Student Affairs Assessment Council
2006-07 Assessment Reports
The Division of Student Affairs
BACKGROUND
The mission of the Division of Student Affairs is to facilitate student learning by providing high-quality
programming, services, and developmental opportunities. By fostering an inclusive campus community, Student
Affairs supports the educational mission of The University of Montana.
Continuous improvement in service delivery is essential. One-third of the Division’s customer base is new each year,
and competition to attract and retain customers is increasingly strong. The 2004-2009 Division of Student Affairs
Strategic Plan reveals the importance of implementing an assessment methodology for Student Affairs and its 12
component units. Such a methodology has been implemented; units have been re-evaluating, developing, and
refining plans and procedures.
ASSESSMENT COUNCIL
To determine whether the Division of Student Affairs is fulfilling its mission, and to assist units with assessment, the
Vice President for Student Affairs (VPSA) instituted the Student Affairs Assessment Council. The Council is
comprised of the VPSA and one representative from each unit. Collaborative members include Institutional Research
and Development and faculty representatives.
The Council meets monthly to discuss and review assessment projects and procedures of individual units, and to
facilitate collaboration on projects. With the help of the Council, units share ideas to improve their assessment
processes.
TYPES OF ASSESSMENT
Assessments fall into three categories: (1) collection and analysis of retention data, statistics, and demographic
information; (2) program evaluations; and (3) student satisfaction surveys.
Some units utilize national assessment tools that allow them to compare the effectiveness of their programs and
services with peer institutions. Others assess employee satisfaction.
ASSESSMENT PLANS AND REPORTS
Each unit is required to maintain a formal, individualized assessment plan. The Division maintains up-to-date
assessment plans from every unit.
Assessment reports are required from all units. Upon completion, the reports are compiled by the Office of the
VPSA and published in an annual, Division-wide assessment report. The first assessment report was published
January 2005.
Assessment reports serve as resources within the Division and provide evidence of assessment for review by the
Accreditation Committee. Hard copies are available from the VPSA office and can be found online at www.umt.edu.
2
Student Affairs Assessment Council
AISS
Patrick Weasel Head
Campus Recreation
Dudley Improta
Career Services
Rowan Conrad
Curry Health Center
Julee Stearns
Dean, Graduate School
David Strobel
Disability Services for Students
Dan Burke
Enrollment Services/Admissions
Amy Zinne
Foreign Student and Scholar Services
Mona Mondava
Griz Card
Jorrun Liston
Planning, Budget & Analysis
Susan Wallwork
Planning, Budget & Analysis
Will Innes
Residence Life/University Villages
Kelly Magnuson
University Center
Lee Clark
University Dining Services
Byron Drake
Vice President for Student Affairs
Teresa Branch
3
American Indian Student Services (AISS)
Submitted by Director of American Indian Student Services Patrick Weasel Head
ABSTRACT
In addition to analyzing the gap between the general student population and American Indian (AI) students with
regards to retention and graduation rates, AISS assessed three aspects of its program: (1) the academic achievements
of first-time AI students and tribal college first-time transfer students; (2) the Peer Mentoring Program; and (3)
student satisfaction as reported on AISS Student Satisfaction Surveys.
Results were mixed. Students were generally satisfied with services, but were being placed on academic probation
and suspension at a high rate. Intervention through the AISS program seemed to be helping, though minimally. Too
many students were dropping out and stopping out from one year to the next. One idea for improvement was to
create a more academic environment through the Peer Mentoring program, instead of relying on “meet-and-greet”
activities.
BACKGROUND
AISS staff is culturally sensitive and professionally trained to meet the needs of AI students. To facilitate AI
enrollment and success at The University of Montana, AISS works to provide specialized services, establish and
maintain effective communication links between AI students and University personnel, identify and implement
intervention strategies that help AI students achieve their academic objectives, and promote a more accommodating
institution of higher education.
To better achieve these objectives, the unit examined data that revealed how well incoming first-time AI freshmen
and first-time tribal college transfer students adjusted to life at the University. AISS analyzed the Peer Mentoring
Program to determine how mentees fared from semester to semester. The purpose of the AISS Student Satisfaction
Survey was to ascertain how students perceived the AISS office. Lastly, at the request of the office of the VPSA, the
Office of Planning, Budget & Analysis generated a report that included an analysis of students seeking AISS
assistance.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
AISS collected grades earned by all AI freshmen and first-time tribal college transfer students and compared them
across semesters. The unit examined additional data to determine whether students were following financial aid
guidelines and meeting financial aid requirements. The AISS coordinator reviewed information gleaned from the
Peer Mentoring program and used a tracking mechanism to determine retention rates and how participants fared
from one semester to the next.
FINDINGS
Results indicated that students continue to be on both Academic Probation and Academic Suspension at a high rate.
