRITE 254 2.89 3.21 3.23 3.11 .05 .01 .01 .00 .86 .84 .82 .86 15,416 10,157 296,596 .000 .000 .000 -.38 -.41 -.26 GNSPEAK 254 2.80 3.10 3.13 3.00 .06 .01 .01 .00 .90 .88 .87 .90 15,411 10,166 296,473 .000 .000 .000 -.35 -.38 -.23 GNANALY 253 3.27 3.44 3.41 3.36 .05 .01 .01 .00 .77 .72 .74 .76 15,395 10,163 296,378 .000 .003 .064 -.23 -.19 -.12 GNQUANT 254 3.00 3.09 3.11 3.08 .05 .01 .01 .00 .88 .89 .88 .88 262 10,158 296,085 .125 .053 .151 -.10 -.12 -.09 GNCMPTS 254 3.06 3.17 3.25 3.22 .05 .01 .01 .00 .86 .88 .84 .85 15,403 10,171 296,607 .056 .001 .004 -.12 -.22 -.18 GNOTHERS 254 3.05 3.23 3.23 3.17 .05 .01 .01 .00 .82 .83 .84 .85 261 266 253 .000 .001 .020 -.22 -.22 -.14 GNCITIZN 252 1.97 1.99 2.13 2.11 .06 .01 .01 .00 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.05 15,243 266 251 .764 .015 .026 -.02 -.15 -.13 GNINQ 252 2.88 3.08 3.14 3.05 .05 .01 .01 .00 .87 .87 .87 .88 15,228 10,057 293,092 .000 .000 .002 -.23 -.30 -.19 GNSELF 251 2.53 2.90 2.95 2.83 .06 .01 .01 .00 .96 .97 .99 1.00 15,236 10,053 293,171 .000 .000 .000 -.38 -.42 -.30 GNDIVERS 251 2.33 2.68 2.76 2.64 .06 .01 .01 .00 .97 .98 .99 .99 15,232 10,035 293,077 .000 .000 .000 -.36 -.43 -.32 GNPROBSV 250 2.56 2.81 2.85 2.78 .06 .01 .01 .00 .93 .94 .95 .95 15,232 10,053 293,163 .000 .000 .000 -.27 -.30 -.23 GNETHICS 252 2.47 2.82 2.87 2.71 .06 .01 .01 .00 .98 1.00 1.01 1.03 15,246 10,058 293,123 .000 .000 .000 -.35 -.40 -.23 GNCOMMUN 251 2.27 2.52 2.62 2.48 .06 .01 .01 .00 .89 1.02 1.03 1.02 261 267 250 .000 .000 .000 -.24 -.34 -.20 GNSPIRIT 251 1.82 2.11 2.21 1.96 .06 .01 .01 .00 .97 1.11 1.14 1.09 261 268 250 .000 .000 .028 -.26 -.34 -.12 ADVISE 256 2.75 2.95 3.02 2.85 .06 .01 .01 .00 .88 .95 .90 .95 15,394 10,149 295,911 .001 .000 .080 -.21 -.30 -.11 ENTIREXP 256 2.98 3.28 3.25 3.21 .05 .01 .01 .00 .72 .74 .75 .74 264 269 255 .000 .000 .000 -.40 -.36 -.31 SAMECOLL 256 2.88 3.20 3.21 3.20 .06 .01 .01 .00 .95 .87 .86 .86 15,394 10,146 295,941 .000 .000 .000 -.36 -.38 -.37 a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean. c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution. IPEDS: 238458 d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption. e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation. 36 Carroll College

Multi-Year Benchmark Report August 2008 Interpreting the Multi-Year Benchmark Report

For institutions that have participated in NSSE across multiple years, this Multi-Year Benchmark Report presents recalculated and comparable benchmark scores by year so that patterns of change or stability are discernible. It also provides statistics such as number of respondents, standard deviation, and standard error so that shorthand mean comparison tests can be calculated. This report is necessary because improvements and modifications have been made over time to NSSE survey items, the construction of benchmarks, and the production of institutional reports, making multi-year analysis of NSSE data more complex. Specifically, the following issues are relevant: • All items in question 7 were rescaled in 2004, making it untenable to compare newer results on these items with those of 2003 and earlier. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the 2004-2008 Enriching Educational Experiences benchmark with prior years (2001-2003). An alternate version of the Student-Faculty Interaction benchmark – labeled ‘SFC’ – is also provided with the ‘research with faculty’ item removed, allowing this benchmark to be compared with prior years (2001-2003). • In 2004 NSSE changed the way benchmarks were calculated, requiring that benchmarks prior to 2004 be recalculated to more accurately compare institutional performance across years. • Scores from NSSE 2000 are not included because several significant changes were made to the survey instrument and benchmarks beginning in 2001, thus making year-to-year comparisons unsuitable. • The types of respondents used to develop institutional estimates have been refined in recent years, making direct comparisons of reported benchmarks over the years potentially less stable. This report has three main parts: (a) a table of data quality indicators (p. 3), which provides a quick reference to important statistics for each year’s participation, (b) multi-year charts, and (c) detailed statistics. Key terms and features of (b) and (c) are described below using data from the fictional “NSSEville State University.” Foooeoatoadecoedatosr more information and recommendations foro aaaynalyzing gNSSdata NSSE data over t ime ,,cosutt consult the Multiulti-Year D ata A nalysis Guide: www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf. Key Terms and Features in this Report Multi-year charts appear on pages 4 & 6. Y-Axis Error Bars/Confidence Benchmarks are computed on Intervals a 0 to 100 scale, however Error bars around each nearly all institutional scores benchmark score show the upper are between the y-axis values and lower bounds of the 95% of 15 and 85. confidence interval (mean +/- 1.96 * SEM), a range of values 95% likely to contain the true population score. "Upper" and Benchmark Score "Lower" limits are reported in the The benchmark score is the detailed statistics tables. Where weighted average of the confidence intervals do not student-level scores, using overlap between years, a only randomly sampled statistically significant difference students from each year's (p < .05) is likely to be present. data.

n Unweighted number of Year respondents represented All NSSE administration years in the data. Multi-year detailed statistics are listed regardless of appear on pages 5 & 7. participation. SEM Standard error of the mean is how much a score based on a SD sample may differ from the Standard deviation, the true population score. SEM is average amount by which used to compute confidence students' scores differ from intervals. the mean.

2 NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report Data Quality Indicators

Carroll College

Some NSSE administrations yield more precise population estimates than others. The values in this table were drawn from the Respondent Characteristics reports for each NSSE administration. An important early step in conducting a multi-year analysis is to review the quality of your data for both first-year and senior respondents in each year.

Response Sampling Number of a b Year Mode Ratec Errord Respondentse FY SR FY SR FY SR

2001

2002

2003 Paper 60% 53% 7.5% 6.8% 131 117

2004 Web+ 36% 37% 6.4% 6.8% 163 167

2005

2006

2007

2008 Web 43% 44% 4.8% 4.4% 240 281

a All NSSE administration years since 2001 are listed regardless of participation. b Modes include Paper (students receive a paper survey and the option of completing a Web version), Web (students receive all correspondence by e-mail and complete the Web version), and Web+ (students initially invited to participate via e-mail; a subgroup of nonrespondents receive paper surveys). c Response rates (number of respondents divided by sample size) were adjusted for ineligibility, nondeliverable mailing addresses, and students who were unavailable during the survey administration. Before 2003, response rates were not calculated separately by class so overall response rates are reported. d Sampling error gauges the precision of estimates based on a sample survey. It is an estimate of how much survey item percentages for your respondents could differ from those of the entire population of students at your institution. Data with larger sampling errors (such as +/-10%) need not be dismissed off hand, but any results using them should probably be interpreted more conservatively. e This is the original count used to calculate response rates and sampling errors for each administration's Respondent Characteristics report. This number includes all randomly sampled students. From 2001 to 2005 it may also include targeted oversamples. For this reason, the counts for 2001 to 2005 may not match those given in the detailed statistics on pages 5 and 7.

3 NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report Multi-Year Charts a

Carroll College

First-Year Students

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) 85 85

75 75

65 65 52.3 55 50.1 50.2 55 46.3 42.3 45 45 41.8

35 35

25 25

15 15 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

Student-Faculty Interaction (SFC)b Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)c 85 85

75 75

65 65

55 55

45 40.0 45 36.5 37.5 35 35 25.7 22.7 25 25

15 15 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) 85 Notes: a. Recalculated benchmark scores are charted for all years 75 of participation since 2001. See page 5 for detailed statistics. For more information and recommendations for 65 59.6 analyzing multi-year NSSE data, consult the Multi-Year 59.0 Data Analysis Guide: 54.1 www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/ 55 Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf. 45 b. For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, ‘SFC’ (the 35 alternate version of ‘SFI’ that does not include that item) is charted on this page. Statistics for both versions are 25 provided on page 5. c. 2001-2003 ‘EEE’ scores are not provided because these 15 scores are not comparable with those of later years; '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 response options for several ‘EEE’ items were altered in 2004.

4 NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report Detailed Statistics a Carroll College

First-Year Students 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Level of LAC 50.1 52.3 50.2 Academic n 122 146 222 Challenge SD 12.7 13.5 13.1 SEM 1.15 1.12 .88 Upper 52.4 54.5 51.9 Lower 47.8 50.1 48.5 Active and ACL 42.3 46.3 41.8 Collaborative n 122 146 238 Learning SD 13.7 14.4 13.8 SEM 1.24 1.19 .89 Upper 44.7 48.6 43.5 Lower 39.9 43.9 40.0 Student SFC 36.5 40.0 37.5 Faculty n 122 146 227 Interactionb SD 19.8 19.5 17.9 SEM 1.79 1.61 1.19 Upper 40.0 43.1 39.9 Lower 33.0 36.8 35.2 SFI - 33.7 32.3 n - 146 226 SD - 16.8 16.2 SEM - 1.39 1.08 Upper - 36.4 34.4 Lower - 30.9 30.2 Enriching EEE - 25.7 22.7 Educational n - 146 216 Experiencesc SD - 12.6 12.9 SEM -1.04 .88 Upper - 27.8 24.5 Lower - 23.7 21.0 Supportive SCE 54.1 59.0 59.6 Campus n 122 146 209 Environment SD 18.8 17.6 19.1 SEM 1.70 1.45 1.32 Upper 57.4 61.8 62.2 Lower 50.8 56.1 57.0 a n=number of respondents; SD =standard deviation; SEM =standard error of the mean; Upper/Lower=95% confidence interval limits

b For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, statistics for ‘SFC’ (the alternate version of 'SFI' that does not include that item) are reported along with the original 'SFI'. c 2001-2003 'EEE' scores are not provided because these scores are not comparable with those of later years. This is because response options for several of 'EEE' items were substantially altered in 2004.

IPEDS:238458

5 NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report Multi-Year Charts a

Carroll College

Seniors

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) 85 85

75 75

65 58.0 65 55.5 54.6 54.4 55 55 48.4 50.3

45 45

35 35

25 25

15 15 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 Student-Faculty Interaction (SFC)b Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)c 85 85

75 75

65 65

55 55 46.7 43.8 45.2 45 45 39.5 35.3 35 35

25 25

15 15 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) 85 Notes: a. Recalculated benchmark scores are charted for all years 75 of participation since 2001. See page 7 for detailed statistics. For more information and recommendations for 65 analyzing multi-year NSSE data, consult the Multi-Year 56.7 55.0 Data Analysis Guide: 53.0 www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/ 55 Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf. 45 b. For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, ‘SFC’ (the 35 alternate version of ‘SFI’ that does not include that item) is charted on this page. Statistics for both versions are 25 provided on page 7. c. 2001-2003 ‘EEE’ scores are not provided because these 15 scores are not comparable with those of later years; '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 response options for several ‘EEE’ items were altered in 2004.

6 NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report Detailed Statistics a Carroll College

Seniors 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Level of LAC 55.5 54.6 58.0 Academic n 116 160 266 Challenge SD 14.9 13.2 14.1 SEM 1.38 1.04 .86 Upper 58.2 56.7 59.7 Lower 52.8 52.6 56.3 Active and ACL 48.4 50.3 54.4 Collaborative n 116 160 281 Learning SD 14.2 15.6 16.4 SEM 1.32 1.24 .98 Upper 51.0 52.7 56.3 Lower 45.8 47.9 52.5 Student SFC 43.8 45.2 46.7 Faculty n 116 160 267 Interactionb SD 17.4 20.7 21.7 SEM 1.62 1.64 1.33 Upper 46.9 48.5 49.3 Lower 40.6 42.0 44.1 SFI - 40.1 41.3 n - 160 266 SD - 19.1 20.4 SEM - 1.51 1.25 Upper - 43.0 43.8 Lower - 37.1 38.9 Enriching EEE - 35.3 39.5 Educational n - 160 262 Experiencesc SD - 15.5 16.7 SEM - 1.22 1.03 Upper - 37.7 41.5 Lower - 32.9 37.5 Supportive SCE 56.7 53.0 55.0 Campus n 113 159 258 Environment SD 16.1 15.7 19.3 SEM 1.51 1.25 1.20 Upper 59.6 55.4 57.3 Lower 53.7 50.6 52.6 a n=number of respondents; SD =standard deviation; SEM =standard error of the mean; Upper/Lower=95% confidence interval limits

IPEDS:238458

7 CarrollC o Colle Co egege

Benchmark Comparisons August 2008 Interpreting the Benchmark Comparisons Report

To focus discussions about the importance of student engagement and guide institutional improvement efforts, NSSE created five Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice: Level of Academic Challenge, Active and Collaborative Learning, Student-Faculty Interaction, Enriching Educational Experiences, and Supportive Campus Environment. This Benchmark Comparisons Report compares the performance of your institution with your selected peers or consortium. In addition, page 9 provides two other comparisons between your school and (a) above-average institutions with benchmarks in the top 50% of all NSSE institutions and (b) high-performing institutions with benchmarks in the top 10% of all NSSE institutions. These displays allow you to determine if the engagement of your typical student differs in a statistically significant, meaningful way from the average student in these comparison groups. More detailed information about how benchmarks are created can be found on the NSSE Web site at www.nsse.iub.edu/2008_Institutional_Report/.

Statistical Significance Benchmarks with mean differences that are larger than would be expected by chance alone are noted with one, two, or three asterisks, denoting one of three Class and Sample significance levels (p<.05, p< .01, and p<.001). The smaller the significance Means are reported for level, the smaller the likelihood that the difference is due to chance. Please note a first-year students and Effect Size that statistical significance does not guarantee that the result is substantive or seniors. Institution- Effect size indicates the important. Large sample sizes (as with the NSSE project) tend to produce more reported class ranks practical significance of the statistically significant results even though the magnitude of mean differences may are used. All randomly mean difference. It is be inconsequential. It is recommended to consult effect sizes to judge the practical selected students are calculated by dividing the meaning of the results. included in these mean difference by the pooled analyses. Students in standard deviation . In targeted or locally practice, an effect size of .2 is administered often considered small, .5 Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) oversamples are not moderate, and .8 large. A Benchmark Comparisons included. positive sign indicates that NSSEville State compared with: your institution’s mean was greater, thus showing an NSSEville State Mid East Public Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Effect Effect Effect affirmative result for the a a b c a b c a b c Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size First-Year51.8 52.1 -.02 51.5 .02 51.7 .00 institution. A negative sign Senior55.7 55.2 .04 55.1 .05 55.6 .01 indicates the institution lags First-Year Senior behind the comparison group, suggesting that the 100 100 student behavior or institutional practice Mean represented by the item may 75 75 The mean is the warrant attention.

weighted arithmetic 55.7 55.2 55.1 55.6 51.8 52.1 51.5 51.7 average of student 50 50 level benchmark scores. 25 25

0 0 NSSEville State Mid East Public Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 NSSEville State Mid East Public Carnegie Class NSSE 2008

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Items

Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Colleges and universities promote high levels of student achievement by emphasizing the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance. Bar Charts Benchmark - Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, etc. related to academic program) A visual display of first-year Description & Survey - Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings - Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between 5 and 19 pages; and and senior mean benchmark Items number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages - Coursework emphasizing analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory scores for your institution A description of the - Coursework emphasizing synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and your selected peer or benchmark and the and relationships - Coursework emphasizing the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods consortium groups. individual items used in - Coursework emphasizing application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations - Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations its creation are - Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work summarized.

a See the NSSE Effect Size Interpretation Guide at www.nsse.iub.edu/html/effect_size_guide.cfm for additional information. Page 2 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size First-Year50.2 55.7 *** -.42 53.2 ** -.21 52.9 ** -.20 Senior58.0 59.2 -.09 58.0 .00 56.5 .10

First-Year Senior

100 100

75 75

58.0 59.2 58.0 55.7 56.5 53.2 52.9 50.2 50 50

25 25

0 0 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) Items

● Preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, doing homework or lab work, etc. related to academic program) ● Number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings ● Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more; number of written papers or reports of between 5 and 19 pages; and number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages ● Coursework emphasizes: Analysis of the basic elements of an idea, experience or theory ● Coursework emphasizes: Synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships ● Coursework emphasizes: Making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods ● Coursework emphasizes: Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations ● Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations ● Campus environment emphasizes: Spending significant amount of time studying and on academic work.

