About Accreditation | Review Stages | WASC Portfolio | WASC Response | Forums | home

Report Related to Data Collected for the Student Experience Study

In addition to analyzing data obtained from enrolled students (2004), data collected from the 1999 graduating class exit survey and data collected in the fall of 2004 from alumni who had graduated up to 5 years previously were analyzed. Here you can link to both the quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted as well as a summary of the components and a synthesis of the findings.

A. Enrolled Undergraduate & Graduate Student Data Analysis

1. Quantitative Analysis: Responses to Likert-Scaled Survey Items

2. Qualitative Analysis: Responses to Open-Ended Interview Items

3. Qualitative Analysis: Responses to Index Card Exercise

B. Alumi Data Analysis

1. Quantitatve Analysis: Responses to Likert-Scaled Survey Items

2. Qualitative Analysis: Responses to Open-Ended Survey Items

C. 1999 Exit Survey Analysis

1. Qualitative Analysis: Open Ended Item

D. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Report

1. Summary Report (context: WASC CFRs)

Quantitative Analysis of Responses to Survey Items From Enrolled Undergraduate and Graduate Students

Fall 04 Undergraduate & Graduate Student Survey

To capture the student experience, faculty, staff, and the student member of the Student Experience Committee visited classes and engaged students in discussion related to their experiences as a student at SJSU. In addition, students were asked to complete a survey which contained 21 likert scaled items grouped into three sections: a) experiences getting started at SJSU, b) experiences while attended SJSU, and c) experiences related to their transition beyond SJSU. Following these likert scaled (1 through 5) items were six demographic items pertaining to aged, language, major (which was used to identify the college), ethnicity, status when first enrolled, and present class level (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, masters/credential student).

Survey Results - Fall 04 Undergraduate & Graduate Students
(CFRs 1.2, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 3.1, 3.6, 4.1, 4.8)

The survey was complete by 820 students enrolled in classes at SJSU in the Fall of 2004. Sixty two percent (512) of the students were undergraduates (juniors & seniors), 36% (294) were graduate students, and the remaining students (14) did not provide a response to the item on class level. Distribution across the colleges is conveyed below.

College Number of Students College Number of Students
Business 114 Humanities 59
Applied Sci & Arts 87 Science 232
Education 49 Social Science 120
Engineering 79 Social Work 37

Median age for the undergraduate students was 23 (S.D. = 5.9). Median age for the gradate students was 29 (S.D. = 7.7). With respect to language, 77% (both undergrad and grad) identified English as their primary language. This is comparable to campus wide information obtained from the Writing Skills Test (74.4%).

Below is a crosstabulation of class level with status when first enrolled. Most of the undergraduates are transfer students (64%). Among graduate students it was interesting to observe that 24% started here at SJSU as undergraduates.

Entering Status Currently Undergrad Student Currently Grad Student
Native Frosh 172 (33.8%) 16 (5.5%)
UG Transfer from Community College 277 (54.4%) 39 (13.3%)
UG Transfer from another University 47 (9.2% ) 18 (6.1%)
Entered as Graduate/Post-baccalaureate Student 13 (2.6% ) 220 (75.1%)

 

Turning to an analysis of the responses to the likert-scaled survey items, a factor analysis was conducted to understand the underlying structure of the likert items. Five factors emerged:

Summary information for each factor is presented below. As can be seen in the summary statistics, for both undergrad and graduate students their experiences in the area of instruction are rated highest followed by the application process for graduate students and student services for undergraduate students.

Group Summary Stat Transition to Career Advising/orientation Instruction
CFR 2.4, 2.5		 Student Services Application Process
Undergraduate Students

Mean
Median
St. Dev
N

3.32
3.25
.95
438

3.02
3.00
.87
497 		3.71
3.80
.69
512 		3.41
3.50
.93
450
3.24
3.00
1.03
509
Graduate Students Mean
Median
St. Dev
N 		3.41
3.50
.95
258 		3.25
3.00
.97
261 		3.67
3.75
.75
293 		3.37
3.50
1.05
224 		3.55
3.50
.94
291
Combined Mean
Median
St. Dev
N 		3.35
3.40
.95
696 		3.09
3.00
.91
758 		3.70
3.50
.72
805		 3.40
3.50
.97
674
3.35
3.50
1.00
800


It should be noted that advising in the major did NOT cluster with the advising factor (which included for example, GE advising, pre-collegiate advising). Major advising was associated with the factor on instruction and related resources. This highlights the very distinct experiences that students are having with advising in general and advising in the major. Student experiences with advising in the major were more positive compared to other advising.

Transition to Career

Most of the items in this factor were skipped (selected 'not used') by a large proportion of both the undergraduate and graduate students. The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. From the tables below, student experiences tend to be predominantly in the categories fair and good. In addition, the areas where students indicate a more positive experience are internships and preparation for future careers.