Intervention through AISS seems to be working, though minimally. From fall 2006 to spring 2007, there was a
retention rate of 70 percent among incoming AI freshmen and 79 percent among tribal college transfers.
Entering AI freshmen took an average of 13.25 attempted credits, earned an average of 8.46 credits (ten students did
not earn any credits), and received an average Grade Point Average (GPA) of 1.88. New tribal college students took
an average of 12.86 attempted credits, earned an average of 8.08 credits (8 students did not earn any credits), and
received an average GPA of 1.65.
4
Of the 23 first-time freshmen, 22 enrolled full-time. Of the 22, 7 earned 12 or more semester hours and had an
average GPA of 2.55. The range was 1.40-3.60. Fifteen of the students who enrolled full-time at the beginning of the
semester earned less than 12 semester hours. This group earned an average of 6.27 credits and had an average GPA
of 1.59.
Of the 59 first-time AI freshmen enrolled in the fall of 2006, 29 were in good academic standing from fall until
spring. Twenty-five were on academic probation, one was suspended, and four with Provisional Admittance status
were not assessed. At the end of spring 2007, 23 of 39 students were in good academic standing, 9 were on academic
probation, and 7 had been suspended for academic reasons.
Of 37 first-time tribal college students enrolled in fall 2006, 17 were in good academic standing from fall until
spring, 19 were on probation, and 1 had Provisional Admittance status. At the end of spring 2006, 20 of 29 were in
good academic standing, 2 were on probation, and 7 had been suspended.
AISS made minor changes to the Peer Mentoring Program. The unit placed more emphasis on academic
requirements, provided additional mentor services, and focused less on social activities. Of the 22 students in the
mentoring program, 12 were first-time freshmen, 8 were tribal college transfers, and 2 came from other postsecondary institutions. Twelve of the first-time freshmen were in good academic standing at the end of fall semester,
and 11 were on probation. As for mentees from tribal colleges, two were in good academic standing, one was on
probation, and three were suspended. AISS will take a closer look at the mentor program in fall 2007. One staff
member will handle the overall mentoring effort to assure continuity.
The results of the AISS Student Satisfaction Survey indicated that the AISS office serves students from all academic
levels. Of the 14 students who completed the survey, three were freshmen, two were sophomores, three were juniors,
four were seniors, and two were graduate students. Reportedly, students came into the office at various times for a
number of services including advising and information (12); financial aid (8); scholarships (8); and classes (7). Many
stopped by daily for “a place to be” or “to be with friendly faces.”
Most respondents had heard about AISS from friends or TRIO Student Support Services (14). Some strongly felt
their needs were met (12), that AISS staff were professional and personable (9), and that the office was warm and
accommodating (12). Students wanted more office space and additional information about graduate scholarship
opportunities. Overall, students reported good service and acknowledged the benefits of having this kind of office
available.
ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN INDIAN STUDENT SERVICES DATA
Reported by Will Innes of the Office of Planning, Budget & Analysis
For the statistical assessment of AISS, the University’s overall retention and graduation rates were compared with
those of AI students. Table 1 displays the data for first-time full-time students and Table 2 refers to the
corresponding data for AI students (see pages 6-7).
By comparing Table 1 and Table 2, one can see the persistent and largely reduced rates for AI students. For example,
the retention rate for general University students is 68.9 percent after the first year and 55.6 percent after the second.
The retention rates for AI students are 56.1 percent and 42.0 percent, respectively. The overall ten-year graduation
rate for general University students is 44.6 percent and 28.0 percent for AI students. These figures begin to depict the
magnitude of the problem in retaining and graduating American Indian students.
When comparing full-time AI freshmen student performance to that of the general student population on the ACT
and SAT tests, respectively (data not shown) another potential problem is revealed: AI students do not receive
adequate college preparation in high school. They earn below average scores on the SAT and ACT tests.
5
AISS services, designed to promote academic success for AI students, were analyzed by correlating the number of
service hours students received with their cumulative GPAs. None of the services were significantly correlated with
GPA, but personal services came closest to having a correlation at r = .45. This does not imply that the other services
lacked value. Other services may have made critical differences in individual cases. However, the results of this
analysis suggest a disparity, which might relate to the subpopulation characteristics of AI students.
Before conducting this study, AISS hypothesized that the population it serves has greater academic and acculturation
difficulties than the general student population. When GPAs were compared (data not shown) they provided strong
evidence to support this hypothesis. A two-tailed t-test was utilized for unequal variances to compare the GPAs of
AI students with those of the general population. AI students had an average GPA of 2.12. Overall, the general
student population had an average GPA of 2.53. These mean differences were significant, exceeding the p<.005
level. The percentage distribution of GPA scores for both AI and general students appear in Graph 1 on page 7.