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. Page 3 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College

Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size First-Year41.8 46.0 *** -.26 45.7 *** -.22 42.5 -.04 Senior54.4 53.4 .06 52.8 .09 50.8 *** .21

First-Year Senior

100 100

75 75

54.4 53.4 5228.8 50.8 50 46.0 45.7 50 41.8 42.5

25 25

0 0 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008

Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) Items

Students learn more when they are intensely involved in their education and asked to think about what they are learning in different settings. Collaborating with others in solving problems or mastering difficult material prepares students for the messy, unscripted problems they will encounter daily during and after college.

● Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions ● Made a class presentation ● Worked with other students on projects during class ● Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments ● Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary) ● Participated in a community-based project (e.g., service learning) as part of a regular course ● Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.)

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. Page 4 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College

Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size First-Year32.3 36.7 *** -.24 38.1 *** -.29 34.6 * -.12 Senior41.3 45.1 ** -.18 46.0 *** -.22 42.3 -.05

First-Year Senior

100 100

75 75

50 50 45.1 46.0 41.3 42.3 36.7 38.1 34.6 32.3

25 25

0 0 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008

Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) Items

Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve practical problems by interacting with faculty members inside and outside the classroom. As a result, their teachers become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, life-long learning. ● Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor ● Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor ● Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class ● Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student-life activities, etc.) ● Received prompt written or oral feedback from faculty on your academic performance ● Worked on a research project with a faculty member outside of course or program requirements

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. Page 5 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College

Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE) Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size First-Year22.7 29.0 *** -.47 28.3 *** -.39 27.5 *** -.35 Senior39.5 43.1 *** -.19 41.6 * -.11 40.4 -.05

First-Year Senior

100 100

75 75

50 50 43.1 41.6 39.5 40.4

29.0 28.3 27.5 22.7 25 25

0 0 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008

Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE) Items

Complementary learning opportunities enhance academic programs. Diversity experiences teach students valuable things about themselves and others. Technology facilitates collaboration between peers and instructors. Internships, community service, and senior capstone courses provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge. ● Participating in co-curricular activities (organizations, campus publications, student government, social fraternity or sorority, etc.) ● Practicum, internship, field experience, co-op experience, or clinical assignment ● Community service or volunteer work ● Foreign language coursework / Study abroad ● Independent study or self-designed major ● Culminating senior experience (capstone course, senior project or thesis, comprehensive exam, etc.) ● Serious conversations with students of different religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values ● Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own ● Using electronic medium (e.g., listserv, chat group, Internet, instant messaging, etc.) to discuss or complete an assignment ● Campus environment encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds ● Participate in a learning community or some other formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. Page 6 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College

Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) Benchmark Comparisons Carroll College compared with: Great Lakes Carroll College Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Effect Effect Effect a a b c a b c a b c Class Mean Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size Mean Sig Size First-Year59.6 63.9 *** -.23 62.9 * -.17 61.1 -.08 Senior55.0 60.2 *** -.27 61.5 *** -.33 58.0 * -.15

First-Year Senior

100 100

75 75

63.9 62.9 61.1 60.2 61.5 59.6 58.0 55.0

50 50

25 25

0 0 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008 Carroll College Great Lakes Private Carnegie Class NSSE 2008

Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) Items

Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success and cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus.

● Campus environment provides the support you need to help you succeed academically ● Campus environment helps you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) ● Campus environment provides the support you need to thrive socially ● Quality of relationships with other students ● Quality of relationships with faculty members ● Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. Page 7 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons With Highly Engaging Institutions

Interpreting the Top 10% and Top 50% Comparisons This section of the NSSE Benchmark Comparisons report allows you to estimate the performance of your average student in relation to the average student attending two different institutional peer groups identified by NSSE for their high levels of student engagement: (a) those with benchmark scores placing them in the top 50% of all NSSE schools in 2008 and (b) those with benchmark scores in the top 10% for 2008.a These comparisons allow an institution to determine if their engagement of their students differs in significant, meaningful ways from these high performing peer groups.

Example

NSSEville NSSE 2008 NSSE 2008 State Top 50% Top 10% Mean Mean Sig Effect size Mean Sig Effect size LAC 57.1 55.8 * .10 60.5 *** -0.28 ACL 50.3 45.8 *** .28 50.7 -0.02 SFI 37.3 37.2 .01 42.0 *** -0.24 EEE 21.8 30.0 *** -.63 34.4 *** -0.98 First-Year SCE 60.9 64.7 *** -.21 69.7 *** -0.49

NSSEville State CAN conclude... The average score for NSSEville State first-year students is slightly above (i.e., small positive effect size) that of the average student attending NSSE 2008 schools that scored in the top 50% on Level of Academic Challenge (LAC). The average NSSEville State first-year student is as engaged (i.e., not significantly different) as the average student attending NSSE 2008 schools that scored in the top 10% on Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL). It is likely that NSSEville State is in the top 50% of all NSSE 2008 schools for first-year students on Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) and Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL).a,b

NSSEville State CANNOT concludea... NSSEville State is in the top half of all schools on the Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) benchmark for first-year students.b NSSEville State is a "top ten percent" institution on Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) for first-year students.b

For additional information on how to understand and use the Top 50% and Top 10% section of the benchmark report, see www.nsse.iub.edu/2008_Institutional_Report/. a Precision-weighted means (produced by Hierarchical Linear Modeling) were used to determine the top 50% and top 10% institutions for each benchmark, separately for first-year and senior students. Using this method, benchmark scores of institutions with relatively large standard errors are adjusted substantially toward the grand mean of all students, while those with smaller standard errors receive smaller corrections. Thus, schools with less stable data, though they may have high scores, may not be identified among the top scorers. b NSSE does not publish the names of the top 50% and top 10% institutions because of our commitment not to release individual school results and because our policy against the ranking of institutions.

Page 8 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons With Highly Engaging Institutions Carroll College

Carroll College compared with First-Year Senior Carroll NSSE 2008 NSSE 2008 College Top 50% Top 10% Level of Academic Challenge Mean a Mean a Sig b Effect size c Mean a Sig b Effect size c (LAC) 100 LAC 50.2 56.4 *** -.47 60.7 *** -.82 ACL 41.8 47.5 *** -.34 51.6 *** -.55 SFI 32.3 39.7 *** -.38 43.6 *** -.53 75 63.3 60.7 59.9 EEE 22.7 30.3 *** -.55 33.0 *** -.72 56.4 58.0 First-Year SCE 59.6 65.8 *** -.34 68.5 *** -.48 50.2 50 LAC 58.0 59.9 * -.14 63.3 *** -.40 ACL 54.4 55.4 -.06 59.7 *** -.30 SFI 41.3 49.3 *** -.37 55.3 *** -.65 25

Senior EEE 39.5 47.3 *** -.44 54.3 *** -.86 SCE 55.0 63.5 *** -.45 66.7 *** -.63 0 First-Year Senior

Active and Collaborative Learning Student-Faculty Interaction (ACL) (SFI) 100 100

75 75 59.7 55.4 55.3 51.6 54.4 47.5 49.3 Legend 50 43.6 50 41.8 39.7 41.3 Carroll College 32.3

Top 50% 25 25 Top 10%

0 0 This display First-Year Senior First-Year Senior compares your students with those attending schools Enriching Educational Experiences Supportive Campus Environment (EEE) (SCE) that scored in the top 100 100 50% and top 10% of all NSSE 2008 75 75 68.5 66.7 65.8 63.5 institutions on a 59.6 particular 54.3 55.0 47.3 50 50 benchmark. 39.5 30.3 33.0 22.7 25 25

0 0 First-Year Senior First-Year Senior

a Weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size. b * p<.05 ** p<.01 ***p<.001 (2-tailed). c Mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. Page 9 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons Detailed Statistics and Effect Sizes a Carroll College

First-Year Students Reference Group Mean Statistics Distribution Statistics Comparison Statistics d Percentiles Deg. of Mean Effect Mean SD b SEM c 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th Freedom e Diff. Sig. f size g

LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC) Carroll College (N = 222) 50.2 13.1 .9 30 42 50 58 72

Great Lakes Private 55.7 13.1 .1 34 47 56 65 77 15,434 -5.5 .000 -.42 Carnegie Class 53.2 13.9 .1 31 44 53 63 75 11,607 -2.9 .002 -.21 NSSE 2008 52.9 13.5 .0 31 44 53 62 75 294,821 -2.7 .003 -.20 Top 50% 56.4 13.1 .0 35 48 56 66 77 105,316 -6.2 .000 -.47 Top 10% 60.7 12.8 .1 38 52 61 70 80 19,015 -10.5 .000 -.82

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) Carroll College (N = 238) 41.8 13.8 .9 19 33 43 52 67

Great Lakes Private 46.0 16.1 .1 24 33 43 57 76 247 -4.2 .000 -.26 Carnegie Class 45.7 17.6 .2 19 33 43 57 76 252 -3.9 .000 -.22 NSSE 2008 42.5 16.9 .0 19 29 42 52 71 238 -.7 .409 -.04 Top 50% 47.5 17.0 .1 24 33 48 57 76 239 -5.7 .000 -.34 Top 10% 51.6 17.9 .1 24 38 50 62 83 246 -9.8 .000 -.55

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) Carroll College (N = 226) 32.3 16.2 1.1 11 22 28 39 67

Great Lakes Private 36.7 18.2 .1 11 22 33 47 72 233 -4.4 .000 -.24 Carnegie Class 38.1 19.9 .2 11 22 33 50 78 238 -5.8 .000 -.29 NSSE 2008 34.6 18.7 .0 11 22 33 44 72 225 -2.3 .032 -.12 Top 50% 39.7 19.4 .1 11 28 39 50 78 226 -7.4 .000 -.38 Top 10% 43.6 21.2 .2 13 28 39 56 83 235 -11.3 .000 -.53

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) Carroll College (N = 216) 22.7 12.9 .9 6 14 22 31 42

Great Lakes Private 29.0 13.2 .1 10 19 28 37 51 15,050 -6.2 .000 -.47 Carnegie Class 28.3 14.4 .1 8 18 26 37 54 11,176 -5.6 .000 -.39 NSSE 2008 27.5 13.6 .0 8 18 26 36 51 286,160 -4.8 .000 -.35 Top 50% 30.3 13.7 .0 11 21 29 38 54 130,119 -7.6 .000 -.55 Top 10% 33.0 14.3 .1 11 23 32 42 58 27,125 -10.2 .000 -.72

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) Carroll College (N = 209) 59.6 19.1 1.3 25 44 61 75 89

Great Lakes Private 63.9 18.7 .2 31 53 64 78 94 14,753 -4.3 .001 -.23 Carnegie Class 62.9 19.3 .2 31 50 64 78 94 10,955 -3.3 .013 -.17 NSSE 2008 61.1 18.9 .0 30 47 61 75 92 279,238 -1.5 .269 -.08 Top 50% 65.8 18.4 .1 33 53 67 78 94 83,916 -6.2 .000 -.34 Top 10% 68.5 18.4 .1 36 56 69 81 97 19,487 -8.9 .000 -.48

a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.

b Standard Deviation is a measure of the average amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.

c The 95% confidence interval for the population mean it is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.

d A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level benchmark scores at or below which a given percentage of benchmark scores fall.

e Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary for the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variance assumption.

f Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.

g Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

Page 10 NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons Detailed Statistics and Effect Sizes a Carroll College

Seniors Reference Group Mean Statistics Distribution Statistics Comparison Statistics d Percentiles Deg. of Mean Effect Mean SD b SEM c 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th Freedom e Diff. Sig. f size g

LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC) Carroll College (N = 266) 58.0 14.1 .9 35 47 58 68 81

Great Lakes Private 59.2 14.1 .1 36 50 60 69 82 16,077 -1.3 .141 -.09 Carnegie Class 58.0 14.4 .1 34 48 59 68 81 10,605 -.1 .946 .00 NSSE 2008 56.5 14.3 .0 33 47 57 67 79 311,749 1.4 .101 .10 Top 50% 59.9 13.8 .0 37 51 60 70 81 97,282 -1.9 .024 -.14 Top 10% 63.3 13.5 .1 40 54 64 73 84 19,238 -5.4 .000 -.40

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL) Carroll College (N = 281) 54.4 16.4 1.0 29 43 52 67 81

Great Lakes Private 53.4 16.7 .1 29 43 52 67 81 16,892 1.0 .307 .06 Carnegie Class 52.8 18.1 .2 24 38 52 67 86 298 1.6 .099 .09 NSSE 2008 50.8 17.6 .0 24 38 48 62 81 329,283 3.6 .001 .21 Top 50% 55.4 17.2 .1 29 43 56 67 86 101,319 -1.0 .341 -.06 Top 10% 59.7 17.3 .1 33 48 57 71 90 20,575 -5.2 .000 -.30

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI) Carroll College (N = 266) 41.3 20.4 1.2 11 28 39 50 78

Great Lakes Private 45.1 21.4 .2 17 28 44 61 83 16,175 -3.8 .004 -.18 Carnegie Class 46.0 21.2 .2 17 28 44 61 83 10,664 -4.7 .000 -.22 NSSE 2008 42.3 21.2 .0 11 28 39 56 83 313,312 -1.0 .443 -.05 Top 50% 49.3 21.5 .1 17 33 47 67 89 74,331 -8.0 .000 -.37 Top 10% 55.3 21.7 .2 22 39 56 72 94 10,486 -14.0 .000 -.65

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE) Carroll College (N = 262) 39.5 16.7 1.0 14 28 39 51 67

Great Lakes Private 43.1 18.8 .2 14 28 43 57 75 273 -3.6 .001 -.19 Carnegie Class 41.6 18.7 .2 12 28 41 55 73 279 -2.1 .048 -.11 NSSE 2008 40.4 18.2 .0 12 27 40 53 72 262 -1.0 .353 -.05 Top 50% 47.3 17.7 .1 18 35 47 60 76 104,812 -7.8 .000 -.44 Top 10% 54.3 17.3 .1 22 43 55 67 81 16,383 -14.8 .000 -.86

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE) Carroll College (N = 258) 55.0 19.3 1.2 25 42 56 69 89

Great Lakes Private 60.2 19.2 .2 28 47 61 72 92 15,590 -5.2 .000 -.27 Carnegie Class 61.5 19.7 .2 28 47 61 75 94 10,267 -6.6 .000 -.33 NSSE 2008 58.0 19.4 .0 25 44 58 72 89 300,535 -3.0 .014 -.15 Top 50% 63.5 18.9 .1 31 50 64 78 94 87,533 -8.5 .000 -.45 Top 10% 66.7 18.5 .1 33 56 67 81 97 20,580 -11.8 .000 -.63

a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.

b Standard Deviation is a measure of the average amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.

c The 95% confidence interval for the population mean it is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.

d A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level benchmark scores at or below which a given percentage of benchmark scores fall.

e Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary for the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variance assumption.

f Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.

g Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

Page 11 Carroll College

The final page of the NSSE Web version asked students to respond to the following question in an open text box:

“If you have any additional comments or feedback that you’d like to share on the quality of your educational experience, please type them below.”

Student responses to this question appear on the following pages. Please note that these comments appear exactly as the students entered them. They were not edited for grammar, offensive language, or otherwise questionable content. For this reason, student identifiers are not provided.

Student Comments August 2008 NSSE 2008 Student Comments

UnitID Class Additional Comments 238458 1 It is very difficult for commuters to participate in any events or clubs at Carroll and I look foward to going home every day. There is no place for us to belong. I suggest making a commuter lounge, putting less food points on the commuter food plan, and urging clubs to keep their meetings at easier-to-attend hours. 238458 1 I love Carroll College. Don't change the name either. 238458 1 Besides the basic complaint about the food here, I have never once felt like there was anything to do here. I'm honestly embarrassed to have people come visit me because there is nothing offered here. There are slim to no activities that most people would want to do except for unenjoyable lectures and "inter-racial" events, but when people come visit we sit in my dorm room and say .... now what. There are no dances, no big social activities except for the not so great peprally at homecoming and that was it. It may seem like alot is being offered to do but going to an art event or book club isn't something to do. I've visited other colleges since i've been here and i have so much fun there that i don't want to come back here just to sit in my room. There are Games going on in the dorms almost every night, they have big dances and get togethers and there's always a really fun activity going on. And we're in a completely secluded area of waukesha and have to walk 20 minutes just to get to the bus station and since this is all residential..we have to travel pretty far if we don't have a car just to get to a store or a restaurant or just to even find anything to do. It is really easy to be depressed here. One major event like bingo once every four months is not 238458 1 Offer more core classes during summer school. Especially for nursing majors who want to take electives during the summer in order to have more time to focus on the core nursing classes. 238458 1 I love the education professors here, they are helpful and great educators. So far I do not feel the math professors are exceptional like the education professors are. 238458 1 Examinations are the most challenging of any part of a course. These tests allow you to analyze the topics you learned about apply them in everyday life. 238458 1 Carroll is amazing! I am so glad I am here! 238458 1 I really enjoy Carroll College, and my experiences have been very good. I am very active on campus and have made friends easily. The only issue for me is that I am far away from home, and don't get to see my family often. I am close with them and enjoy spending time with them so that is the only challenge for me. Besides that I get good grades, and enjoy living in the residence halls. Professors are very friendly and care about our education! 238458 1 I had a terrible housing experience that definately made me want to transfer, which is exactly what I'm doing. 238458 1 the parking is absolutely outrageous - something MUST be done with this. that includes lots which are more centrally located to ALL buildings! 238458 1 I think that FYS was a waste of my time and money. I don't feel like it helped me at all and it brought my GPA down and put me at risk of losing my scholarship. 238458 1 How is anyone supposed to learn anything in a 50 minute class that meets 4 times a week? The professors I've had for math seem to read from the book and do a poor job explaining the work; it seems as though they teach the minimum requirements for the class.