 
Q17 career planning advice very poor undergrad grad total
27 15 42
7.5% 9.3% 8.1%
poor 67 31 98
18.6% 19.3% 18.8%
fair 136 52 188
37.8% 32.3% 36.1%
good 96 46 142
26.7% 28.6% 27.3%
excellent 34 17 51
9.4% 10.6% 9.8%
Total 360 161 521
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Information in table below related to CFR 2.11

 
Q18 internship experiences very poor Undergrad Grad Total
27 14 41
11.7% 9.0% 10.6%
poor 41 15 56
17.8% 9.6% 14.5%
fair 70 37 107
30.4% 23.7% 27.7%
good 51 52 103
22.2% 33.3% 26.7%
excellent 41 38 79
17.8% 24.4% 20.5%
Total 230 156 386
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Information in table below related to CFR 2.11

 
Q19 prep for future careers very poor Undergrad Grad Total
20 11 31
5.2% 5.0% 5.1%
poor 51 19 70
13.3% 8.6% 11.6%
fair 131 64 195
34.2% 28.8% 32.2%
good 121 92 213
31.6% 41.4% 35.2%
excellent 60 36 96
15.7% 16.2% 15.9%
Total 383 222 605
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 

Q20 opportunities to connect with alums,
mentors, professionals

 very poor Undergrad Grad Total
39 18 57
12.2% 9.3% 11.1%
poor 56 44 100
17.5% 22.7% 19.5%
fair 98 62 160
30.6% 32.0% 31.1%
good 83 43 126
25.9% 22.2% 24.5%
excellent 44 27 71
13.8% 13.9% 13.8%
Total 320 194 514
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q21 career center resources very poor Undergrad Grad Total
14 7 21
4.5% 5.4% 4.8%
poor 35 18 53
11.4% 13.8% 12.1%
fair 103 49 152
33.4% 37.7% 34.7%
good 105 39 144
34.1% 30.0% 32.9%
excellent 51 17 68
16.6% 13.1% 15.5%
Total 308 130 438
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Advising/Orientation - Information in tables below related to CFR 2.10, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14

The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. A quick reminder, this factor does not include advising in the major. From the tables below, student experiences in this area tend to be wide ranging and span primarily the poor to good categories. In addition, the area where students indicate a more positive experience is with new student orientation.

 
Q2 pre-college advising very poor Undergrad Grad Total
42 13 55
10.3% 9.8% 10.1%
poor 96 29 125
23.5% 21.8% 23.1%
fair 143 45 188
35.0% 33.8% 34.7%
good 88 28 116
21.5% 21.1% 21.4%
excellent 40 18 58
9.8% 13.5% 10.7%
Total 409 133 542
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q3 new student orientation very poor Undergrad Grad Total
26 17 43
7.0% 9.0% 7.7%
poor 63 26 89
17.1% 13.8% 15.9%
fair 137 58 195
37.1% 30.7% 34.9%
good 116 64 180
31.4% 33.9% 32.3%
excellent 27 24 51
7.3% 12.7% 9.1%
Total 369 189 558
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q4 new student advising very poor Undergrad Grad Total
53 21 74
12.6% 10.2% 11.8%
poor 92 41 133
21.9% 19.9% 21.2%
fair 145 67 212
34.5% 32.5% 33.9%
good 96 56 152
22.9% 27.2% 24.3%
excellent 34 21 55
8.1% 10.2% 8.8%
Total 420 206 626
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q8 GE advising very poor Undergrad Grad Total
50 11 61
12.2% 6.6% 10.6%
poor 89 29 118
21.7% 17.5% 20.5%
fair 143 57 200
34.8% 34.3% 34.7%
good 104 47 151
25.3% 28.3% 26.2%
excellent 25 22 47
6.1% 13.3% 8.1%
Total 411 166 577
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Instruction and Related Resources

The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. From the tables below, student experiences in this area tend to range primarily in the fair to excellent categories. Classroom instruction and library resources were the areas student responses reflect a particularly positive experience.

Information in table below related to CFR 3.1

 
Q9 major advising very poor Undergrad Grad Total
22 17 39
4.6% 6.6% 5.3%
poor 53 33 86
11.0% 12.7% 11.6%
fair 123 73 196
25.5% 28.2% 26.4%
good 146 77 223
30.2% 29.7% 30.1%
excellent 139 59 198
28.8% 22.8% 26.7%
Total 483 259 742
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Information in table below related to CFRs 2.13, 3.6

 
Q11 library resources very poor Undergrad Grad Total
8 10 18
1.6% 3.7% 2.4%
poor 13 19 32
2.7% 7.1% 4.2%
fair 68 55 123
13.9% 20.5% 16.2%
good 161 90 251
32.9% 33.6% 33.2%
excellent 239 94 333
48.9% 35.1% 44.0%
Total 489 268 757
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Information in table below related to CFR 2.1