GPA differences between AI students and general students were small, in the middle ranges (1.5-1.99, 2.0-2.49, and
2.5-2.99), but a much smaller percentage of AI students place in the “3.0 and over” range. A larger percentage places
in the “under 1.5” range. A reasonable goal for AISS, given that it works with a higher percentage of students whose
success is less assured, would be to raise the academic performance of AI students to the level of the general
population.
Table 1: Overall Full-Time, First-Time Bachelor Degree-Seeking Freshmen at The University of Montana
RETENTION
RATE
CUMULATIVE GRADUATION/CONTINUATION RATES
WITHIN
4 YEARS
AFTER
1
YEAR
AFTER
2
YEARS
1049
1053
1058
1057
1078
1069
1083
1077
1087
1062
1068
1072
1079
1075
1093
1081
70.5%
67.7%
66.2%
63.0%
64.8%
70.5%
71.1%
70.2%
68.3%
69.7%
69.4%
71.3%
69.5%
69.8%
72.10%
1,071
68.9%
HEAD
COUNT
AVG
ACT
AVG
SAT
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
1,303
1,393
1,423
1,512
1,452
1,618
1,711
1,604
1,671
1,750
1,764
1,788
1,770
1,808
1,770
1,685
22.1
22.6
22.5
22.5
22.8
22.3
22.7
22.7
22.6
22.3
22.4
22.1
22.5
22.4
22.9
22.9
Avg.
1,625
22.5
FALL
WITHIN
5 YEARS
WITHIN
6 YEARS
GRAD
CONT
GRAD
CONT
GRAD
55.3%
52.7%
52.1%
53.6%
51.9%
55.8%
57.0%
57.2%
54.8%
57.8%
57.4%
58.0%
57.7%
56.80%
10.1%
10.0%
13.3%
16.6%
17.9%
20.0%
19.6%
19.3%
20.3%
19.7%
19.5%
18.5%
35.5%
34.1%
32.1%
29.9%
27.7%
28.7%
33.0%
32.4%
30.8%
28.9%
31.3%
31.3%
30.2%
29.1%
32.0%
34.1%
33.8%
37.3%
38.3%
37.5%
36.7%
36.2%
36.5%
14.7%
12.7%
11.7%
9.7%
11.0%
11.8%
11.7%
13.0%
10.8%
11.8%
12.2%
36.8%
36.3%
38.1%
39.9%
40.3%
43.3%
45.0%
44.0%
44.0%
42.3%
55.6%
17.1%
31.3%
34.7%
11.9%
41.0%
Table 2: AI and Alaska Native Full-Time, First-Time
Bachelor Degree-Seeking Freshmen at The University of Montana
6
CONT
WITHIN
10 YEARS
GRAD
CONT
8.2%
6.2%
6.3%
4.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.4%
6.5%
4.8%
5.9%
42.3%
42.6%
44.6%
45.0%
45.2%
48.2%
1.8%
1.5%
1.2%
0.9%
0.7%
1.4%
5.9%
44.6%
1.3%
RETENTION
RATE
CUMULATIVE GRADUATION/CONTINUATION RATES
AVG
ACT
AVG
FALL
HEAD
COUNT
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
37
44
45
35
28
54
39
47
51
47
61
57
37
45
49
46
19.0
21.1
20.3
20.0
20.7
20.5
21.1
20.0
20.4
19.3
20.9
20.3
21.1
20.2
20.8
20.0
Avg.
45
20.4
WITHIN
4 YEARS
GRAD
CONT
WITHIN
5 YEARS
GRAD
CONT
WITHIN
6 YEARS
GRAD
CONT
35.1%
47.7%
33.3%
37.1%
35.7%
33.3%
48.7%
42.6%
41.2%
48.9%
45.9%
45.6%
48.6%
44.4%
0.0%
2.3%
4.4%
2.9%
3.6%
5.6%
10.3%
10.6%
13.7%
8.5%
8.2%
3.5%
35.1%
38.6%
20.0%
25.7%
21.4%
24.1%
41.0%
23.4%
19.6%
25.5%
24.6%
21.1%
16.2%
22.7%
13.3%
20.0%
17.9%
16.7%
28.2%
17.0%
23.5%
19.1%
16.4%
16.2%
9.1%
11.1%
11.4%
7.1%
20.4%
17.9%
17.0%
5.9%
10.6%
14.8%
24.3%
27.3%
15.6%
22.9%
21.4%
22.2%
38.5%
23.4%
27.5%
21.3%
5.4%
13.6%
6.7%
2.9%
7.1%
11.1%
17.9%
6.4%
2.0%
12.8%
27.0%
29.5%
24.4%
28.6%
28.6%
29.6%
5.4%
6.8%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
42.0%
6.1%
26.7%
19.2%
12.9%
24.4%
8.6%
28.0%
3.1%
AFTER
1 YEAR
AFTER
2 YEARS
1133
950
1028
995
1037
1015
1130
963
1039
1071
1062
1086
974
1050
1051
982
67.6%
59.1%
42.2%
48.6%
42.9%
57.4%
66.7%
55.3%
51.0%
59.6%
62.3%
50.9%
62.2%
53.3%
63.3%
1,035
56.1%
SAT
WITHIN
10 YEARS
GRAD
CONT
Graph 1: GPA Percentages
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
23.4%
Percentage
Non AI
AI
21.0%
30.0%
19.8%
20.0%
10.3%
7.3%
14.0%
19.3%
24.6%
10.0%
3.6%
13.2%
13.2 %
8.8%
13.2%
7.0%
0.6%
0.9%
0.0%
0
1
1.5
2
2.5
GPA
Interv
al
7
3
3.5
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
AISS is troubled by the number of AI students not meeting academic standards or succeeding during the fall
semester. The unit will work with TRIO SSS to help students develop a sense of personal responsibility for their own
time management, goal planning, and completion of assignments. AISS will place more emphasis on the “intrusive
advising” model and will work closely with academic departments. Suggestions for improvement will be solicited
from the AISS Advisory Committee. Finally, to better understand the needs of students, AISS will develop closer
ties to regional high schools and tribal colleges.