2 NSSE 2008 Student Comments

UnitID Class Additional Comments 238458 1 Dorms are too expensive. 238458 1 I think Carroll needs to obtain better campus safety, particularly its enforcers. 238458 1 If the facilities would be more up-to-date, this college would be ideal for me. 238458 1 I think instructors have to be clear about their requirment of the assignment. Sometimes it is really hard to understand what teacher is expecting from us. They need to be careful that not only American students are studying in here, there are other students in here who have different language and it is hard for them to understand every single word of vacabulary. 238458 1 I am currently a Physical Therapy major. I'm transferring because I'm switching into music educationa and performance. I'm not transferring because I didn't have fun at Carroll. 238458 1 I feel like I was lied to because one of the reason pick this school is because that they said that we will have a very personal relationship with everyone in the school's community and that there will always be something for us to do on campus.

238458 1 Being an internationnal student in a private college is very hard! 238458 4 I was more challenged in High School than I was at this instution. 238458 4 The Education department is in need of major house cleaning! Althought there are excellent professors in the department, there are a few who are not supportive and encouraging. These individuals are arrogant and rude. They make others and myself feel helpless, lost, and unappreciative. These individuals are Sally Schumacher and Kaye Medke. Many students and I feel that these two individuals don't care and need to feel superior to everyone else in the department. On the other hand, there are many professors who are a great asset to the education program and make me and many others want to aspire to be just like these great educators. Some outstanding professors include Jan Weigman, Mary Lee Danielson,and Richard Woosencraft. These individuals are just some who are supportive, encouraging, and bring alot of passion to what they do. These qualities are necessary to have for aspiring teachers like myself. These individuals as well as the awesome student body are the only reasons why I continue to stay at Carroll College. I appreciate your time reading my feedback and hope that my comments provide you with the necessary information to better the educational experiences of future students in education at Carroll College. Thank 238458 4 I personally feel that 'Jesus of Nazareth' class ( Prof. Grimshaw) , should be a madatory class Freshman or 1st year prerequ. I have learned so much from this class and adapt to my other classes the style of Prof. Grimshaw. Prof. Grimshaw and the 'class' provides projects, classmate interactions, web sites, speech, and detailed writing/drafts and so forth. after a death on campus of a student, the next day the first thing out of Prof.Grimshaw was 'we should talk to someone about the tragety and not keep the event bottled inside us.' Very personal and besides what he taught us acedemically, he showed us that he really cared about us! Carroll colege has been an asset in my and other students learning .

3 NSSE 2008 Student Comments

UnitID Class Additional Comments 238458 4 I am a Market Research Manager, and as such, pay close attention to survey design and question construction. As an adult professional studies program student--I find that many things, including this survey, are more geared for traditional students just entering graduation after college. This is also true of awards ceremonies and other things I have attended where they address the audience as "your parents", etc. An option at the beginning of the survey would have been useful for you in evaluating the differences between the two types of students and would have put many more of my answers into perspective. The writing class I just took from Mrs. Bybee was great--I thought she did a wonderful job as was the Lifespan Psychology class I just completed with Dr. Nora Benjamin. I also enjoyed my on-line classes with Regis. I could better relate to the students taking that class because they all had experience in the working world and could apply our learning to situations we deal with every day.

238458 4 I am a part-time student / full-time employee. I am already working in the computer field, the only reason I am pursuing this degree is so I can advance further within my chosen field. 238458 4 There have definitely been some good instructors that are able to clearly communicate and there have been some instructors where this has not been my experience. I have been honest and objective on my course evaluations. I cannot say that I feel that has been effective in prompting change. 238458 4 many classes need community involvment and better career guidance. Instructors need to know what positions are marketable and talk with students about this in class. Students want to know how they can get jobs other than talking with a campus career guidence rep. 238458 4 The main complaint I have is for those of us who work fulltime and go to school part time at night tutors and administrative staff are not available. Most of the on campus tutors are only available during normal school hours. By the time I get to campus the administrative staff/advisors are gone. 238458 4 None 238458 4 Meet diveristy don't just say you will. Carroll is definetely not a diverse community 238458 4 I think the Carroll focus of group work and group writing assignments is completely misguided. Any class time not dedicated to learning the text is a waste of my time and money. I am not attending Carroll to be a game show host, I'm here to learn accounting. In my twenty years of work experience I have NEVER been asked to do a team presentation. I am asked to get MY WORK DONE. 238458 4 Some classes required for Accounting majors, such as CSC 220, seem to have no real purpose. I, along with many other students, feel this class was thrown in as an after-thought. The homework for that class seems to be busywork and takes away time from more important classes. 238458 4 I would like to have more understanding of the nontraditional student and to have more time for homework and to have more office time at night to meet with instuctors. 238458 4 The science program here is ver rigid in terms of time availible for faculty to sponsor non-class related student research/ presentations. If you are not a psych or biology major, you do not get to do a significant research project

4 NSSE 2008 Student Comments

UnitID Class Additional Comments 238458 4 i DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY REQUIRE MORE CLASSES THAN WE REALLY NEED. It's only about the money. They want me to be well rounded but it was a waste of my time and money. 238458 4 The college does not support upperclassmen in their final year. If I could do it over again, I would have transferred my last year to another school where I could actually get the appropriate assistance. 238458 4 There was lack of consistency within the nursing faculty, especially regarding clinicals. Students were often unclear as to how many hours needed to be completed. The amount of work completed for clinical was ridiculous-we had an average of 2 hours of clinical homework per week. I hate that clinical was only satisfactory/unsatisfactory so it did not count towards my GPA. I honestly feel I am not prepared for the NCLEX-RN. I regret not transferring to another school for nursing. 238458 4 In my experience, Carroll College Academics have and continue to do an excellent job. Some of the student services are not always as helpful and productive as they could be, though. 238458 4 Quality and overall experience was good to excellent. However, I did not feel that the college is geared for the older adult non-traditional student. I did not always feel comfortable among the vast majority of student that are teenagers or young adult full-time learners. Off-hour classes are not always readily available for the part-time student. 238458 4 I think that there was too much material to cover in some of my one semester classes, which did not allow me to effectivly learn material. 238458 4 at a liberal arts school, the arts should be stronger. or at least included in these surveys. students are asked to say if they are in greek life or a sport. theatre and music take up just as much time, if not more, as a sport or greek life and sometimes the connections made are stronger and more practical than in other extracurriculars. 238458 4 More Parking is needed. It should not take 25 mins to find a parking spot. Many students walk into class late because of this problem. It is disruptful to other students and upseting. 238458 4 I found that the quality of the full-time faculty employed by Carroll College that I have had the opportunity to work with is top- notch. I have had a great experience with both of my academic advisors, Dr. Lilly Goren and Dr. David Feil. Both of these individuals have been extremely helpful and approachable. Dr. Goren has helped me through the Graduate School Application process. I cannot express enough gratitude for the quality of full-time professors Carroll has. In conjunction with this, I believe Carroll should stive to keep these professors on campus.

5 NSSE 2008 Student Comments

UnitID Class Additional Comments 238458 4 I feel that most of the professors are unapproachable and I wonder why they are teachers. I have had an impossible time with trying to talk with someone about financial aid and loans. The only reason I stayed this long is because I am the first person in my family to go to college and I didn't had a hard enough time trying to figure out how to get into college and I didn't want my younger siblings and cousins that are watching me do the college thing to think I was giving up if I transfered - therefore taking away any hope in furthering their education they are getting by watching me do it. The new dean of students is the best thing to ever happen to Carroll College and the second best thing is the learning commons - the only thing on campus that promotes education. I think campus gives too many "fun" things for students to do and takes away the education focus.

238458 4 This survey is too long, but I love Carroll College! 238458 4 Human Resource Major needs to be evaluated. It is poor quality and is more like regular business than anything. Possibly add a benefits class, or more HR classes please!! 238458 4 The quality of teachers has decreased as I've advanced in my program. I am amazed at the amount of times teachers have made people cry in class due to humiliation. I have received several final grades that were lower than what I earned, and when contacting the teacher to discuss the grade they would not return phone calls, emails or would turn me away when I would visit their office. I believe that the teacher evaluations should be taken seriously at the end of the semester, and changes made due to those evaluations. 238458 4 The nursing program sucks, it is disorganized, I am not learning the skills I need for a job, and the staff are unprofessional 238458 4 I feel that many professors give busy work and papers because they feel like they have to. I do not learn from doing busy work and papers I learn from discussion in class. I think my college experience would have been less stressful and more enjoyable if classes were longer and we discussed more instead of diong the busy work 238458 4 the instructors are over worked therefore they do not have any compassion for students because they get none from the institution. they do not have the time to prepare they dont have teaching skills, they have a large ammount of knowledge on the subject matter but dont know how to convey that knowledge in a format condusive to learning 238458 4 Too much group work for someone who lives off campus. The group work was valuable, but put a definite strain on my schedule. Multiple classes requiring group work at the same time make my work and school hard to manage. 238458 4 It would be beneficial to address the amount of time the student will spend on this survey. This particular survey took longer that expected to complete. 238458 4 I do not think that the administration take s the interests of student seriously when it comes to making sure they give important members of the faculty and staff incentive to stay. I have seen some of the best members of the Carroll Community leave over the last 4 years because Carroll's administration won't give them what they need to stay and that is sad.

238458 4 This institution is very disorganized. I often wonder where my tuition dollars are going.

6 NSSE 2008 Student Comments

UnitID Class Additional Comments 238458 4 I am a student in the Teacher's Education Program (TEP) and love it. Outside of the TEP, the quality of education sharply decreases. Prof. Orin who teaches Cultural and Regional Geography should be FIRED! She goes against Carroll's academic and ethic standards in just about every way. Other than that, my liberal arts classes weren't so bad, but they weren't very challenging and/or fruitful either. But as I stated before, the Education Program is high quality from Freshman to Senior year.

238458 4 Some underqualified teachers on power trips teaching courses that you pay lots to attend. Think: English teacher who doesn't know what symbolism is used for. 238458 4 I think the main thing that has bothered me in my experience with Carroll College is the refund procedure when dropping a class. When I went to the first class for pre-calculus the instructor told the class that we were pretty much going to have to teach ourselves. Since I did not drop the session before the first night of class then I ended up losing money for a class I was told I was going to have to teach myself in. Noone in administration was very helpful. I called the dean in charge of the math department (other students from my class did as well) and she seemed very disinterested in my comments about the instructor's teaching style and hurried me off the phone as quickly as possible. I don't believe that I should lose money when the instructor shows his incompetence on the first night of class. I've had at least 2 instructors that should not even be teachers. Because of the run around that I received when trying to get refunded for my class I'm not very happy with the administration of this school and if I had to do it all over again I would not choose to attend this school. Once I complete my bachelor's degree I will be choosing a different school for my master's degree. 238458 4 The education is great, but facilities tend to hinder it. Noisiness of people getting out of class on the floors above you and problems with temperature make it difficult to concentrate 238458 4 I'd like to note that I don't think it is essential that part-time or less than part-time, students who work full-time to engage in an internship. I do not feel that it should be mandatory. Please reconsider. 238458 4 Overall, the experience I have was good. However, some courses are redundant regarding the business concepts taught in class.

238458 4 I had a lot of adjuncts which does not promote lengthy quality relationships with many professors. 238458 4 Carroll College's nursing program is not developed yet. The staff memebers are in and out, which means new books, new material. It is a newer program, so with time it will grow, and have a stronger stucture. 238458 4 I really don't think this is an overly fair assessment of Carroll. Some semesters have been totally different than others when thinking about what was asked of me and in what ways. To ask me to summarize my experiance as a whole so far and put it into prewritten bubbles as answers proves nothing and I can't understand how you really get a good feel of Carroll through this.

238458 4 It would be nice for teachers to give feedback in a timely manner...feedback helps the students learn from mistakes, and if an assignment/exam is not given back in a timely manner, the feedback is not as helpful.

7 NSSE 2008 Student Comments

UnitID Class Additional Comments 238458 4 Carroll College needs to develop a focus towards adult learners, especially those who commute and have families. There are very little resources for academic support, parking, and general support when dealing with families and academic concerns.

8 Carroll College

BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Results August 2008 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Interpreting the Cross-Sectional Results

The cross-sectional results are based on all first-year student respondents from your institution's BCSSE 2007 and NSSE 2008 administrations (in contrast to the longitudinal results which contain only matched data). These data provide the best estimates of your first-year students' pre-college characteristics and of your students' engagement during their first year. By presenting your BCSSE-NSSE cross-sectional results side-by-side, you can identify areas of correspondence as well as gaps in engagement to develop a better understanding of the first-year student experience.

Variables Response Options Data Source The items from the BCSSE Response options presented These columns present the unweighted BCSSE 2007 frequencies and NSSE surveys appear on the survey were collapsed and the weighted NSSE 2008 frequencies. BCSSE includes in the left column of the into fewer categories for questions about the students high school academic engagement report with same or similar reporting purposes. and their expected first year engagement. wording as they appear on the instruments.

Count Column Percentage (%) The actual number of students who The percentage of students responding answered within each response to the particular option in each question. category.

2 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Cross-Sectional Results Carroll College

BCSSE1 NSSE2 How many hours in a typical 7-day week doing High School Expected FY First Year each of the following? Count % Count % Count %

Preparing for class (studying, doing None 8 3 0 0 0 0 homework, rehearsing, etc.) 1-10 230 77 47 16 69 35 11-20 49 16 166 56 101 45 More than 20 10 3 85 29 49 20 Total 297 100 298 100 219 100

Participating in co-curricular activities (arts, None 23 8 16 5 78 35 clubs, athletics, etc.) 1-10 126 42 200 67 106 47 11-20 112 38 71 24 27 15 More than 20 37 12 13 4 6 4 Total 298 100 300 100 217 100

Working for pay No 61 20 34 11 42 19 Yes 239 80 265 89 177 81 Total 300 100 299 100 219 100

Relaxinggg(g, and socializing (watching TV, None 0 0 0 0 2 1 partying, etc.) 1-10 137 46 163 55 122 52 11-20 118 40 110 37 72 36 More than 20 42 14 26 9 21 11 Total 297 100 299 100 217 100

How often did you do or expect to do each of the following?

