Registration Satisfaction Survey FAS Report, Fall 2010-11

1. Registration Satisfaction SurveyFAS Report, Fall 2010-11 Presented by: K. El Hassan, PhD. Director, OIRA.

2. Outline • Objectives • Instrument • Sample • Administration and Analysis • Results • Conclusion

3. Objectives • To measure students’ level of satisfaction with the registration process as a whole, and with its different processes. • To evaluate the effect of changes initiated this year on student satisfaction with the process. • To identify existing problems, if any, and recommend changes. • To identify changes in student satisfaction with various registration processes, as compared with previous surveys. • To provide some specific information on nationality background and socio-economic status of AUB students.

4. Instrument 119 item paper survey, 88 on registration: • Biographical data. • The nine registration steps: Items measuring level of student satisfaction with specific aspects of each phase of the process. • Global items measuring students’ overall satisfaction with the process, • Other related issues like Drop & Add, Financial Aid, etc. • Comments section • Items soliciting student opinion and perception of the quality of AUB programs, classrooms and laboratories • Items soliciting information on nationality and socio-economic status to meet strategic planning committees’ needs

5. Sample • The sample initially consisted of 840 undergraduate students from all faculties representing 13% the population; • It was filled out by only 645 students (76% response rate). • Cluster sampling was used. • The sample came from 29 undergraduate classrooms representative of fall undergraduate population • Most of sample came from FAS courses.

6. Course Sample

7. Sample Distribution by Faculty

8. Sample Distribution by Gender

9. Sample Distribution by Class

10. Administration and Analysis Administration • Surveys were administered in classrooms. • Instructors of selected course sections were contacted and their support was solicited. • OIRA staff member administered the survey either at beginning or end of class section, depending on instructor request. Analysis • Frequencies and descriptives were used to report the results for the whole sample and by faculty and class. • The Kruskall Wallis Test was used to test for significant differences in responses to different items between faculties and between classes.

11. AUB Viewing statement on the web Activating AUB net Account, ID validation process, and SIS access on-campus. FAS Literature provided for registration easy Viewing statement on the web Activating AUB net Account ID validation process Adequacy of instructions Results: Steps Most Satisfying Items

12. AUB Capacity of scheduled courses (21% satisfied only similar to last year), Resolving capacity problems in registered courses (21%), and Academic requirements were clearly stated by my major FAS Capacity of scheduled courses Resolving capacity problems in registered courses , Academic requirements were clearly stated by my major , and Helpfulness of advisor Results: Steps Least Satisfying Items

13. AUB AUB has high quality academic programs (x=3.9 with 69% satisfaction vs. x=4.1, 81% in 2009) Campus Security Staff (x = 3.7, 661%), and AUB has high quality classroom & lab facilities (x=3.6, 58%). FAS AUB has high quality academic programs Campus Security Staff AUB has high quality classroom & lab facilities, and New Student Orientation Results: Processes Most Satisfying Items

14. AUB Financial Aid decision (x = 2.9, 37%), Overall FA Process (x=2.9, 37%), and Advising (x=2.9, 34%). FAS Financial Aid decision Overall FA Process Bureaucracy Results: Processes Least Satisfying Items

15. AUB Most of the items showed a drop with exception of those related to placement testing. Highest drop was in Academic requirements were clearly stated by may major (-.4) Availability of advisor (-.3). Improvement was in AUB EN administration (+.4) FAS Equal number of items went up or down (13-14) 6 items remained same. Highest drop in Academic requirements were clearly stated by my major (-.5) Helpfulness of adviser (-.4) Availability of advisor (-.3) Highest improvement in placement testing. Comparison with 2009

16. AUB most of process items went down and four stayed same. Highest drop was in Advising and in Instructions (-.3). FAS Most of items went down Highest drop in AUB has quality academic programs -.3 Advising -.2 Dorms registration -.2 Courtesy, instructions Improvement in Time of FA decision Comparison with 2009

17. Other Findings

18. Other Findings

19. Difficulty in on-line registration

20. Difficulty in on-line registration

21. Type of Course Difficulty was Found

22. Other

23. Student Satisfaction by Class • Higher mean ratings and satisfaction for freshmen on most of the steps and processes • Lowest were exhibited by juniors and sometimes senior and 4th year students.

33. Drop & Add Process 3.55 3.5 3.45 3.4 3.35 AUB 3.3 FAS 3.25 3.2 3.15 3.1 3.05 2007 2008 2009 2010

36. Conclusion • Despite drop this year, FAS has shown improvement over past 4 years on most of measures. • Overall satisfaction needs to improve. • Special attention needs to be given to advising, capacity and staff support.

37. Thank You. www.aub.edu.lb/oira/assessment/institutional/Pages/registration.aspx