AISS will further assess the Peer Mentoring program to determine how to increase the number of courses completed
by AISS students. It is important that AI students maintain good GPAs to retain their financial aid. Additionally,
AISS will encourage students to complete their courses and seek tutoring. The unit will pay particular attention to
Curriculum and Instruction courses.
As the program grows and the number of AI students on campus increases, AISS will need to expand its office. The
expansion effort will be put on hold until more space and personnel are available. Construction of the new building
is at least a year away. In the meantime, AISS will scrutinize retention data and student concerns to determine the
best ways of meeting students’ needs with the limited office and staff.
The future aim for AISS is to have 1,000 AI students on campus achieve their academic goals. To this end, the unit
will explore partnerships with other campus services.
8
Campus Recreation
Submitted by Assistant Director of Campus Recreation Dudley Improta
ABSTRACT
To learn about students who participate in Campus Recreation fitness, intramural, and outdoor programs, the unit
administered a survey. The results revealed student demographics, preferences, visitation habits, and satisfaction. In
addition, students explained what they felt to be the strengths of Campus Recreation programs and offered
suggestions for improvement.
BACKGROUND
By providing programming which complements the University’s academic mission and enriches students’ collegiate
experiences, Campus Recreation fosters an active environment for social interaction. Programs afford students a
diverse array of opportunities for fitness, adventure, socialization, and education, as well as individual and team
play. To fulfill its ongoing goal of offering students valuable services, Campus Recreation utilized a survey to solicit
feedback on its programming.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The unit initiated a descriptive research project and a cross-sectional study. An assessment team researched the
characteristics of a population of interest and surveyed participants once.
The assessment team designed the survey and analyzed data using Survey Monkey, which allowed for a link to be
placed on the Campus Recreation web site. The survey took the form of a Web-based questionnaire and consisted of
approximately 110 items. Participants were presented with questions about the programs in which they had
participated. The survey was comprised of five sections. The first section, “consent,” provided an introduction,
explanation of the risks associated with the survey, and solicitation of consent. Of 726 respondents, 33 did not
consent. “Demographics” asked for general information about students and their fitness center facility usage. The
“fitness,” “intramurals,” and “outdoor program” sections requested program-specific information.
To reach students who participated in programs inside and outside of the Campus Recreation building, the team used
the following promotional approaches: (1) engaged students at the turnstiles in the Campus Recreation building; (2)
made announcements at various program functions; and (3) sent postcards to students via post.
To encourage participation, staff distributed t-shirts, sweatshirts, and water bottles, and entered participants’ names
into a drawing for a kayak. Students were provided instant access to the survey through six computer terminals in the
Campus Recreation building. These efforts attracted 726 survey respondents. After removing non-students from the
respondent pool and cleansing the data, 569 useable surveys remained.
Campus Recreation was able to obtain Griz Card data for 493 respondents. It was clear that 103 respondents did not
access the fitness center facility during the survey period. The technology did not allow the assessment team to
determine how many respondents took the survey at the Campus Recreation computer terminals, but did reveal the
following: 362 of 569 respondents took the survey on campus and 207 took the survey off campus.
The survey was available online for approximately one week, February 3-11, 2007. The assessment team obtained
data from the Griz Card center and the Admissions office to complement the survey data. Figure 1 displays
respondents’ interest by program offering and gender. Figure 2 displays this information by program offering and
academic status.