Asked questions in class or contributed to Never/Sometimes 98 33 73 24 105 43 class discussions Often/Very often 201 67 227 76 133 57 Total 299 100 300 100 238 100

Made a class presentation Never/Sometimes 148 49 101 34 119 51 Often/Very often 152 51 197 66 118 49 Total 300 100 298 100 237 100

Came to class without completing readings or Never/Sometimes 283 95 206 85 assignments Often/Very often 16 5 31 15 Total 299 100 237 100

Discussed grades or assignments with a Never/Sometimes 177 59 115 39 128 57 teacher/instructor Often/Very often 122 41 182 61 101 43 Total 299 100 297 100 229 100

Worked with other students on projects during Never/Sometimes 103 34 127 42 149 62 class Often/Very often 196 66 172 58 87 38 Total 299 100 299 100 236 100

1 Blank cells indicate BCSSE items with no similar item on NSSE. 2 Weighted NSSE frequencies. See Frequency Distributions in the NSSE section of this report. 3 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Cross-Sectional Results Carroll College

BCSSE NSSE1 How often did you do or expect to do each of the High School Expected FY First Year following? Count % Count % Count % Never/Sometimes 241 80 93 31 110 47 Worked with classmates outside of class to Often/Very often 59 20 205 69 127 53 prepare class assignments Total 300 100 298 100 237 100 Never/Sometimes 159 53 65 29 Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or Often/Very often assignment before turning it in 140 47 173 71 Total 299 100 238 100 Never/Sometimes 188 63 160 54 146 63 Had serious conversations with students of a Often/Very often 111 37 137 46 81 37 different race or ethnicity than your own. Total 299 100 297 100 227 100 Never/Sometimes 250 84 204 68 195 84 Discussed ideas from your readings or classes Often/Very often 46 16 95 32 33 16 with teacher/faculty members outside of class Total 296 100 299 100 228 100 Never/Sometimes 179 60 133 44 129 59 Discussed ideas from your readings or classes Often/Very often 120 40 167 56 98 41 with others outside of class (students, etc.) Total 299 100 300 100 227 100 Never/Sometimes 162 55 165 73 Talked with a counselor , tteachereacher, or other staff Often/Very often 135 45 64 27 member about college or career plans Total 297 100 229 100 Had serious conversations with students who Never/Sometimes 183 61 134 45 124 56 are very different from you in terms of relig. Often/Very often 117 39 164 55 103 44 beliefs, pol. opinions, or values Total 300 100 298 100 227 100 Work on a paper or project that requires Never/Sometimes 27 9 37 17 integrating ideas or information from various Often/Very often 272 91 201 83 sources Total 299 100 238 100 Put together ideas or concepts from different Never/Sometimes 78 27 125 55 courses when completing assignments or Often/Very often 216 73 103 45 during class discussions Total 294 100 228 100 Never/Sometimes 105 35 102 45 Receive prompt feedback from faculty on your Often/Very often 194 65 124 55 academic performance (written or oral) Total 299 100 226 100 Work with faculty members on activities other Never/Sometimes 224 75 204 90 than coursework (committees, orientation, Often/Very often 76 25 22 10 student life activities, etc) Total 300 100 226 100 Try to better understand someone else's views Never/Sometimes 105 35 124 56 by imagining how an issue looks from his or Often/Very often 195 65 97 44 her perspective Total 300 100 221 100 Never/Sometimes 66 22 96 47 Learn something that changes the way you Often/Very often 233 78 126 53 understand an issue or idea Total 299 100 222 100 Grades A or A- 152 51 100 34 58 27 B or B+ 125 42 150 51 100 48 B- or lower 22 7 44 15 47 25 Total 299 100 294 100 205 100

1 Blank cells indicate BCSSE items with no similar item on NSSE. 2 Weighted NSSE frequencies. See Frequency Distributions in the NSSE section of this report. 4 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Interpreting the Longitudinal Results

The longitudinal results contain matched data from your first-year students who completed both the BCSSE 2007 and NSSE 2008 surveys. The purpose of this report is to analyze the relationships between incoming student characteristics and their reported engagement near the end of their first year. With longitudinal data, you can more effectively identify how students with varying levels of pre-college characteristics were actually engaged during their first year of college.

Six BCSSE scales and four NSSE benchmarks in the longitudinal data are categorized into quartile ranges based on the lower 25 percent (Low25), the middle 50 percent (Mid50), and the upper 25 percent (Top25) of respondents. BCSSE Scales The following BCSSE scales were constructed by converting the responses for each item to a 0-10 range. A mean scale score was then calculated for each student. Below is a brief description of each scale with the component BCSSE items in parentheses. High School Academic Student engagement in educationally relevant activities during the last year of high Engagement school. (hreadasg, hwrite5, hwrite5m, hacadpr, hclquest, hclprese, hfacgrad, hclassgr, hoccgrp, hrewropa, hfacidea, hoocidea) Expected First-Year Expected engagement in educationally relevant behaviors during the first year of college. Academic Engagement (cacadpr, cclquest, cclprese, cfacgrad, cclassgr, coccgrp, cfacidea, coocidea) Academic Student certainty that they will persist in the face of academic adversity. (cotherint, Perseverance 1 cfindinfo, ccourdis, caskinst, cfinish, cstaypos) Expected First-Year Expected academic difficulty during the first year of college. (clearnma, cmantime, Academic Difficulty cgethelp, cintfac) Perceived Academic Student perception of their academic preparation. (cgnwrite, cgnspeak, cgnanaly, Preparation cgnquant, cgncompt, cgnother, cgninq) Importance of Campus Student-rated importance that the institution provides a challenging and supportive Environment environment. (cenvscho, cenvsupr, cenvdivr, cenvnaca, cenvsoca, cenveven) NSSE Benchmarks Also included in this report are four of the five NSSE Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice.2 Level of Academic Engagement in intellectually challenging and creative work. (readasgn, writemor, Challenge (adjusted) writemid, writesml, analyze, synthesz, evaluate, applying, workhard, acadpr01, envschol)

Active & Collaborative Engagement in collaborative learning and learning in different settings. (clquest, clpresen, Learning: classgrp, occgrp, tutor, commproj, oocideas) Student-Faculty Student engagement with faculty as role models and mentors. (facgrade, facideas, Interaction facplans, facfeed, facother, resrch04) Supportive Campus Quality of campus environment to support student success. (envsocal, envsuprt, Environment envnacad, envstu, envfac, envadm ) 1 Academic Perseverence was named Academic Persistence in the BCSSE 2007 Report. 2 The benchmark "Enriching Educational Experiences" is not included in this section of the report given that it measures the participation in many activities not typically completed by first-year students (internships, capstone courses, study abroad, etc).

5 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Interpreting the Longitudinal Results

In the example below (NSSEville State), students who scored in the lower 25% ("Low25") for High School Academic Engagement were engaged in their first year of college with an average Level of Academic Challenge benchmark score of 49.6. Of these students, 41% ended the year in the lower 25% on Level of Academic Challenge, while only 13% of these students were in the top 25%. By comparison, 8% of the students in the top 25% on High School Academic Engagement were in the lower 25% and 43% were the top 25% for Level of Academic Challenge.

BCSSE Scale Quartile Ranges NSSE Benchmark The six BCSSE scales are The lower 25%, middle 50%, and the The NSSE benchmark is listed across listed in the left column top 25% of scores for each BCSSE the top of the page. scale and NSSE benchmark.

Count Mean Benchmark Score Row Percentages The actual number of students The average benchmark score for Row percentages in table and graphical who were included in each each of the BCSSE quartile display. Each row sums to 100%. group. ranges.

How might NSSEville State use the BCSSE-NSSE Longitudinal Results? There are many meaningful ways to use these data and results. One way NSSEville State could raise student participation in academically challenging activities is to work with their first-year students who are in the bottom 25% for high school engagement, stressing to them the importance, value, and benefits of engaging in academically challenging activities. NSSEville State may be concerned that 8% of their incoming first-year students who reported high levels of high school academic engagement are actually engaged in the bottom 25% of their class in academic challenge. Using the BCSSE-NSSE raw matched data as well as other available institutional data, NSSEville may want to learn more about these students and devise ways to facilitate engagement of similar first-year students in the future. Other information collected from students during the admission and advising processes, as well as inthe first few weeks of classes, can also inform program and institution-level assessment.

6 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Longitudinal Results Carroll College NSSE Level of Academic Challenge (LAC) by BCSSE Scales

Level of Academic Challenge Quartile 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% BCSSE Scale1 Range2 Count MeanLow25 Mid50 Top25 Low25 26 45.4 35% 54% 12% High School Academic Mid50 53 49.8 26% 53% 21% Engagement Top25 28 58.2 11% 39% 50% TOTAL 107

Low25 25 46.7 28% 64% 8% Expected Academic Mid50 55 50.1 29% 44% 27% Engagement Top25 27 56.4 11% 48% 41% TOTAL 107

Low25 28 45.1 39% 46% 14% Academic Mid50 53 49.7 28% 53% 19% Perseverance3 Top25 26 59.7 0% 46% 54% TOTAL 107

Low25 28 49.9 29% 50% 21% Expected Academic Mid50 55 50.1 22% 56% 22% Difficulty Top25 24 53.8 25% 33% 42% TOTAL 107

Low25 24 41.8 54% 42% 4% Academic Mid50 52 52.7 17% 52% 31% Preparation Top25 31 55.0 13% 52% 35% TOTAL 107

Low25 30 44.2 43% 47% 10% Importance of Campus Mid50 45 53.2 18% 51% 31% Environment Top25 32 54.0 16% 50% 34% TOTAL 107

1 Rows sum to 100% 2 Low25=Lower Quartile; Mid50=Interquartiles; Top25=Upper Quartile 3 Academic Perseverance was named Academic Persistence in the BCSSE 2007 Report. 7 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Longitudinal Results Carroll College NSSE Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL) by BCSSE Scales

Active and Collaborative Learning Quartile 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% BCSSE Scale1 Range2 Count Mean Low25 Mid50 Top25 Low25 28 37.1 21% 68% 11% High School Academic Mid50 56 38.8 30% 55% 14% Engagement Top25 29 49.2 10% 41% 48% TOTAL 113

Low25 27 35.8 33% 59% 7% Expected Academic Mid50 58 39.5 24% 59% 17% Engagement Top25 28 49.4 11% 43% 46% TOTAL 113

Low25 29 36.5 34% 52% 14% Academic Mid50 57 39.4 23% 65% 12% Perseverance3 Top25 27 49.4 11% 37% 52% TOTAL 113

Low25 31 43.4 13% 55% 32% Expected Academic Mid50 57 38.6 28% 60% 12% Difficulty Top25 25 43.8 24% 44% 32% TOTAL 113

Low25 25 34.0 36% 60% 4% Academic Mid50 56 42.0 23% 52% 25% Preparation Top25 32 45.0 13% 56% 31% TOTAL 113

Low25 30 36.5 27% 60% 13% Importance of Campus Mid50 51 42.4 20% 61% 20% Environment Top25 32 43.2 25% 41% 34% TOTAL 113

1 Rows sum to 100% 2 Low25=Lower Quartile; Mid50=Interquartiles; Top25=Upper Quartile 3 Academic Perseverance was named Academic Persistence in the BCSSE 2007 Report. 8 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Longitudinal Results Carroll College

NSSE Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) by BCSSE Scales

Student-Faculty Interaction Quartile 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% BCSSE Scale1 Range2 Count Mean Low25 Mid50 Top25 Low25 26 28.3 27% 65% 8% High School Academic Mid50 53 32.2 21% 58% 21% Engagement Top25 28 40.1 7% 54% 39% TOTAL 107

Low25 25 27.8 20% 68% 12% Expected Academic Mid50 55 30.1 25% 58% 16% Engagement Top25 27 44.9 4% 52% 44% TOTAL 107

Low25 28 27.3 32% 54% 14% Academic Mid50 53 31.8 17% 68% 15% Perseverance3 Top25 26 42.9 8% 46% 46% TOTAL 107

Low25 28 36.2 18% 46% 36% Expected Academic Mid50 55 30.6 16% 73% 11% Difficulty Top25 24 36.1 25% 42% 33% TOTAL 107

Low25 24 27.5 25% 63% 13% Academic Mid50 52 35.0 19% 54% 27% Preparation Top25 31 35.0 13% 65% 23% TOTAL 107

Low25 30 30.2 23% 60% 17% Importance of Campus Mid50 45 34.1 13% 64% 22% Environment Top25 32 35.1 22% 50% 28% TOTAL 107

1 Rows sum to 100% 2 Low25=Lower Quartile; Mid50=Interquartiles; Top25=Upper Quartile 3 Academic Perseverance was named Academic Persistence in the BCSSE 2007 Report. 9 BCSSE 2007-NSSE 2008 Combined Report Longitudinal Results Carroll College

NSSE Supportive Campus Environment (SCE) by BCSSE Scales

Supportive Campus Environment Quartile 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% BCSSE Scale1 Range2 Count Mean Low25 Mid50 Top25 Low25 22 55.1 36% 50% 14% High School Academic Mid50 49 61.5 24% 51% 24% Engagement Top25 28 70.9 18% 39% 43% TOTAL 99

Low25 23 57.5 35% 43% 22% Expected Academic Mid50 50 61.4 28% 52% 20% Engagement Top25 26 69.9 12% 42% 46% TOTAL 99

Low25 25 51.051.0 40% 48% 12% Academic Mid50 48 64.9 27% 44% 29% Perseverance3 Top25 26 70.1 8% 54% 38% TOTAL 99

Low25 25 64.4 20% 48% 32% Expected Academic Mid50 50 63.5 22% 52% 26% Difficulty Top25 24 59.4 38% 38% 25% TOTAL 99

Low25 23 52.2 39% 52% 9% Academic Mid50 47 62.7 26% 47% 28% Preparation Top25 29 71.2 14% 45% 41% TOTAL 99

Low25 26 52.7 42% 50% 8% Importance of Campus Mid50 41 64.8 20% 46% 34% Environment Top25 32 68.3 19% 47% 34% TOTAL 99

IPEDS: 238458

1 Rows sum to 100% 2 Low25=Lower Quartile; Mid50=Interquartiles; Top25=Upper Quartile 3 Academic Perseverance was named Academic Persistence in the BCSSE 2007 Report. 10 TO: Joanne Passaro

FROM: Beth Towell

DATE: May 5, 2008

RE: 2008 Senior Survey

In March 2008, a request to participate in a survey was sent to 334 students at Carroll College enrolled in a capstone experience course. Sixty‐nine (20.7%) students chose to respond. This "senior survey" was recently designed by the Assessment Committee at Carroll College and this was the first administration of the instrument. Many questions used are repeated in the five year alumni survey. Future iterations may include discipline specific questions. This report summarizes the results from the senior survey and compares perception of academic experiences to those expressed in the five year alumni survey. Complete data will be included in the comprehensive 2007‐2008 Institutional Assessment Report.

Respondents were from a broad variety of fields of study with 22 different majors represented. Most were full time students (96%) and female (74%). The majority of respondents spent their entire college career at Carroll College (75%) and most lived in student housing at some point (71%). When asked to describe the residence hall environment, the most frequent responses were "loud" and "fun." Respondents indicated participation in 39 different student organizations with College Activities Board and Intervarsity Christian Fellowship named most often. The most popular places to study named were the library and individuals' rooms. Most expect to work full time after graduation (60%) or pursue graduate education (19%). Almost all of the respondents (98%) expect the Carroll College experience to help them achieve their career goals; 93% feel ready for the next step; 75% would choose Carroll College if they were starting over; and 84% would pursue the same major.

When asked about the Carroll College educational experience in terms of general education learning outcomes, respondents indicated the most growth in "increasing knowledge and understanding in an academic field," and "gaining knowledge, technical skills, and/or competence required for a job/career." The greatest number of respondents who indicated little or no growth specified the areas "increasing a commitment to community/religious/volunteer organizations" and "interacting and working effectively with people from different racial/ethnic backgrounds." The three areas that responding seniors indicated were most important were "increasing knowledge and understanding in an academic field," "gaining knowledge, technical skills and/or competence required for a job/career," and "developing skills in leading or participating in groups or teams."

When addressing academic skills and academic competencies developed at Carroll College, respondents indicated that more emphasis should be placed on "oral presentation skills and "problem solving skills" while they suggested less emphasis should be placed on a "background in fine arts and a "background in humanities." Comments regarding FYS were mixed although many suggested it was a waste of time. The capstone experience was valued more although the suggestion of a 2‐5 page capstone reflection paper (recently proposed by some General Education Committee members) was seem by most (82%) to be of little or no value.

In terms of academic support services, students were most satisfied with getting the courses they needed and designing their schedule to accommodate other needs. Respondents were least satisfied with advising and opportunities to participate in research with a faculty member.