 
Q13 classroom instruction very poor Undergrad Grad Total
7 5 12
1.4% 1.7% 1.5%
poor 30 13 43
5.9% 4.5% 5.4%
fair 145 75 220
28.7% 26.0% 27.7%
good 223 132 355
44.1% 45.7% 44.7%
excellent 101 64 165
20.0% 22.1% 20.8%
Total 506 289 795
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q14 class size conducive to learning very poor Undergrad Grad Total
22 16 38
4.4% 5.6% 4.8%
poor 48 21 69
9.5% 7.3% 8.7%
fair 166 65 231
32.9% 22.6% 29.2%
good 183 111 294
36.3% 38.5% 37.1%
excellent 85 75 160
16.9% 26.0% 20.2%
Total 504 288 792
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note related to above table: courses surveyed ranged in size from 20 to 100.

 

Information in table below related to CFR 2.13

 
Q15 academic support services
e.g. tutoring		 very poor Undergrad Grad Total
14 11 25
4.5% 9.3% 5.8%
poor 54 19 73
17.3% 16.1% 17.0%
fair 114 37 151
36.5% 31.4% 35.1%
good 87 39 126
27.9% 33.1% 29.3%
excellent 43 12 55
13.8% 10.2% 12.8%
Total 312 118 430
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Information in table below related to CFRs 2.13, 3.6

 
Q16 technology resources
(computer labs)		 very poor Undergrad Grad Total
23 18 41
5.3% 8.1% 6.3%
poor 58 35 93
13.4% 15.8% 14.2%
fair 117 64 181
27.0% 29.0% 27.7%
good 143 68 211
33.0% 30.8% 32.3%
excellent 92 36 128
21.2% 16.3% 19.6%
Total 433 221 654
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Student Services

The responses to the items in this factor are presented in the following tables. Note that very few students have experience with housing services so the number responding to the housing item was very low. From the tables below, student experiences in the area of student services tend to range primarily in the fair to good categories with the exception of financial aid which was spread out across all categories from very poor to excellent.

 
Q6 housing services very poor Undergrad Grad Total
14 4 18
9.3% 9.5% 9.4%
poor 32 7 39
21.3% 16.7% 20.3%
fair 50 15 65
33.3% 35.7% 33.9%
good 40 11 51
26.7% 26.2% 26.6%
excellent 14 5 19
9.3% 11.9% 9.9%
Total 150 42 192
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q7 financial aid very poor Undergrad Grad Total
24 26 50
10.9% 18.2% 13.7%
poor 33 28 61
14.9% 19.6% 16.8%
fair 65 31 96
29.4% 21.7% 26.4%
good 59 40 99
26.7% 28.0% 27.2%
excellent 40 18 58
18.1% 12.6% 15.9%
Total 221 143 364
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Information in table below related to CFR 2.13

 
Q10 student health services very poor Undergrad Grad Total
11 3 14
4.1% 2.5% 3.6%
poor 15 4 19
5.5% 3.4% 4.9%
fair 81 27 108
29.9% 22.7% 27.7%
good 95 50 145
35.1% 42.0% 37.2%
excellent 69 35 104
25.5% 29.4% 26.7%
Total 271 119 390
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q12 student life
(recreation, clubs/organizations)		 very poor Undergrad Grad Total
18 9 27
5.1% 6.0% 5.3%
poor 52 22 74
14.7% 14.6% 14.7%
fair 123 46 169
34.7% 30.5% 33.5%
good 102 50 152
28.8% 33.1% 30.1%
excellent 59 24 83
16.7% 15.9% 16.4%
Total 354 151 505
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

Application Process

Two items comprised this factor. The first was related to the application process. For both undergrad and grad students their experiences with the application process were generally positive. The second was related to the transfer of units to SJSU from other colleges/universities. With respect to the transfer of units, undergraduates were more widely spread out than graduates in their experiences. With the greater proportion of our students historically and presently being transfer students greater attention is needed in this area so that the transfer of units and communication with community colleges is clearer and facilitates a smooth transfer into SJSU.

Information in table below related to CFR 2.13

 
Q1 application process very poor Undergrad Grad Total
42 11 53
8.4% 3.8% 6.7%
poor 61 28 89
12.2% 9.7% 11.3%
fair 177 103 280
35.3% 35.5% 35.4%
good 152 94 246
30.3% 32.4% 31.1%
excellent 69 54 123
13.8% 18.6% 15.5%
Total 501 290 791
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

 

 
Q5 transfer units very poor Undergrad Grad Total
48 8 56
15.0% 5.1% 11.7%
poor 49 17 66
15.3% 10.8% 13.8%
fair 93 43 136
29.1% 27.2%