9
Figure 1: Interest in Program Offerings by Gender
250
200
Count
Males
150
Females
100
50
Fitness
Intramurals
Fitness
Programs
Climbing
Outdoor
Programs
Golf
Pool
Figure 2: Interest in Program Offerings by Academic Status
140
120
100
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Graduate
80
Count
60
40
20
0
Facility
Fitness
Program
Intramurals
Pool
Outdoor
Program
10
Climbing
Golf
Figure 3: Participation Counts by Program and Gender
200
180
160
140
120
Coun
Males
Females
100
80
60
40
20
0
Intramurals
Outdoor Programs
Fitness Programs
Sixty percent of respondents participated in intramural programs, and 48 percent of intramural participants were
female. There is some overlap; students may have participated in more than one program. Of the 342 intramural
participants, 81 also participated in outdoor programs and 116 also participated in fitness programs.
Seventy-six percent of participants learned about the intramural programs through friends, 33 percent from the
Campus Recreation brochure, and 32 percent from informational flyers (respondents were allowed to indicate
multiple sources). None of the respondents indicated they had learned about intramural programs through posters.
Questions about intramurals addressed safety, expectations, officiating (preparation and knowledge) and offerings
(time, adequacy, and diversity). Possible answers ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), across a 5point Likert scale. The following list shows mean scores for each item.
1. Safety: 4.4
2. Expectations: 4.3
3. Officiating: 4.1
4. Offerings: 3.8
Respondents were asked their reasons for participating in intramurals and if they had experienced any life changes as
a result of their participation. Most of the participants did not attribute life changes to their participation in
intramurals. On a 7-point Likert scale (strongly disagree =1, strongly agree = 7), mean answers were as follows:
Intramurals enhanced my personal development: 4.5
Intramurals increased my physical health: 5.6
Intramurals encouraged social interaction: 5.5
Intramurals increased my productivity: 4.6
Intramurals increased my satisfaction: 4.9
Intramurals increased my mental health: 4.9
Intramurals allowed for adequate competition: 5.0
11
The majority of respondents preferred a combination of league and tournament play (64%), followed by league play
(25%) and tournament play (8%). Three percent skipped this question. Of 342 respondents, 287 expressed interest in
a one-day tournament and 271 expressed interest in weekend play.
Figure 4 shows participation levels by sport. Basketball, volleyball, soccer, football, and softball are the most
popular team sports, while the 5-K run, dodge ball, and three-point contests are the most popular individual sports.
Figure 4: Intramural Participation by Count
Other
Squash/Racquetball
Golf
Kickball Tournament
Tennis
Badminton
Sand Volley
Roundup
3 Point/Free Throw
Dodgeball League
Dodgeball Tournament
5K Run
Softball
Indoor Soccer
4
4
4
6
7
7
13
20
24
Individual
Team
28
29
30
63
71
71
73
Football
Ultimate
Soccer
Volleyball
Basketball
84
88
108
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Twenty-five percent of respondents had participated in Outdoor Programs. Of the 142 Outdoor participants, 81
percent participated in intramural programs and 58 percent participated in Fitness Programs in addition to outdoor
sports. Forty-nine percent of the sample of Outdoor Program participants was female. Fifty-one percent of
participants reported the Campus Recreation brochure as a source for learning about Outdoor Programs, 49 percent
reported friends as a source, and 37 percent reported seeing posters as a source for Outdoor Program information.
Once again, respondents were allowed to indicate multiple sources. See Figure 5.
12
Figure 5: Sources of Outdoor Program Information
80
70
60
50
Counts
40
30
20
10
0
Brochure
Friend
Posters
Web site
The Kaimin
Others
Questions regarding satisfaction with Outdoor Program offerings were anchored with strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (5), across a 5-point Likert scale. The following list shows mean scores for each item.
1. Safety: 4.4
2. Fun: 4.5
3. Leader (preparation and knowledge): 4.4
4. Offerings (adequacy and scheduling): 3.9
5. Expectations: 4.2
6. Prices: 4.0
13
Sixty percent of Outdoor Program participants surveyed had rented equipment. The overall mean score for
equipment was 3.8, between adequate and good (very poor = 1, very good = 5). Sixty-one percent of respondents had
reported using the climbing wall. Satisfaction with the hours of operation had a mean score of 3.5 on a 5-point Likert
scale (strongly disagree = 1, strongly agree = 5).