QUICK COMPARISON OF 2008 SENIORS TO FIVE YEAR ALUMNI IN 2008

2008 SENIORS 2008 FIVE YEAR ALUMNI Number of respondents 69 (21% of those invited) 33 (19% of those invited) Majors represented 22 17 % of respondents full time 96% 88% Carroll experience will help (has 98% 83% helped) achieve career goals Would choose Carroll again 75% 67% Would choose same major 84% 76% Most growth • Increasing knowledge • Increasing knowledge and understanding in an and understanding in an academic field academic field • Gaining knowledge, • Gaining knowledge, technical skills and/or technical skills and/or competence required for competence required for a job/career a job/career Least growth • Increasing a • Increasing a commitment to commitment to community/religious/ community/religious/ volunteer organizations volunteer organizations • Interacting and working • Interacting and working effectively with people effectively with people from different from different racial/ethnic racial/ethnic backgrounds backgrounds Most important • Increasing knowledge • Gaining knowledge, and understanding in an technical skills and/or academic field competence required for • Gaining knowledge, a job/career technical skills and/or • Developing skills in competence required for leading or participating a job/career in groups or teams • Developing skills in • Thinking clearly, getting leading or participating a problem, and following in groups or teams it to a sensible conclusion

More emphasis needed • Oral communication • Application courses skills related to my major • Problem solving skills • Understanding and relating to people Less emphasis needed • Background in fine arts • Background in fine arts • Background in • Background in humanities humanities

Survey Results -- Overview

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 displayed, 70 total Status: Open

Launched Date: 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A

Display: Display all pages and questions 0 filters

Disabled

1. Gender:

Response Response Total Percent

Male 19 28%

Female 50 72% Total Respondents 69 (skipped this question) 1

2. Undergraduate Major(s):

Response Response Total Percent

Accounting 0 0%

Actuarial Science 0 0%

Art 2 3%

Athletic Training 4 6%

Biochemistry 4 6%

Biology 5 7%

Business 7 10% Business and Information

1 1% Technology

Chemistry 3 4% Clinical Laboratory Sciences 0 0%

Communication 0 0%

Computer Science 3 4%

Criminal Justice 0 0%

Education 7 10%

Elementary Education Studies 0 0%

English 1 1%

Environmental Science 0 0%

Exercise Science 3 4%

Graphic Communication 3 4%

History 1 1%

Human Biology 2 3%

International Relations 2 3%

Marine Biology 0 0%

Mathematics 5 7%

Music 2 3%

Music Education 0 0%

Nursing 9 13%

Organizational Leadership 0 0%

Physical Education 3 4%

Photography 0 0%

Politics 4 6%

Psychology 3 4%

Recreation Management 0 0%

Religious Studies 0 0%

Small Business Management 0 0%

Sociology 0 0% Software Engineering and

0 0% Applied Mathematics

Spanish 1 1%

Theatre Arts 0 0%

Other, please specify 0 0% Total Respondents 69 (skipped this question) 1

3. Did you attend Carroll as a full-time student?

Response Response Total Percent

Yes 66 96%

No 1 1% Some full time, some part

2 3% time Total Respondents 69 (skipped this question) 1

4. Did you transfer from another institution?

Response Response Total Percent

Yes 18 26%

No 51 74% Total Respondents 69 (skipped this question) 1

5. If yes, how many credits did you transfer?

Response Response Total Percent

more than 50 credits 9 50%

less than 50 credits 9 50% Total Respondents 18 (skipped this question) 52

6. Did you reside on campus?

Response Response Total Percent

Yes 48 70%

No 21 30% Total Respondents 69 (skipped this question) 1

7. If yes, what three words best describe your residence hall environment?

View responses to this question Total Respondents 44 (skipped this question) 26

8. What student organizations were you involved with during your time as a student?

Response Response Total Percent

Alpha Gamma Delta Sorority 0 0%

Alpha Xi Delta 2 4%

Anime Club 0 0%

Beta Beta Beta (Biology Club) 4 9%

Beta Pi Epsilon 0 0%

Bible Study Group 6 13%

Black Student Union 1 2%

Carroll Art Student Union 0 0%

Carroll College APICS 1 2%

Carroll College Book Club 3 7%

Carroll Players 0 0%

Carroll College Pep Band 0 0%

Century Magazine 1 2%

Chemistry Club 7 16%

Chi Omega Sorority 0 0%

Circle K 5 11%

College Activities Board 14 31%

College Democrats 3 7%

College Republicans 3 7%

Colleges Against Cancer 4 9%

Computer Science Club 2 4%

Delta Rho Upsilon Fraternity 0 0%

Delta Zeta Sorority 0 0%

Education Club 2 4%

Gay Straight Alliance 3 7%

Graphic Communication Club 1 2%

Greek Council 1 2%

Habitat for Humanity 8 18%

History Club (Pi Alpha Theta) 3 7%

International Experience Club 3 7% Intervarsity Christian

10 22% Fellowship Intervarsity Christian

6 13% Fellowship

Math Club 3 7%

The New Perspective 5 11%

Outdoor Adventure Club 1 2%

Panhellenic Council 1 2%

Physical Therapy Club 2 4%

Pio TV 0 0% Pioneer Athletic Advisory

2 4% Committee

Pre Med Club 4 9%

Psychology Club 2 4% Sforzando/Collegiate Music

1 2% Educators National Conference Society for Human Resource

1 2% Management

Sigma Delta PI 0 0%

Student Nurses Association 6 13%

Students in Free Enterprise 1 2%

WCCX 5 11% Other(s), please

7 16% specify Total Respondents 45 (skipped this question) 25

9. Where was the most conducive location for you to study?

View responses to this question Total Respondents 66 (skipped this question) 4

10. What is most likely to be your principal activity this fall?

Response Response Total Percent

Employment, full-time paid 42 61% Employment, partime paid 1 1% Graduate or professional

13 19% school full-time Graduate or professional

0 0% school part-time Additional undergraduate

3 4% coursework

Military Service 1 1% Volunteer activity (e.g. Peace

2 3% Corps)

Starting or raising a family 0 0%

Traveling 0 0%

Completely undecided 2 3% Other activity, please

5 7% specify Total Respondents 69 (skipped this question) 1

11. What else, if anything, will you probably be doing this fall? Mark as many as apply.

Response Response Total Percent

Employment, full-time paid 15 26%

Employment, partime paid 14 25% Graduate or professional

9 16% school full-time Graduate or professional

10 18% school part-time Additional undergraduate

2 4% coursework

Military Service 3 5% Volunteer activity (e.g. Peace

10 18% Corps, mission work)

Starting or raising a family 8 14%

Traveling 14 25%

Completely undecided 5 9% Other activity, please

4 7% specify Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

12. How much did your Carroll College experience contribute to your personal growth in each of the following areas?

Response Much Somewhat Little None Total a. Increasing knowledge and understanding in 76.27% (45) 18.64% (11) 5.08% (3) 0% (0) 59 an academic field. b. Gaining knowledge, technical skills, and/or 53.45% (31) 41.38% (24) 5.17% (3) 0% (0) 58 competence required for a job/career. c. Developing skills in leading or participating in 33.9% (20) 49.15% (29) 16.95% (10) 0% (0) 59 groups or teams. d. Becoming independent, self-reliant, and 42.37% (25) 37.29% (22) 13.56% (8) 6.78% (4) 59 responsible. e. Developing an understanding and awareness of yourself (interests, needs, abilities, values, 37.29% (22) 35.59% (21) 22.03% (13) 5.08% (3) 59 etc) f. Becoming more aware of world issues and pressing social, political, and economic 18.64% (11) 42.37% (25) 25.42% (15) 13.56% (8) 59 problems. g. Thinking clearly, getting a problem, and 25.42% (15) 64.41% (38) 5.08% (3) 5.08% (3) 59 following it to a sensible conclusion. h. Identifying a sense of values and priorities in 27.12% (16) 49.15% (29) 15.25% (9) 8.47% (5) 59 life. i. Increasing your intellectual curiosity. 45.76% (27) 42.37% (25) 10.17% (6) 1.69% (1) 59 j. Increasing a commitment to 16.95% (10) 25.42% (15) 38.98% (23) 18.64% (11) 59 community/religious/volunteer organizations. k. Becoming more willing to consider opposing 25.42% (15) 49.15% (29) 16.95% (10) 8.47% (5) 59 points of view. l. Interacting and working effectively with people from different racial/ethnic/economic 25.42% (15) 32.2% (19) 30.51% (18) 11.86% (7) 59 backgrounds. Total Respondents 59 (skipped this question) 11

13. Of the objectives listed above, please select the three you believe were important in your undergraduate program. Use the identifying letters used above (a - l).

Response Response Total Percent

a 43 73%

b 33 56%

c 17 29%

d 14 24%

e 9 15%

f 11 19% g 8 14%

h 5 8%

i 14 24%

j 1 2%

k 6 10%

l 8 14% Total Respondents 59 (skipped this question) 11

14. Looking back on your college experience, do you believe (more, the same, less) emphasis should have been placed on:

Response More Same Less Total Written communication skills 23.73% (14) 66.1% (39) 10.17% (6) 59 Oral communication skills 47.46% (28) 50.85% (30) 1.69% (1) 59 Mathematical skills 27.12% (16) 64.41% (38) 8.47% (5) 59 Computer skills 37.93% (22) 56.9% (33) 5.17% (3) 58 Problem solving skills 44.07% (26) 55.93% (33) 0% (0) 59 Learning to think and reason 38.98% (23) 61.02% (36) 0% (0) 59 Understanding and relating to people 42.37% (25) 54.24% (32) 3.39% (2) 59 Background in natural sciences (e.g. 16.95% (10) 71.19% (42) 11.86% (7) 59 chemistry, biology, physics) Background in social sciences 10.17% (6) 76.27% (45) 13.56% (8) 59 Background in humanities (e.g. philosophy, 6.78% (4) 74.58% (44) 18.64% (11) 59 literature, history) Background in fine arts (e.g. art, music) 16.95% (10) 66.1% (39) 16.95% (10) 59 Theory courses related to my major(s) 37.29% (22) 61.02% (36) 1.69% (1) 59 Application courses related to my major(s) 66.1% (39) 33.9% (20) 0% (0) 59 Total Respondents 59 (skipped this question) 11

15. Do you still have friends from FYS?

Response Response Total Percent

Yes 22 37%

No 37 63% Total Respondents 59 (skipped this question) 11

16. How did FYS help you with your academic career?

View responses to this question Total Respondents 49 (skipped this question) 21

17. Please rank your agreement with the following statements.

Response Much Somewhat Little None Total The transition from school to career/grad school 42.11% (24) 35.09% (20) 14.04% (8) 8.77% (5) 57 aspect of the capstone was valuable. The capstone experience helped me integrate knowledge to demonstrate mastery of complex 42.11% (24) 36.84% (21) 19.3% (11) 1.75% (1) 57 issues within my major. After completing the capstone project I was left with a deep sense of satisfaction knowing I 30.36% (17) 39.29% (22) 19.64% (11) 10.71% (6) 56 completed a serious and meaningful senior project. I believe a 2-5 page capstone reflection paper would help me integrate my college education 5.26% (3) 12.28% (7) 29.82% (17) 52.63% (30) 57 into a collective whole. The capstone project allowed me to use critical thinking and problem solving skills toward the 36.84% (21) 35.09% (20) 15.79% (9) 12.28% (7) 57 creative design, research, and solution of a problem or issue. The capstone experience is a logical and vital 54.39% (31) 28.07% (16) 15.79% (9) 1.75% (1) 57 culmination of an undergraduate major. Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

18. Please provide your personal opinion to the following.

Definately Response Definitely Yes Probably Yes Probably No No Total Do you think your Carroll College experience 35.09% (20) 63.16% (36) 1.75% (1) 0% (0) 57 will help you achieve your career goals? Are you ready for the next step after college 47.37% (27) 45.61% (26) 5.26% (3) 1.75% (1) 57 (grad. school, job, etc)? If you could start college over, would you 36.84% (21) 38.6% (22) 12.28% (7) 12.28% (7) 57 still choose to attend Carroll College? If you could start college over, would you 61.4% (35) 22.81% (13) 10.53% (6) 5.26% (3) 57 still graduate with the same major? Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

19. How could Carroll College strengthen your educationsl experience? Briefly Describe.

View responses to this question Total Respondents 36 (skipped this question) 34

20. Some teachers stand out as extraordinarily effective. If you had such "standouts" please identify them by name and (if applicable) indicate the class(es) you took with them.

Response Total

1. 96

2. 81

3. 60 Total Respondents 52 (skipped this question) 18

21. Academic advising.

Response Response Total Percent

Very Satisfied 15 26%

Generally Satisfied 19 33%

Generally Dissatisfied 13 23% Very Dissatisfied 9 16%

Not Relevant 1 2% Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

22. Opportunities to partcipate in research with a faculty member.

Response Response Total Percent

Very Satisfied 5 9%

Generally Satisfied 17 30%

Generally Dissatisfied 10 18%

Very Dissatisfied 6 11%

Not Relevant 19 33% Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

23. Tutorial help or other academic assistance.

Response Response Total Percent

Very Satisfied 4 7%

Generally Satisfied 34 60%

Generally Dissatisfied 5 9%

Very Dissatisfied 1 2%

Not Relevant 13 23% Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

24. Getting the courses I needed.

Response Response Total Percent

Very Satisfied 16 28% Generally Satisfied 33 58%

Generally Dissatisfied 7 12%

Very Dissatisfied 1 2%

Not Relevant 0 0% Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

25. Designing my schedule to accomodate other needs.

Response Response Total Percent

Very Satisfied 10 18%

Generally Satisfied 32 56%

Generally Dissatisfied 12 21%

Very Dissatisfied 2 4%

Not Relevant 1 2% Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

26. Opportunities to apply in-class knowledge outside the classroom.

Response Response Total Percent

Very Satisfied 15 26%

Generally Satisfied 27 47%

Generally Dissatisfied 11 19%

Very Dissatisfied 3 5%

Not Relevant 1 2% Total Respondents 57 (skipped this question) 13

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

19. How could Carroll College strengthen your educationsl experience? Briefly Describe. Full Response

1. Encourage more community involvement and volunteerism.

Make sure advisor's know what the hell they are doing. Or eliminate it all together, but don't make me waste my time going to someone who can't help me at all. Make it known to students what 2.

professors can help them get stuff together for grad schools, cause most advisors don't seem to know anything about it, and capstone is too late second semester. Maybe they could actually read the evaluations that we give teachers. Some that I had were horrible 3.

and I didn't gain anything from it. set higher standards for admission to make the school more difficult to get into, so my degree will 4.

hold more weight with employers. A bigger emphasis on math in various courses, better integration between the math department and the computer science department, and the new pre-engineering department. This will help create a 5.

more traditional software engineering program and allow for sound engineering practices to be brought into the curriculum.

6. More emphasis on computers in mathematics and more focused advising.

Do not put so much emphasis on getting a 70% on quizzes and tests before averaging in other 7. aspects to the grade. Many nursing students crammed to get the 70% and did not retain any

knowledge because we were so concerned with passing and not learning. For one, learn how to spell on your damn surveys. This is exactly why I would choose a different 8.

school. The academic prestige of this institution leaves much to be desired. I think they could offer more help for students that are graduating by offering career fairs, and 9. inviting employees to Carroll to gave students who are looking for a job some ideas. They do NEED

to do more to help students find jobs. Better advisors! This is taking me 6 years because I never had a 4 year plan. Bad advising??? I 10.

THINK SO! Have more people to tell you that it is ok to not have a major right away. That you should try a lot 11.

of diffrent things and find what you like. I think it is important, especially in the sciences, to encourage students to participate in summer research/internships at larger universities across the country (or internationally). Also, I think it is very important for the college to begin recruiting professors that are on a tenure track. I think the college has some highly-qualified adjuncts at the moment, but there are also quite a few that are not as proficient. Finally, I think the tenured faculty in the science departments are excellent and 12. are definitely the highlight of my experience here at Carroll. However, I recently became aware that

Dr. John Bennett was denied a tenure position in the biology department, which definitely gave me a negative impression of the college. I think in order to further strengthen the "Carroll College experience," faculty like Dr. Bennett should be a continued faculty member. He is one of my inspirations, and denying future students an opportunity to learn from and work with him would be an incredibly large step in the wrong direction by the college. Have full time professors!!! Especially in classes that are critical to ones major like human resources 13.

management! Be more academically challenging - except Bus. 304 (class is too difficult for average Bus. major). 14.

CAB exec members should be paid. Having more classes taught by fulltime professors. Its hard to only have a teacher only be on 15. campus once a week or so. Also the Graphic Com program has been on the rise, but i still feel as if

the basics were not taught until Dan Becker came along. The education program is great, however they are too nice to some people, the "weed" out process needs to be more serious.

The adaptive education minor/ or some courses in it should be required for any education major with elective space in their 4 year plan.

The adaptive education program feels like a work in progress. I wanted a METHODs class for adaptive strategies.. but it never came. I felt like there was a lot of repeat information especially between 336 and 338. 330 is such an important class right now with the legislation and testing requirements now, but I got nothing from the class because the professor had no idea what was going on, and I partly blame Carroll for allowing someone like that to teach a class. Someone needed to mentor her and tell her what the expectations were. I wasted a lot of time and money in 16. that class.

Lori Marshman is the best thing that has ever happened to the Early Childhood program. I hope Barb Dailey is brought back to teach again, she has some great insight. Its too bad that Mary Ann Wisneski left the Department. I feel so ready in the EC area because they made so many attempts to get us with REAL kids and doing REAL activities. Education 248 with Diane Alliev was very repetitive. The information is important but not presented in an engaging way. There are real issues out there with families and communities and I dont feel we ever got to them.

Dr. Strom has put so much engery into the immersion field placements. I hope these continue and students that have gone are given more opportunities in classes and seminars to share their AWESOME experiences. He has given up a lot of his own time to travel with students and is a wonderful leader.

17. Make it more cost effective

I think they need an international business program. They are behind the times as far as how 18.

internationalized the business world is.

19. n/a

The size of the school really made it possible to question all misconceptions or misunderstandings 20.

and get answers.

21. keep the library open later!!!

Improve science laboratories to enhance learning. Improvements are needed in the development of coursework needed for each major. For nursing, they all of a sudden decided that we were not doing well enough on the NCLEX and therefor needed to focus more on studying. That's fine, then make 22. sure you allow me to study not keep me tied down writing the 20 page papers for all the nursing

courses. There is a lot of contradiction in what was important to the college and the instructors. You want me to study and do well on tests then let me study more and write fewer papers also give me more tests to practice and improve my skills. Not just a midterm and a final. The changes that have been made to some majors between when I first enrolled at Carroll to now would have been more beneficial sooner. Most adjuncts hired are fine but a better interviewing 23.

process is needed because some adjuncts are not qualified to teach college level classes and their interaction with students are pointless. The Nursing Program needs a lot of work. I know that there are currently many revisions/changes 24.

being made, but, in my opinion, its too little too late. It would help if professors teaching LSP courses made more of an attempt to tie the subject matter to a variety of majors. If the professor would tie the material in an LSP to a variety of majors, it 25.

would have been easier to see the applicability of the LSP courses to my major, making them more interesting and worthwhile. Stop excepting money for sports activities and use it toward something useful in the world like in 26.

the science buildings. Carroll College does not have a strong emphasis on thier adult learners. The student body is very considerate and supportive but the administration does not take the time to separte me from the 27.

majority of the students. I receive mail adressed to my parents all the time. I do not think this reflects well on Carroll's student relations skills.

28. Have a learning place Like WCTC with not just students teaching but some teachers.

29. Business Majors need major reconstruction, especially HR emphasis.

promote activities on campus to commuters more effectively; I never knew when anything was 30.

happening!

31. Have more hands-on activities incorporated in the information we learn in class.

tuition is outrageous and awards aren't fairly distributed. professors act like they don't want to be 32. there. there is a lack of recycling. parking is a problem. financial aid people are crabby and aren't

any help. As an art education major I felt unprepared for the actual job of art teacher because there are things I never learned how to do that is a part of the every day job. Things like how to fire a kiln, or 33.

repair pottery, how to make a budget, that glazes to use, how to make clay, what materials are needed for classes, ect.

34. Carroll could be more selective with adjunct faculty

35. Help with spelling. Use standards that correlate to other colleges.

The only aspect of Carroll that really bothered me while going here was the administration. I like so many other students was sick of all of the trouble that was caused because administrators refused to listen to students and faculty. I was very sad to see top-notch faculty in the music department (one of whom went on to Yale!) leave because of the tenure issue. I was devastated to see the 36. academic restructuring with deans and "programs" instead of departments. What a monumental

waste and poor excuse to tighten control from above. I was sad to see faculty and staff members talking about how meaningless their opinions are because the administration didn't care to listen or would overturn decisions that were made by the faculty. I hope that under Dr. Hastad this college can get past its recently dark history. It's the students who make this college a possibility and the administrators don't act like they understand that-they ought not forget it! Also, ITS has been a pretty dramatic failure for most of my years. Certain top people over there have really made me wonder how they can keep their jobs with such terrible performance. Otherwise, most of the staff is great to work with!

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

16. How did FYS help you with your academic career? Full Response

eased the transitions of finding and making friends, being introduced to college level work, overall 1. understanding of the academic expierence and process as well as how to stand up in appeals.

2. it was useless....

3. Made a learning community and a comfortable place (for a freshman).

No, My totally awesome eighties class took away from my other studies. I had a hard freshman 4. course load and 2 papers due a week which did not contribute to my understanding at all. It was alot of busy work.

5. FYS did not help me with my academic career at all.

Help realize that some teachers may have to passion to teach, but just aren't aware of other 6. demands from different classes being placed on students. It introduced me to the library, online databases and other ways to find sources. The actual course 7. did little for me.

Prepared me for the various types of assignments I would be tackling in college such as preparation 8. for writing papers. Stimulated my interests in philosophical studies and my continued research in computer science. The professor also encouraged me to pursue my philosophy minor.

9. did not take FYS

10. It provided a necessary wake-up call to what college was really like.

11. I liked how it orientated me to the library and how to use the intranet. It didn't really help my academic career. We watched a lot of movies. It was good for getting college 12. information.

13. Waste of time

It helped me use the resources offered in the library more confidently and it gave me more tools to 14. help my writing.

It was a good intro to college class. I think that the topics need to be more interesting though. If I 15. hadn't liked my topic so much, it would have been a much less enjoyable class. I spoke with many

people who hated their FYS class and thought it was a complete waste of time.

16. Didn't take it.

17. FYS helped me become more comfertable on campus and showed me some of the stuff offered here.

I had a great professor that really pushed us to develop both our writing and oral presentation skills 18. that carried throughout my college career.

I don't think that it helped my academic career other then helping me through the hardnesses of 19. freshmen year. Getting to meet new people in a comfortable atmosphere

20. Helped me acclimate myself to college coursework and work with complete strangers.

21. N/A

22. no, i have always been interested in art but it didnt make me look at anything differently

23. I basically just saw it as a course that introduced me into what the college experience would be like

24. it didn't

It showed me around campus and helped me meet people. It also clearly laid general expectations 25. of professors.

26. i did not take an FYS class

27. I did not have to take FYS since I transferred here my junior year.

I think it helped freshman get more comfortable with the college setting and introduce themselves to others. It was also helpful because the teacher i has was very resourceful and i felt like i could go 28.

to her for anything. It also gave us an idea of what other classes would be like and typical workloads of classes. I had the class with several people who shared my major, therefor we developed a strong friendship 29.

that has lasted throughout college. It helped to ease my way into the college lifestyle, meet new people and help me to realize some 30.

areas of interest I didn't know I had. It really did not. I had a horrible instructor who was consistently unprepared. I took a class called 31. the Totally Awesome 80's, and I do not feel that it did anything to further my learning. In addition, I

never received any of my work back from the instructor after the semester. We had to turn in an entire portfolio of work, and she never returned them as promised because her contract was not renewed. I tried contacting her numerous times to no avail. Overall, to put it bluntly, FYS was a waste of my time. I do not think it served its intended purpose. It introduced me to the amount of work to be expected in a college course. My FYS homework 32. generally took up a majority of my free time. I think that FYS should be more focused on creating a

connection to your peers and the college than on homework.

33. FYS helped me to solidify my citing however, it didn't teach me APA so I couldn't really use it.

34. Probably won't. I don't even remember it.

35. I was not in FYS.

36. I dont really think it did.

37. didn't really. not a good experience.

38. It didn't. Just helped my transistion to college.

FYS helped develop my writing skills compared to high school papers. I liked that we had to take 39. english classes like this as freshmen because it helped us develop a skill we had to use in all of our

classes. It didn't really help because it was the same as one of my other classes but with more writing 40.

papers. personally, it seemed my fys instructor didn't want to teach fys - she was just putting her time in. i 41.

heard of other extremely effective stories relating to fys though FYS exposed me to college writting and gave me a place to ask "freshman" questions without feeling 42. stupid about asking those questions. Also my prof made sure to expose us to extra things going on

around campus

43. did not take fys here

44. I learned to become more critical

45. It increased my GPA.

46. It didn't

47. It didn't, I thought that it was a waste of time.

I don't believe that FYS helped me at all in my academic career. I was already ready to begin the more complex academic journey that college required and I was a competent writer. Quite frankly, I 48. think that FYS was a waste of my time. If I could have taken a course that was more relevant to my

major or a course that I actually wanted to take (as opposed to the 3 that still had openings) I may have gotten much more out of it.

49. I did not take FYS

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

11. What else, if anything, will you probably be doing this fall? Mark as many as apply. Full Response

1. AmeriCorps

2. being married

3. getting married

4. moving

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

10. What is most likely to be your principal activity this fall? Full Response

1. Student Teaching

2. Student Teaching

3. Up with People

4. Up with People

5. internship

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

9. Where was the most conducive location for you to study? Full Response

1. library-Carroll or Public followed by the Tech center

2. Library

3. my room

4. laundry room

Coffee shop- a place that allowed snacks. I think the Learning Commons should allow small snacks. 5. If you are in the library for a long time studying, you NEED a snack.

The reading room also was a place I oftened studied.

6. room, or the library when it wasnt around final time

7. my room

8. Library

9. library

10. In my room, alone.

11. My room.

12. my appartment 13. My off campus apartment or library

14. library

15. The library or my room.

16. my room

17. Depending on the subject matter, room or library

18. My Room

19. Either at my house or in the library, needs to be quiet.

20. Home or library quite area

21. Library Reading Room

22. upstairs in the library or on the lawn in the spring and fall

23. The comptuer lab or library

24. The computer lab in New Hall

25. library

26. At home

27. The quiet room in the library or the computer labs in New Hall.

28. very quiet, mostly the reading room or library

29. My room, my apartment, my house

30. The Quiet Room (Library) and the Coffee Shop

31. library

32. my room

33. The quite room in the library

34. the library

35. My room/apartment or library

36. My room/apartment or library

37. library, study lounge

38. Off campus at home

39. the library

40. At home or in the library reading room.

I prefered to study in my room, because of convenience. However, when I seriously needed to get 41.

something accomplished, I would go to the Library.

42. Shattuck

43. in my room, if the plumbing worked

44. library

45. room

46. The Lab in new hall

47. Library

48. Organizations Office

49. library and the learning commons

50. Dorm room during the day.

51. Computer Lab

52. library

53. The library and my room in previous years.

54. learning commons in library basement

my dorm/apartment 55.

Library(NOT reading room)

56. math lab

57. my room

58. The Library

59. Home

60. library or tech center

61. Quiet Room in Lib

62. library computer lab

63. Library

64. room

65. Dorm room, library, or Shattuck lobby

66. Home

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

Some teachers stand out as extraordinarily effective. If you had such "standouts" please identify 20. Full them by name and (if applicable) indicate the class(es) you took with them. Response Prompt: 1.

1. Jodi Otto; Psy 221

2. Pam Pinahs-Schultz; PED 421

3. Dennis Debrecht; ECO:105,125,306,307,290

4. Keenan; Eng170, 255

5. Eric Thobaben; BIO224, BIO260

6. Monica Baldridge

7. Jeff Kunz; ACC 206, 207, 208, Intm.1

8. Kevin McMahon; Organic Chemistry

9. Kris Hartz

10. Jason Badura

11. Chenglie Hu; CSC226, CSC440

12. Karie Kobiski; NRS317

13. Lisa Green; NRS 317

14. John Bennett; Bio 160, 221, 491, mentor

15. Paul Rempe (Ret); History

16. Dr. Thobaben; BIO224

17. Matthias Bollmus; BUS304, BUS302

18. Michael Imes; ART210

19. all of student affairs

20. Dr. John Bennett; BIO 212

21. Bauer; BUS

22. Brian Edlbeck; ESC Courses

23. Dr. Block; NCEP 317

24. Dan Becker; GRC

25. Kathy Kramer; EDU 100, EDU261, EDU 332

26. Mary Ann Wisniewski; EDU 341 and others

27. Levas; Bus496 and Bus320

28. Kris Hartz

29. Dr. Baldridge; Bio 403

30. Tom Pahnke

31. Angie Brindowski; NRS319

32. Dailey; FYS

33. Susan Saucier; Community Health Nursing

34. Lilly Goren; POL 332

35. Susan Saucier; NRS418

36. Brian Edlbeck; Many in Exercise Science

37. Byler; HIS106

38. Penlesky; Eco212, BUS305

39. Lynn Peterson; Bio150/160 lab

40. Virginia Parsons

41. Bernier; pol399

42. David Simpson; PSY 206

43. David MacIntyre; PHY102

44. Monika Baldridge; BIO301/BIO221

45. feil; many

46. Kathy Kramer; adaptive education

47. McLemore; POL275

48. Dr. Schuder

49. Pinas Sch; Numerous courses

50. Fiel; MAT 450, MAT 312

51. Larry Harper; MUS188

52. Dr. T; CSC 341, CSC 351, CSC 450

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

1. Karen Gorton; NRS 230

2. Greg Schultz; BUS:315,390

3. Hansen; PHI 105

4. John Bennett; BIO212, BIO160

5. Dr. Bennet

6. Tom Phanke

7. Charles Byler

8. John Towell; CSC111, CSC341, CSC351

9. Susan Saucier; NRS416

10. Peggy Kasimatis; psy 206, 201, 260

11. David Block; Env Sci

12. Dr. Bennett; BIO160

13. Michael Schuder; CHE109, CHE110

14. Ray Kern; MAT112

15. bill bower

16. Dr. Kevin McMahon; CHE 203/204

17. Van Serke, HayleyBeth; SOC

18. Steve Staab

19. Kunz; Acc 205 + 206

20. Amy Cropper; Art

21. Patty Becker; EDU334

22. Kim Hofkamp; EDU 304 and others

23. Deb Schultz; Super Bowl Class

24. Steve Staab

25. Steve Staab

26. Karen Gorton; NRS230

27. Redding; HIS 104 (european)

28. Jim Slauson; Art History

29. David Feil; MAT 160, 161, 206, 450

30. Tammy Moulas; NRS317

31. Mortensen; ART228

32. Bollmus; Finance

33. Joe Piatt; Pionner Scholar Mentor

34. Linda Thompson

35. Redding; His104

36. Kim Boykin; REL 106

37. Cynthia Horst; BIO250/BIO314

38. symms; many

39. Phil Krejzarek; photography and digital i

40. Bernier; POL365

41. Lynn Peterson

42. Jon Hiskens; Health Methods

43. Simms; MAT 206, MAT 320, MAT 207

44. David Bate; GER398

45. Dr. Hu; CSC 226, CSC 440. CSC 323

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

1. NRS 416; Susan Saucier

2. Mike Levas; BUS:490,301

3. Dr. Kasimatis

4. John Symms; MAT320, MAT207

5. Kathy Kramer; Education

6. Prof. Bauer; BUS101WW

7. Michael LaFond; BUS303

8. S, Sansone; EDU304

9. Professor Rose

10. Dr. Susan Lewis; BIO 260

11. Werner; Bus. 302

12. Bill Bauer; Bueiness 13. Lori Marshman; EDU342

14. Charles Byler; HIS 106

15. Bollmus; Super Bowl Class

16. Brian Edlbeck

17. Brian Edlbeck

18. John Bennet; BIO212

19. Bruno; theatergoers

20. Karie Kobiske; Med/Surg Nursing

21. Kevin Guilfoy; PHI 206

22. Dr. Bennett; BIO220

23. Bauer; BUS250

24. Debrect; Econs 124 and 125

25. Mel Vance; Rel103

26. Kim Hofkamp

27. Byler; His 210

28. Michael Schuder; CHE 303

29. Bob Black; SPA290/HIS112/HHHS minor

30. lampe; many

31. Dr. Benett

32. Dannhoff; Numerous Courses

33. Mitzi Horning; EDU306

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Survey Results -- Details

Senior Survey '07-'08

Respondents: 70 Status: Open

Launched 03/04/2008 Closed Date: N/A Date:

8. What student organizations were you involved with during your time as a student? Full Response

1. Wisconsin Management and Marketing Association

2. Student Senate

3. Student Senate

4. Student Senate

5. Cheerleading

6. Student Senate

7. Student Senate

SelectSurvey.NET 2.5.2

Annual Report Office of Student Affairs Carroll College 2007-2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS GOALS FOR 2007-2008 4

MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS 5

COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS OF STUDENT AFFAIRS 11

INDIVIDUAL OFFICE SUMMARIES 16

Office of Chaplain 16

Office of Student Counseling 18

Office of Cultural Diversity 19

Student Health Center 21

Office of Residence Life and Housing 23

Office of Services for Students with Disabilities 25

Office of Student Activities 26

SUMMARY 28

Office of Student Affairs

THE OFFICE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS GOALS FOR 2007-2008

Engage the greater Carroll College community and encourage students to do the same.

Commit to making diversity the responsibility of everyone in the education and services we provide.

Commit to educating students through experiential learning, integrated knowledge and personal growth.

Provide programs and services that support the academic mission of the College.

Office of Student Affairs 2007-2008 Annual Report

This past academic year has been a very productive time for the Office of Student Affairs. We not only have been working on many projects, but we also saw our student body elect a President and Vice President to lead Student Senate next year. Mitch Morrison was elected by his peers to serve as President and Marti Teske was elected to serve as Vice President; they are both proven advocates for students and will be outstanding partners with Carroll's administration. The Office of Student Affairs accomplished much and is positioned to provide a comprehensive experience for our students and the campus as a whole. We would like to share some details with you regarding these exciting initiatives that have helped provide a Pioneer experience for Carroll students.

Carroll Experiences Transcript • Many Carroll students are involved in various activities outside of the classroom, but there are distinct differences in learning outcomes and benefits when students choose to engage in co-curricular activities rather than extra-curricular activities. The value of co- curricular activities can be instrumental in the intellectual and scholarly development of students. This is a concept that is analogous to the academic transcript, but has as its content a history of the various co-curricular experiences a student has participated in during their tenure at Carroll. Just as 100 level courses prepare students for upper-level courses, there is a similar process for co-curricular endeavors that can enhance the quality of learning that occurs. This is a new endeavor for fall 2008 that allows Carroll students to document their outside-the-classroom learning. The Carroll Experiences Transcript utilizes nine key areas of engagement: o Honors & Awards o Internships o NCAA Athletics o Peer Mentoring o Service o Student Government o Student Organizations o Study Abroad o Undergraduate Research.

Students and Carroll gatekeepers administer the Carroll Experiences Transcript through our Carroll portal in two easy steps and we are in the final stages of preparing this project for implementation this fall. We had the privilege of discussing and vetting the project with College Assembly, the Staff Organization, and the Student Senate and it was a truly collegial endeavor for the community. We would like to thank Debra Jenkins and Marc Belanger from ITS, as well as Ann Handford from the Office of the Registrar for their support and partnership in this endeavor. We believe this will be another positive step at cultivating a campus learning environment as we encourage and expect students to seek opportunities to compliment and supplement their inside-the-classroom learning.

WPCID Conference • The 4th annual Wisconsin Private College Initiative for Diversity Conference was hosted by Carroll during April 4-5. 127 participants came and learned from a number of presentations on diversity related topics throughout the Conference. The entire event was student-run with careful advising by Dolores Brown, Director of Cultural Diversity, and many other members of Student Affairs and the institution.