Figure 6: Outdoor Programs by Count
Intermediate Kayaking
Climbing Self Rescue Class
Spring Break Mountain Biking
Intermediate/Advanced Cross Country Overnight
Birding and Canoeing Overnight
Leave No Trace Training
Overnight ski trips
Women's Only Kayaking
Inflatable Kayak trips
Spring Break Backpacking
Climbing Anchors 101
Leading and Beyond
Snowshoeing and Track Identification
Bike Maintenance
Beginner X-Country Skiing
Climbing Competition
Transceiver Clinic
Fundamentals of Whitewater Kayaking
Other
Slide shows and/or lectures
Ski and Snowboard Maintenance
Women's Climbing Night at "The Wall"
Belay Clinics
Whitewater rafting
Avalanche Awareness Lecture
Banff Film Festival
0
5
10
14
15
20
25
30
Thirty-eight percent of respondents had participated in Fitness Programs. Of the 217 respondents, 116 also
participated in Intramural Programs and 58 also participated in Outdoor Programs. The sample of Fitness Program
respondents was 73 percent female. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported the Campus Recreation brochure as a
source for learning about Fitness Programs; 47 percent reported friends as a source; and 27 percent reported
informational posters as a source. Respondents were allowed to indicate multiple sources. The Campus Recreation
web site and flyers posted in the recreation center also appear to be important sources of Fitness Program
information. See Figure 7.
Figure 7: Sources of Fitness Program Information
140
120
100
80
Count
60
40
20
0
Brochure
Friend
Posters
Web site
15
The Kaimin
Other
Figures 8 and 9 show participation by days and times, respectively. Sixty-five percent of respondents expressed an
interest in participating in weekend Fitness Programs.
Figure 8: Days of the Week for Fitness Program Participation
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Monday
Tuesday
Thursday
Wednesday
Friday
Figure 9: Typical Time for Fitness Class Participation
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Morning (6-11am)
Noon
Afternoon (1-5pm)
16
Evening (6-8pm)
Questions regarding satisfaction with Fitness Program offerings were anchored across a 5-point Likert scale
(strongly disagree=1, strongly agree=5). The following list shows mean scores for each item.
1. Fun: 4.2
2. Safety: 4.4
3. Instruction (preparation, knowledge, timeliness): 4.4
4. Offerings (schedules, adequacy, pricing): 3.7
Of the three areas assessed, Fitness Programs received the lowest satisfaction ratings.
When asked to identify the life-changing benefits of Campus Recreation programs, respondents named the
following: getting to know people better; having fun; reducing stress; meeting others with similar interests; making
friends with people of different ages; learning a new sport; finding it easier, as out-of-state students, to meet people
who are active and share similar interests; earning a better ability to concentrate; and increasing motivation and
stamina.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Campus recreation should increase freshmen participation in its programs. To educate Campus Recreation
employees about programming factors that are most important to participants, the results of this survey should be
shared during training. In the future, when creating outcome-based goals, Campus Recreation should take the survey
responses into account. For example, when designing Outdoor Programs, Campus Recreation might include time for
students to socialize.
17
Career Services (CS)
The Principal Investigator for this study was Employment Services Coordinator Laurie Fisher. Mike
Heuring and Rowan Conrad served as contributors.
ABSTRACT
CS serves three primary constituencies: (1) students (prospective, current, and alumni); (2) employers; and (3)
faculty. Ongoing assessment is critical to ensuring the continued relevance and efficacy of CS programs and
services. To better understand and improve its working relationship with faculty, CS administered a survey to glean
faculty views on various aspects of CS. As hypothesized, faculty does not have a homogeneous view of CS. The
most salient finding of the study was a clear need to develop effective ways to connect with those faculty members
who are largely misinformed or unaware of the role, programs, and services of CS.
Given the diverse methods CS has employed in the past to communicate with faculty (from e-mail campaigns to
announcements on the campus radio station to banners in the University Center), the lack of awareness was
surprising. According to survey results, between a third and a fourth of the faculty are not aware of CS. Clearly, the
unit needs to find new methods of communicating with faculty. It seems more direct personal contact with increased
numbers of faculty is needed. This is the most time-consuming method, but in this time of information overload, it
will probably be the most effective.
BACKGROUND
The mission of CS is to provide quality educational, career, and life-planning services that help University students
and alumni achieve their personal and professional goals. CS programs are designed to support the academic mission
of the University, while also helping the individual student develop skills that will be of use beyond the classroom
setting.
To succeed in its mission, CS must collaborate with faculty in various academic departments. In higher education,
mutual understanding and cooperation between faculty and staff is not always at an optimal level. The purpose of the
survey was to build on existing partnerships with faculty and to identify opportunities to make improvements and
cultivate new connections.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
During the spring of 2007, CS conducted research and discovered only two career services offices around the
country that had surveyed faculty: (1) an East coast technical college; and (2) a large West coast university system.
CS’ nationwide colleagues agreed that a formal survey of this kind would be very valuable.
Survey samples from the two schools that had assessed faculty perception were acquired and used in conjunction
with Select Survey, an online tool available through the Student Affairs Information Technology Office, to develop
CS’ customized survey. The survey can be found in Appendix A of the full report, OCS Report 2007-01, available in
the Career Services office.
CS formulated survey questions and, two weeks before the end of the spring semester, e-mailed a link to 679
University faculty members, both tenure track and adjunct. Seventeen e-mails were undeliverable. Of the 662
e-mails that were successfully delivered, 135 people (20%) responded. The survey was available for three weeks. CS
did not follow up with non-responders; by the time the survey closed, most faculty had probably dispersed for the
summer.