Living Learning Communities • Living Learning Communities (LLCs) are based on the model of the residential college, where faculty engage students in the residence halls and much of the content that is programmed in that community is derivative of an academic curriculum. In this model, faculty also have the opportunity to nurture relationships with students that benefit the learning experience for all involved. All students participating in Living Learning Communities self-select into the process, thus ensuring a strong commitment and established knowledge base in the curriculum. The size of each Living Learning Community can be as small or large as demand and faculty interest dictate and the structure of each Living Learning Community can be tailored to meet the specific needs of each curriculum. A call for proposals went out in mid-November to all faculty and we received an overwhelming response. One aspect that is absolutely wonderful from our perspective is the collaboration between faculty that is present in these groups. This will truly create a more robust learning experience as we offer multiple faculty perspectives for students. We will be sponsoring eight LLCs this fall and I am pleased to list them here with their sponsoring faculty:

Living Learning Community Sponsoring Faculty First Year Seminar LLC (Elections) Staci O'Brien

First Year Seminar LLC (Adventure) Ellen Barclay

Gender Studies LLC Lily Goren Deirdre Keenan Abby Markwyn Susan Nusser

Health and Wellness LLC Tom Pahnke

Pam Pinahs-Schultz

History LLC Charlie Byler Kimberly Redding

Radical Environment LLC David Block Rich Coon Tim Fiedler Jim Grimshaw Bill Humphreys Eric Thobaben

Spanish Immersion LLC Bob Black Elena De Costa

Visual Arts LLC Amy Cropper Peggy Farrell Phil Krejcarek Pacia Salomi Tom Selle

Pioneer ONE Card in the Community • This endeavor is something we have worked in partnership with ITS and Campus Services to allow Carroll students and community members to use their ID card as payment at local businesses. The program will be part of Blackboard's BbOne endeavor and it is one more way for us to build town and gown relations as well as collect data on the economic impact our students have on the local economy. Special thanks are in order to Marc Belanger from ITS and Matt Sirinek of Campus Services for their partnership on this endeavor.

Pioneer Hall Construction • Many people and offices this year have been working on developing a new residential community for our students and the potential benefit to the campus it will bring is significant. From extending the campus footprint, to a modest boost in revenue, to a new facility to apply that enhances faculty and student engagement, the project has great promise. One example of how we have married pragmatism with idealism in the endeavor is the desire to place a classroom in the ground floor of the building. Not only does this help with our classroom shortage on campus, but it also allows us to consider the pedagogical benefits of such a space in relation to the living learning communities in that hall. As well, the community development benefit of now having a rationale for students who live in Steele Hall, for example, to go to the new building because they have a class there are also attractive. Several of our new Living Learning Communities will reside in this building and we are thrilled at the potential for re-defining the learning experience for our students. The community will also feature a Learning Commons, a coffee shop, a Pilates studio, a cardio fitness room, underground and surface parking, as

well as many other amenities. The construction has been progressing remarkably well and all things point to a scheduled opening on August 1, 2008. In April, Carroll students voted on a recommendation to make to the College on the name of our new Residential community. The three finalists were Pioneer Hall, Grand Hall, and Savage Hall (named for Carroll's first President), and the overwhelming preference selected by students was Pioneer Hall.

Carroll's Online Parent Course • Your Student and You: Turning Change into Growth in the First Six Months of College is an online course exclusively for parents of first year students that utilizes WCCX, Carroll’s campus radio station, and Blackboard as delivery media. The course was taught by Celestino Limas (Dean of Students), Patrick Peyer (Assistant Dean of Students), and Kyle Sulik (Carroll graduate of 2007) every 2nd and 4th Tuesday evening this past fall from 7-8:30pm and the course is available as a podcast for those who cannot participate during Tuesday nights. We had over 200 parents enrolled in the class and in the first week the site had received over 2500 hits. The course was designed to acquaint parents of new students to the transitions and developmental opportunities that students will face their first semester at Carroll College. The course curriculum included academic prioritization, FERPA, college mental health issues, student development theory, and other areas germane to the first year transition. Parents could call, email, or post their questions in real time to interact with the instructors as well as other parents. Celestino Limas presented a workshop on the endeavor at the annual College Student Educators International (ACPA) meeting in late March. The course was especially useful as a way of communicating and discussing the recent challenges this fall concerning Campus Safety and the death of one of our students this past fall.

Student Health Insurance next Fall • We will transition to a hard waiver this fall that will provide a range of coverage for our students including $50,000 per each illness/injury, all for $715 for a full calendar year of coverage. We have already begun communicating this change to students and will notify them five different ways over the next two months and we also will notify parents two different times as well.

The Parent Perspective e-Newsletter • This is a concept that we partnered with Dean Rein and Gina Ehlers from the Office of Advancement to establish a content-driven way to communicate with parents. The Parent Perspective is an electronic newsletter (offered at no cost to parents) jointly sponsored by Student Affairs and Advancement featuring articles by faculty, administrators, students, and parents themselves, as well as important Carroll information (e.g. financial aid deadlines, housing timelines, vaccination/health insurance information, arts and sporting events). It also allows us an opportunity to discuss relevant topics important to parents and current events in higher education. The Parent Perspective now has over 600 parents receiving it every month and we are thrilled at the communication lines it has created.

Student Support Committee • This year we created a group of staff and faculty that meet on a regular basis to discuss students who are experiencing issues or may be nearing a crisis. The goal of the group is to identify these students, share information that can help the College respond, and then develop a plan for engaging and assisting the student. The Student Support Committee, as it was named, includes membership from Student Affairs Directors and Deans, as well as the Director of Campus Safety, and a faculty representative from each of the three divisions. Jim Grimshaw (Humanities and Social Sciences), Peggy Kasimatis (Natural and Health Sciences), and Jan Weigman (Professional and Graduate and Studies) have done an amazing job of serving on the group and reaching out to their colleagues to bring students to the attention of the group. The Student Support Committee has been a wonderful success this year as the membership of faculty and Campus Safety makes this group quite comprehensive. In today's college environment, students that are in need of support are plentiful and the more we can reach them in a proactive fashion the less we deal with reactive situations.

Assessment and Learning Outcome Development in Student Affairs • The Office of Student Affairs has been working to improve our assessment efforts and establish clear learning outcomes for our efforts. As we work to distinguish extracurricular activities from co-curricular activities, this process has been helpful in also tethering our efforts back to our four goals and not functioning as a tradition-based organization but rather a learning-based organization. We also administered our first ever General Student Survey to allow students to assess how Student Affairs has met our learning outcomes as well as provide feedback on a range of topics.

President’s Task Force on Campus and Neighborhood Safety • This is a group that President Hastad commissioned after Student Senate submitted a formal letter to Carroll’s Administration expressing concern over several incidents this past October that threatened the safety of Carroll students. The group was chaired by Debra Jenkins and Celestino Limas and includes membership from the student body, the student newspaper, faculty and staff, neighbors in the area, and members of the Waukesha Police Department. The group examined all facets of the Office of Campus Safety and submitted formal recommendations to President Hastad in December concerning immediate, short, and long term enhancements to benefit the safety of all members of the Carroll community including neighbors in the area. We have continued to meet this spring in an effort to follow up with Campus Safety regarding their progress on our recommendations.

New Student Orientation • We have been reviewing the structure and learning outcomes of New Student Orientation (NSO) and have formed a group to design a new format. The group includes membership from across campus and met regularly throughout the year to plan the event. It has been a wonderful exercise in collaboration and shared ownership and will yield a much stronger experience for our students. One significant change will be the movement of NSO from three events in the summer to the end of August. Under this new format, all

new students would arrive the Friday prior to Labor Day to begin Welcome Week and we would still sponsor visitation days in the summer to aid in student/family transition to Carroll. This will allow us to provide one experience for all traditional students, transfer students, and international students, as well as allowing each of those three demographics time to deliver specific content for their respective groups. We also revamped the content of NSO to include many new events, such as an orientation for Students of Color that focuses on the unique challenges they face at Carroll.

Student Emergency Protocol • Carroll now has a system in place to deal with individual student emergencies and centralize the way in which we notify campus entities and parents of affected students. The system uses two layers of response: and Administrator on Call (AOC) and a Backup Administrator on Call (BAOC) that are on call 24/7. The AOC rotation is comprised of our live-in administrators in Residence Life and Housing and the BAOC rotation is comprised of senior members of Student Affairs. The protocol is designed to streamline communication between campus offices and provide a central person to gather information and make a determination as to when we need to involve parents of affected students. Situations that would be handled through this protocol could include serious mental health issues, potential alcohol poisonings, or other individual situations where we are concerned for the well being of a student and their ability to function as an independent member of our community. A procedure manual has been in place since this summer and training has been done with all members of the rotation along with the Director of Campus Safety and the College Counsel. This has been a rousing success and has provided additional layers of security for our student population as well as a structure for communicating emergencies to the President and members of his Cabinet.

With this new AOC/BAOC protocol, we needed a mental health resource that could function on a 24/7 on call capacity to assess the mental health stability and level of independence of students in need since we lack that service on campus. We entered into discussions with Waukesha Memorial Hospital (ProHealth Care Behavioral Medicine Center) about their ability to provide this service and are pleased to have a partnership in place that provides this valuable service to Carroll. In addition, we also negotiated a partnership for independent clinicians affiliated with Waukesha Memorial Hospital to provide post-hospitalization assessment for students prior to their return on campus. With the addition of the partnership with Waukesha Memorial Hospital to provide 24 hour on-call assessment of students in crisis with psychological needs as well as post- hospitalization assessment prior to their return to campus, this has been a highlight of our ability to care for our students.

Office of Student Affairs Collaborative Efforts One hallmark of Student Affairs is the collaboration that we foster and cultivate amongst ourselves and with our campus colleagues. This year has been no different as we continued historical partnerships and initiated new ones, all in the name if educating our students. These collaborations make us strong citizens of the Carroll community and also enhance our ability to serve as generalists in Student Affairs. We are proud of these efforts and would like to share them with you here. The following collaborations illustrate the reach of Student Affairs across campus and also are indicative of how invested the campus and Student Affairs are in our shared success. We value our ability to cross-train in Student Affairs and take every opportunity to involve our colleagues in these vital projects. AOC/BAOC • As described earlier, this has been a vital addition to the College and for the protection of our students. We now have a protocol in place to deal with any and all individual student emergencies and can involve parents and the President's Cabinet easily when appropriate. The endeavor functions because of the close partnership between Student Affairs and Campus Safety, along with the support from the College Counsel.

Assessment Committee • The Dean of Students is a member of the College's Assessment Committee that reviews and analyzes data from the College and each academic department. It is important to note that Student Affairs is the only administrative member on this committee and speaks to the level of education that occurs in our office and that is expected from us by the campus.

Athletic Augmentation Committee • This past spring, President Hastad charged a group comprised of students, faculty, and staff to examine the College's intercollegiate sport offerings to see if there was potential for augmenting our efforts. Dean Rein and Kris Jacobsen chair the committee and Student Affairs has representation on this group.

Carroll College/Carroll University Efforts • Student Affairs was proud to partner with Student Senate for two open forums on the topic of Carroll College v. Carroll University. In the fall we jointly sponsored an open

lunch for students to come and learn more about the two sides and in the spring we supported Student Senate's town hall debate on the topic. Each team of one faculty and one student took a stance in favor of Carroll College or Carroll University and the event was moderated by the Dean of Students. Turnout for both events was outstanding, with the spring debate garnering coverage from the local media.

Carroll Experiences Transcript • This endeavor has been very successful and would not be possible without the participation and support from all areas of campus. From the initial drafting group make up of faculty, staff, and students, there have been many fingerprints on this project. We also had the privilege of vetting the idea as well as the beta versions of the document with College Assembly, the Staff Organization, and the Student Senate.

Commencement Committee • This is a vital group to the College chaired by Campus Services and this year many members of Student Affairs volunteered to assist with their efforts. The academic events this group plans are essential and provide a memorable experience for all Carroll members and we are happy to be a part of this group.

Extended Hours and Programming in the Campus Center • We reached out to Matt Sirinek and the Campus Center staff early in the year to examine the possibility of keeping the Campus Center open longer on Fridays and Saturdays. Matt and his staff was very open to this and as a result of our partnership, the Campus Center was kept open past midnight on a regular basis for the first time ever. It is important to recognize that Residence Life and Housing along with Student Activities partnered to provide programming in the Campus Center during the weekends to highlight the extended hours and we are grateful to Matt Sirinek and his staff for their efforts with this endeavor.

Faculty Collaboration • There have been many examples of our partnership with Carroll faculty this past year, ranging from guest lectures by members of Student Affairs in classes to joint partnerships on various events. Three in particular that are worth mentioning are Student Affairs partnered with Deirdre Keenan to sponsor the United Nations Association Film Festival in late March; the partnership with Peggy Kasimatis to screen and discuss a film on self- mutilation and college students, as well as our joint efforts with the Psychology program an QPR suicide training; and our partnership with Elena De Costa for the Human Face of Health Care in Wisconsin event in late January.

Horizontes en Carroll • This event is now in its 4th incarnation and it brings together offices in Student Affairs with members from the staff (Library), faculty (Elena De Costa), and members of the local community. A total of 42 high school students participated in the program this past July, with 20 Carroll student volunteers helping to staff the event. Since its inception, the Horizontes en Carroll pre-college program has successfully collaborated with community 12

organizations such as the United Community Center, La Casa de Esperanza, Waukesha South High School, and Enlight, Inc. It speaks to our enduring commitment to cultivating an inclusive experience for all students, especially those that have been historically underrepresented at Carroll.

Human Resources Benefits Planning Group • Barb Flynn served on this committee that selected the benefits package for the College this past fall. Her service was vital in the process and she was able to advocate for multiple Carroll employee perspectives in this role.

Living Learning Communities • As indicated earlier, this endeavor has been immensely successful and we look forward to all that it will accomplish next year. There are many faculty involved in the program and the planning this year between Residence Life and Housing with the faculty has been the foundation for our success.

New Student Orientation • This has been an exciting exercise in reframing an existing program and truly deconstructing it so that we can develop it in a new manner with an enhanced focus on the Carroll experience. We convened a group with representation from all areas of campus and began discussing ways to improve the Orientation experience, and the conversation shifted towards moving the process from three supplicate summer events to one comprehensive event in late August immediately preceding classes. After securing buy-in from that group, we then visited with the academic deans and other constituencies about the change and received support for the process. The NSO group then began working on a brand new schedule with enhanced content and learning outcomes designed to acclimate students to Carroll while highlighting all that goes into a Carroll education. The result has been a sparkling new event that will debut this coming August and is due to the collegiality demonstrated by our colleagues in Admissions, the Library, the Registrar, the Business Office, Student Employment, ITS, Campus Services, Academic Affairs, and many others.

Pandemic Flu Policy Committee • This was a group that Pam Dolata, Angie Brannan, and Vicky Alf were a part of along with Kathy Hammett (International Education), John Harbeck (Campus Safety), and Cat Jorgens (College Counsel). Their efforts resulted in a new policy being created for the College in the event of a pandemic flu outbreak in southeastern Wisconsin.

Parent Perspective • We were delighted to partner with Advancement on this project and special thanks in particular go to Dean Rein and Gina Ehlers for their leadership in this effort. Brydie Hill form Student Affairs served as the editor for this endeavor and did an outstanding job planning and developing each issue.

Personnel Searches • The Assistant Dean of Students search committee was comprised of Matt Sirinek (Campus Services), David Block (Environmental Science), Beth Towell (Vice Provost), Marti Teske (Student), Monica DeWitt (Student), Elizabeth Brzeski (Student Activities), Dolores Brown (Cultural Diversity), and Barb Flynn (Student Affairs). Their efforts were extremely valuable and aided the College significantly. • The Director of Residence Life and Housing search committee was comprised of Debra Jenkins (Information Technology), Rebecca Imes (Communication), Heather Kennedy (Student), Amy Butters (Student), Mandy Price (Student), Dolores Brown, Cultural Diversity), Suzy Dantuma (Residence Life and Housing), and Barb Flynn (Student Affairs). Their efforts resulted in us naming Steve Weaver to serve as our new Director of Residence Life and Housing beginning July 1 and we are excited about his arrival. • The Director of Services for Students with Disabilities search committee was comprised of Barb Christus (Human Resources), Cat Jorgens (Business and College Counsel), Mitch Morrison (Student), Griselda Macias (Student), Bill Humphreys (Chaplain), Mimi Devine-Touhey (Student Health Center), and Barb Flynn (Student Affairs). Their efforts resulted in the hire of Martha Bledsoe as our new Director of Services for Students with Disabilities beginning July 1 and we look forward to all of the contributions she will make this coming year. • Amy Walker, Suzy Dantuma, AJ Clauss, Tamika Doolin, Lesley Stahl, and Brydie Hill (All from Residence Life and Housing) served on the Area Director search committee this past spring. Their efforts resulted in the hires of Abby Burlingame and Joshua Cline as new Area Directors for the coming academic year. We are very excited about their arrival and the leadership they will provide our students. • Tamika Doolin (Residence Life and Housing) served on Enrollment's Director of Student Success search committee this past fall. • Elizabeth Brzeski (Student Activities) served on Enrollment's Admissions Counselor/Student Employment search committee this past fall.

Pioneer ONE Card in the Community • Matt Sirinek (Campus Services), Marc Belanger (Information Technology), and Patrick Peyer (Assistant Dean of Students) all partnered on this effort. It will provide a significant benefit for our students and community members this fall and we are all looking forward to it coming to fruition.

President's Task Force on Campus and Neighborhood Safety • This was a group charged by President Hastad and chaired by Debra Jenkins (Information Technology) and Celestino Limas (Student Affairs). Membership was vast and representative and resulted in three sets of formal recommendations to the College.

Smoking Policy Committee • This group was chaired by Debra Jenkins (Information Technology) and included membership from several Student Affairs members including Amy Walker (Residence Life and Housing), Vicky Alf (Student Affairs), Pam Dolata (Student Health Center), and

Mimi Devine-Touhey (Student Health Center). Their efforts resulted in a new tobacco- free policy for Carroll that will go into practice this fall.

Student Health Insurance • This group was instrumental in addressing a large issue with the College in student health insurance. We needed to move away from our previous practice of voluntary and soft- waiver application and to towards a hard-waiver. Cat Jorgens (College Counsel), Kathy Hammett (International Education), Vicky Alf (Student Affairs), and Pam Dolata (Student Health Center) were members of this group and their efforts will go a long way for the health and safety of our students.

Student Leader Selection and Training • This year Amy Walker (Residence Life and Housing) and Elizabeth Brzeski (Student Activities) partnered with Matt Sirinek (Campus Services) to collaborate on selecting their respective student leader positions as a group rather than separately. They also trained all of their students together this past spring in preparation for the summer and fall.

Student Support Committee • As described earlier, this project has been an enormous success. The partnership between Campus Safety, the Faculty, and Student Affairs is what makes this work and beneficial to our students.

Volunteering in the Community • Many members of Student Affairs contributed to the Waukesha community as a way of role-modeling for our students and also living our shared ideal of citizenship. Examples of this can be found in Bill Humphreys' work with Kiwanis, Dolores Brown's work with Catholic Memorial High School, and Angie Brannan's work with the Women's Center.

WPCID Conference • As indicated previously, there was much collaboration within Student Affairs and from the College as a whole in this endeavor. Special recognition goes to Dolores Brown for her leadership with the event and also to Matt Jones and Ashley Huerta, the student chairs of the event. Matt and Ashley did an amazing job of planning and executing the event and their efforts speak to what Carroll students are capable of achieving.

Office of Student Affairs INDIVIDUAL OFFICE SUMMARIES Office of the Chaplain The Chaplain is an important member of Student Affairs and oversees the spiritual development of all students as well as the climate in which our community pursues the balance between daily life and their search for meaning. The role of the Chaplain is complex and challenging given the variance in belief systems as well as the connectedness people feel with their own religions, but it is one that makes the role very rewarding and enriching.

Major Accomplishments • We successfully integrated the Chaplain into the Walter Young Center this year and expanded the range of offerings the Center provides for students. • The Chaplain again provided a range of spiritual services for the campus community as well as the Waukesha community including weddings, funerals, prayers/invocations, and welfare visits. • Spiritual counseling for Carroll students was a source of accomplishment. • The Chaplain contributed a regular column on spirituality to the New Perspective, Carroll's independent student-run newspaper. • The Chaplain taught courses in both the First Year Seminar program as well as the Religion program. • Assessment was rediscovered as an opportunity for the Chaplain to gauge the impact spirituality has on our students and there are plans to expand this for the coming year.

Major Challenges • Transition in the Walter Young Center with a new Director of Services for Students with Disabilities as well as Career Services being removed from Student Affairs in January and relocated as of this summer. • Student and community search for definition of our Christian identity has been a challenge; there is much incongruence on this topic but it is one that can be explored and shepherded well.

• Articulating and defining a more salient role for the Chaplain as Student Affairs transitions into a new state. • Attendance at Chapel has been low and we will look to improve this by modifying the schedule this fall.

Office of Student Affairs Student Counseling Student counseling is a vital member of Student Affairs and provides a range of services to our students. Carroll students face a number of issues including anxiety, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, and other diagnoses. Many students appear for an appointment at the WYC when their academics begin to suffer due to the personal issues they are dealing with. Every session with a student helps promote their personal growth and we help students develop lifelong skills in educating them about good mental health. Major Accomplishments • Increased use of personal counseling by Carroll students (515 visits this academic year). • We were instrumental in the creation of the AOC/BAOC protocol including the mental health assessment services of Waukesha Memorial Hospital. • The creation of a post-hospitalization evaluation process for our students prior to their return to campus. • We provided campus education on suicide prevention, eating disorders, and other mental health issues. • We created and implemented of counseling assessment instrument for use with students. • We created a partnership with local psychiatrist for consultation with the counseling staff.

Major Challenges • The passing of our Carroll student this past fall was a tragic loss that impacted our entire community. While we dealt with it as best as possible, it altered the Carroll experience for many of our students and their families. • Transition in the Walter Young Center was very difficult this year. We searched for a new Director of Services for Students with Disabilities and had Career Services removed from Student Affairs in January and relocated to the Library this May. • Increased use of personal counseling by Carroll students has been a challenge, but one that we cannot ignore. • Staffing levels of dedicated mental health counselors have not increased and this must change as we look to provide adequate care and education for our students. We need more financial resources to provide both proactive and reactive education and service to our students. 18

Office of Student Affairs Cultural Diversity The Office of Cultural Diversity promotes cultural awareness, education, guidance, community involvement, and leadership skills to all students. The Office also provides a place of comfort, education, culture, and pluralism at Carroll College. These two distinct charges are very important to the education of Carroll students and the community as a whole, and we take pride in our ability to raise difficult questions and accompany students along the path to answering them.

Major Accomplishments • Horizontes en Carroll grew to 42 participants in the summer of 2007. This total has grown each year from the initial group of 8 participants in 2004 and we are excited about the continued growth of the program. • This year the Director of Cultural Diversity was augmented to a full-time position for the first time ever. Previously the position was a shared position that spent half-time with Student Affairs and half-time with Enrollment as an Admissions Counselor. This change has allowed the Director to focus all of her efforts on cultural diversity. • Deirdre Keenan, Professor of English, served as the Acting Director of Cultural Diversity for a period this past fall when Dolores Brown was away on leave. This partnership was a wonderful collaboration that allowed for strong bridges to be further nurtured with a faculty member serving in this role. We especially grateful to Deirdre for her service and our office and students are better because of her efforts. • We created a new Student of Color Orientation for NSO 2008 that will help students from these underrepresented groups understand like at Carroll and the challenges they will face. • We saw the continued success of our Caras diversity leadership program. • We hosted the WPCID Conference with 125 participants this year from six institutions with more than 50 Carroll student volunteers helping to stage the event. • We oversaw the expansion of Carroll's commitment to the College Readiness 21 program by agreeing to host the Racine delegate conference this summer in July. • We worked to identify of gender-specific language in our digital and print materials and began the process of removing them from both in the next 6 months. 19

Major Challenges • The current multicultural suite in the ground level of North Bergstrom serves a dual purpose that is not advantageous for our students. It has to not only be a safe space for our students of color but also serve as a teaching space for majority students who wish to learn more about diversity. We need to provide two separate spaces for these dissimilar functions and best serve all Carroll students. • The creation of the Director of Cultural Diversity being a full-time Student Affairs position focused on diversity was made possible in part by moving the former Assistant Director of Cultural Diversity (another split position) to International Education. The FTE of personnel time in Cultural Diversity did not change, but it is clear that we need to commit additional personnel resources to this area. • The College lacks a comprehensive diversity commitment and it hinders our ability to say that we are committed to diversity. We have worked on this in Student Affairs but we need to see College leadership on this issue. • Resistance from some majority students on diversity topics continues to be an issue, but is one that we are looking forward to facing. • There is concern from domestic students of color that the College's new focus on internationalizing the campus places them as a secondary priority in terms of diversity. We need to do more to change this perception both in our words and actions. • The recent transition in Student Affairs raises concerns over resources and commitment to diversity. We hope that the College can do more to commit to the diversity education of our students especially as we begin the transition of the 2008-2009 academic year.

Office of Student Affairs Student Health Center The Student Health Center provides short-term and minor health care for Carroll students. The Center has strong connections with local hospitals and physicians to ensure that when students need to be referred for more extensive treatment, the Center can facilitate that process. We also work very closely with many entities on campus including students to provide sound education on a wide range of health –related topics.

Major Accomplishments • We treated the health of Carroll students through 1518 visits during the academic year, a record number. • We partnered with a number of offices on campus to transition to a hard waiver for student health insurance from a very relaxed and unenforced requirement in previous years. • We enhanced our budget process to accommodate returning revenue from labs and vaccinations to help offset our expenses. • We updated the webpage for the Student Health Center with more resources and information for Carroll students and their families. • We grew our assessment efforts to include a number of instruments and analyses with a record number of responses compared to previous years. • We provided wellness education through programming for the student body. • We provided vaccination clinics this year including ones for influenza and meningitis.

Major Challenges • We treated the highest number of students with a budget that has not increased in operational funds. • We have been planning for the anticipated growth in the use of the Health Center due to a transition to a hard waiver for student health insurance. • There is a demonstrated need for additional personnel resources including more Nurse Practitioner hours as well as the creation of a Medical Assistant, yet these have yet to be approved. Current total staffing is at 1.1 FTE and should be higher.

• Physical space of the student health center prevents more students from being treated. A space has been identified (basement of Kilgour) that would not displace anyone and should be considered for a future home for the student health center. • The Nurse Practitioners have been asked to serve on additional committees and engage the campus administration more than in the past. While this is a welcome role for the staff of the Student Health Center, it underscores the need for additional staffing so that these efforts are not at the expense of treating students. • The General Student Survey reflected the student desire for the Student Health Center to be open longer, and this would greatly help us and several of the issues above. This would, however, require us to have additional staff or extend the number of contracted hours of the current two Nurse Practitioners.

Office of Student Affairs Residence Life and Housing The Office of Residence Life and Housing has seen major growth and development this past academic year. With the addition of Pioneer Hall this coming fall, Carroll will be over half residential and we look forward to expanding our residential undergraduate experience. We also oversee the College's non-academic conduct process and have successfully empowered students to take a greater role in this area as well as establishing the conduct process as being educational rather than punitive. The dedication of our live-in professional staff is apparent in their service to and education of students, and we thrive because of their efforts. A well-cultivated residential experience that is engaging and challenging also depends on committed and dedicated para- professionals and our student staff exemplify what it means for Carroll students to mentor, educate, and support one another.

Major Accomplishments • Pioneer Hall was a major accomplishment that will benefit our students for years to come. The project is unique in that it is a private facility yet will be maintained as a college property with students seeing no difference from it and our Carroll-owned communities. • The Living Learning Community endeavor was a significant success that demonstrates the potential for faculty collaboration with Residence Life. • We began transitioning our housing operations to an auxiliary enterprise which allowed us to set the housing revenue budget against an ending May 2009 occupancy of 93%. • We redesigned our educational programming to be based on a new model that is derivative of Carroll's Four Pillars. • We redesigned and enhanced our spring housing selection process for fall and placed all returning students by early March. • We hired a complete staff for the 2008-2009 academic year by early April for the first time ever and began a transition from the current Director of Residence Life and Housing to her successor. • We partnered with other offices to create and staff the AOC/BAOC protocol which provides crisis response for the College with individual student emergencies. • We redesigned conduct adjudications with learning outcomes for each assigned sanction and streamlined the process to ensure student voice and participation. 23

• We transitioned to a three-year residency requirement for all students entering the College as of fall 2008. • We redesigned the Resident Director position to the new Area Director position for fall 2008 to better reflect the role's scope and responsibility. • We expanded our themed housing opportunities for students beginning this fall 2008 to include substance-free and quiet living options.

Major Challenges • Staffing was an issue with the midyear departure of a Resident Director, but we made a successful hire in early February for a successor. • Overcoming lack of written archives regarding practices was especially challenging, but we have been working all year to correct this in anticipation of the traditional changes that we saw coming in personnel. • We needed to correct the past management of housing as a non-auxiliary with well over 100 beds open to begin this past academic year. • Mental health issues among our students continues to increase; this has a direct impact on our students but also the community we are trying to cultivate and nurture. • Accessing and communicating with off-campus and commuter students continues to be a challenge. In instances where we need to reach off-campus students, the norm is that the College's contact information is inaccurate or outdated. We have designed a potential solution for this and look forward to implementing it this fall. • Previous College maintenance operations have been a significant challenge. However, this has now been greatly improved with the transition to an in-house operation and under Don Stenson's leadership this has already helped our students and their communities.

Office of Student Affairs Services for Students with Disabilities The Office of Services for Students with Disabilities strives to meet the needs of and support all Carroll students with disabilities. Students registered with the office enjoy advocacy and guidance from professionals related to their rights and responsibilities as students with disabilities and how the College can help them be successful. For students without disabilities, the office serves to educate and enlighten them on issues of ability awareness and how ablism can permeate traditional life at Carroll. The office also collaborates heavily with faculty and other campus offices to help build bridges that can benefit students with disabilities.

Major Accomplishments • We provided accommodations to 92 registered students, the largest amount ever registered with the College. • We oversaw the housing accommodation process for the first time ever rather than housing making these assessments. • Provided education to the campus and Carroll students on disability awareness topics including invisible disabilities and how ablism fits into the discussion of diversity. • We revamped intake process for gathering and analyzing disability documentation.

Major Challenges • The range of disability issues was wide for the office and at times outside of our previous experience and knowledge base. • Parent and family expectations for accommodation communication continues to be a challenge. Families often have expectations of us that are based in their previous experience with the K-12 system, and the differences in higher education accommodations and the process itself are vast. • Assessment has historically been low for our office and we have taken steps to improve that this year, but work should continue in this area. • Case law background of disability issues can be stronger for the office and is something we will continue to work towards.

Office of Student Affairs Student Activities The Office of Student Activities is the programming heart of Student Affairs. The office not only plans and executes many programs, but they advise student-led programming and work closely with Student Senate in their efforts to program and educate their peers. The student organization structure also is a part of Student Activities and with almost 50 recognized student organizations, we have opportunities to teach students in a number of areas along with their faculty advisors.

Major Accomplishments • New Student Orientation was completely overhauled and enhanced with a committee planning the entire event and stronger content for the student experience. • We sponsored the Class of 2011 event in fall which provided new students with an to form a shared identity at a home football game. • Weekend programming was significantly enhanced this year with events occurring on Fridays and Saturdays to help keep students on campus during the weekends. • Student Senate successfully transitioned to an online voting process for elections and saw the highest voter turnout ever for spring elections. • We developed a hazing training for all student organizations and also will present this for student-athletes in the fall of 2008. • We made student organization advisors a priority this year to engage them in a new manner and help cultivate a promising experience for them and the student groups they advise. • Student Senate brought two major concerts to campus this year (Mat Kearney and Switchfoot). • Student Activities planned and executed dozens of programs for students this year, including major trips and casual events here on campus. • Assessment instruments were created for Student Activities and the General Student Survey has a strong Student Activity focus.

Major Challenges • Student Activities is staffed with only one person who serves as both Director, and administrative support. This lack of personnel resources is one that needs to be augmented in order to provide the resources and education our students deserve. • Space on campus also continues to be an issue. We have few options for programming space and often venues are not suitable for purpose. This is an area that will hopefully be addressed through the campus master plan initiative. • Student organization relationships with their advisors continues to be a challenge and one that we took steps this year to address. This is a priority for us so that we can have these experience be worthwhile and educational for students and faculty. • While we have made great strides in assessment this year, we can still do much to measure student learning and satisfaction with our efforts. • Student engagement is also a major challenge for Student Activities. Historically this has been contextualized as apathy among students, but new data from the General Student Survey indicates that this low level of engagement may also be due to the financial strains our students face and they may simply have to make a choice bout engagement and needing to work in order to pay for Carroll. This needs to be studied further in the next academic year. • Approving student organizations is a challenge both for Student Activities as well as students. The Director would like to explore a more user-friendly process that provides oversight for the College while encourages students to become involved with organizations.

Office of Student Affairs

SUMMARY

It is evident that the Office of Student Affairs achieved a significant amount this year and Carroll's students are reaping those benefits. We achieved our goals in many ways and sought to be strong citizens of the Carroll community while encouraging students to define and hold dear their own Carroll experience. There were many challenges as well, ranging from a lack of resources to institutional transition, each having an impact on our ability to teach and serve students. It is important to state that the efforts of Student Affairs are essential to the College and our contributions to the education of Carroll students are vast. We are all educators who cherish the opportunity to reach students and witness their growth on a daily basis. We hope you found this report insightful and ask that you look forward with anticipation of all that we will accomplish in the coming academic year.