18
The Select Survey software collected survey responses, counted the number of responses per item, and reported
representative percentages. No statistical analyses were planned or executed.
FINDINGS
Faculty perceptions varied greatly. Some faculty had a detailed understanding of and a deep appreciation for the role
of CS. Some thought CS’ programming was irrelevant or misguided, and others did not know CS existed. The latter
responses were the most perplexing in light of CS’ active participation on campus, including committee work, career
fairs, classroom presentations, workshops, etc., and the staff’s effort to publicize CS through such methods as
submitting frequent articles to and advertising in the Kaimin, distributing mailings to the entire faculty, participating
in orientation sessions, and making resources available online.
When asked if they had used CS in the last 12 months, 39 percent of respondents did not answer. Of those that
responded, forty percent had used CS and 60 percent had not. Of those who had not, 32 percent were unaware of CS,
56 percent claimed to have no need for the services, and 20 percent had “other” reasons. (Respondents were
provided a text box for comments, and these comments were counted as additional responses. For this reason,
percentages add up to more than 100.)
When asked to rate their level of satisfaction with specific programs and services, 67-80 percent of respondents did
not offer ratings; therefore, useful feedback for specific areas of service did not emerge. However, of those that did
reply, with the exception of “Classroom Presentations” by Career Services staff and the “Ask an Alum” mentoring
program, the majority (65-75 %) saw each of the services offered by the CS as “Important” or “Very Important.”
Fifty-two percent of respondents indicated that addressing career-related topics in the classroom is important. A clear
majority (70%) think it is “Important” or “Very Important” that the University helps students find jobs after
graduation.
The low response rate made it difficult to draw firm conclusions from the data. (Complete numerical data can be
found in Appendix B of the full report, OCS Report 2007-01, available in the Career Services office.)
The survey included open-ended questions that prompted faculty to explain why they had or had not used CS, and to
provide general suggestions. A wide variety of comments emerged. (Complete faculty comments and suggestions
can be found in Appendix C of the full report.)
Reasons, paraphrased, why the respondents have not used OCS’ services include that faculty: (1) feel equipped to
provide career information when asked for it, (2) are unsure of the services available, (3) did not understand that CS
is connected to the College of Technology (COT), (4) had not received any information from CS via e-mail or post,
and (5) utilize the Law School’s placement office.
Some notable suggestions include: (1) get involved with the two-year programs; (2) increase collaboration with the
library, perhaps by referring students to collections and resources available for career exploration; (3) track
employment of graduates on a consistent basis; (4) contact faculty and make more classroom visits; (5) support
minorities; (6) provide links to some good, field-specific, job search web sites, maybe alongside the “What can I do
with a job in…?” feature on the CS web site; and (7) maintain relationships with students over the course of their
academic careers. To publicize CS, the unit should visit senior level capstone courses in the fall and spring and make
presentations at department meetings.
Several faculty members said they don’t feel CS has a presence on campus. Though they sometimes refer students to
the CS office, they do not know where it is located or who works there. One faculty member thinks that funds
allocated to CS would be better spent improving undergraduate education. Another faculty member thinks that each
professional school, including the colleges of Forestry and Pharmacy, should have their own placement office. A
number of faculty members lauded the programs and services provided by CS.
19
RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite extensive efforts to inform faculty about CS, many faculty members still do not know about CS, what CS
does, or, in at least one case, where CS is located. Based on the responses to this survey, the unit recommends the
following:
Conduct a multifaceted, creative, and intensive campaign to contact faculty and inform them about CS. As the
current methods of communication are obviously not entirely effective, the unit must find new ways to educate
faculty and correct prevailing misperceptions. Many faculty members recommended services CS already provides
through the “Ask an Alum” luncheons, the Graduate Survey, job shadowing, etc. Perhaps the unit should
disseminate answers to “Frequently Asked Questions.”
Make it clear that the COT career representative is a part of CS and not a COT employee. Many COT faculty
members think this representative, with whom they interact regularly, is a COT employee.
Research the possibility of offering online portfolio services via Griz eRecruiting or Credential services.
Research other career services offered through individual colleges, schools, and departments, and provide links and
referrals on the CS web site.
Continue to develop the overall University “Academic and Career Exploration” class. Maintain awareness of, and
seek involvement with, the career related classes/workshops offered in the various academic and support areas.
Send web links to faculty that give salary information for various disciplines directly.
Explore the possibility of assigning to each major academic unit on campus a CS staff member to act as liaison, if
resources and staffing allow.
Some faculty members claim CS relies on them too heavily. To rectify this problem, the unit should inform faculty
that they are asked for information on graduating students only after the students have been contacted and have
failed to respond.
In the fall, send faculty brochures that explain CS from the faculty point of view and addresses their interests,
responsibilities, and concerns. Mail the brochure and send the same material via e-mail, attached as PDF
documents.
Ask faculty members what services they think CS should provide. Respond directly to faculty members who
identified themselves and made specific requests and suggestions. Finally, redesign the section on the CS web site
that addresses faculty. Connect and cross-reference programs, fields, and majors for easy navigation.
FURTHER INFORMATION
Further information is available in the full report, CS Report 2007-01, located in the CS office. It includes the
Appendices listed below:




Appendix A: Questions Posed to Faculty
Appendix B: Complete Tabulated Data from Faculty Responses
Appendix C: All Faculty Comments Reported Verbatim and Organized into Categories
Appendix E: OCS “Response” to Faculty Comments
20
Curry Health Center
Submitted by Program Coordinator Julee Stearns
ABSTRACT
The Health Enhancement Office provides free Quit Kits to University of Montana students who are interested in
quitting their tobacco use. The unit distributed a web-based survey to each Quit Kit recipient via e-mail. The survey
assessed student perceptions and utilization of the kits. Students reported that the print materials and cessation tools
were the most helpful components. They claimed not to have used the more expensive items. Curry Health Center
will use the results to improve the quit kits and reallocate resources.
BACKGROUND
The Health Enhancement office provides free Quit Kits to students who are interested in quitting their tobacco use.
The Quit Kits constitute the cessation component of the multi-faceted, comprehensive tobacco control program at the
University. In order to improve the program, the Curry Health Center administered a survey seeking feedback and
suggestions.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
Curry Health Center asked every student who received a Quit Kit to provide basic contact information, and
explained that it would be sending an electronic evaluation via e-mail, requesting feedback. The web-based survey
was distributed via an e-mail link and was administered using Secure Survey, an application housed in the
University’s Information Technology department. Health Enhancement staff designed and distributed the survey,
and it was approved by the University’s Institutional Review Board.
The survey was sent to every student who has received a Quit Kit since November 2005, when the cessation program
began. The survey was sent to each student no sooner than 4 weeks after receiving the kit. Two follow-up e-mails
were sent to non-responders 10 days and 17 days after the initial invitation. The survey period began in October
2006 and ended in May 2007.
The survey gauged levels of success by asking respondents to rate the usefulness of each component of the kit.
Sixty-five students completed the survey for an overall return rate of 21 percent.
FINDINGS
The cessation rate (the rate of respondents who quit using tobacco) was 57 percent. The “intention-to-treat rate,”
which calculates non-responders as having a failed quit attempt, is the industry standard for evaluation. The
intention-to-treat rate was 12 percent, which is the average cessation rate for this type of program. Thirty-four
percent of respondents tried to quit, but relapsed after having received the kit.
Respondents reported the print material and cessation tools to be the most helpful components of the kit. The
cessation tools included cinnamon sticks, cinnamon candy, and stress bendies. Seventy-eight percent of students
thought the print material was helpful and seventy-one percent reported the cessation tools were helpful.
The most expensive items in the kit are an interactive cessation planning Compact Disc (CD) and relaxation
techniques CD. Eighty percent of students either did not use the interactive planning CD or did not find it to be
helpful. Sixty-seven percent gave similar feedback about the relaxation CD.
21
Many students took the opportunity to comment on the kits, and common themes emerged. Most respondents
expressed gratitude for having the program available and free to students. While not all respondents were successful
in their quit attempt, they reported that the kits helped them and would be helpful in the future, when they try again.
Many had suggestions for additional items to be included in the kit, including samples for nicotine replacement
therapy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
While the majority of respondents reported a successful quit attempt, those who did not succeed may have been
reluctant to respond. However, the main focus of this assessment was not to prove the efficacy of the program, but
rather to improve the quality of the program. The goal was to discover if the students were using the kits, what they
liked about the kits, and which items they found to be most helpful.
The assessment revealed that the items that were used the least actually cost the most. Print materials and small
cessation tools were used most often and proved to be the most helpful. This type of information helps Curry Health
Center improve the overall quality of the program and use resources effectively.
Based on the results of the assessment, the Quit Kits will no longer include the two CDs. Instead, the Center will
include a list of interactive cessation Web sites. A coupon redeemable for the free relaxation CD will take the place
of including one in every kit. The print materials will be enhanced and more cessation tools will be added.
22
Curry Health Center
Submitted by Program Coordinator Julee Stearns
ABSTRACT
Curry Health Center conducted a pilot study to assess whether referrals to the Self Over Substance (SOS) program
and self-reported binge drinking could be considered reliable indicators of “risk factors” for students. The unit
investigated possible ways that it can assist the Division of Student Affairs in identifying students who are at risk of
dropping out before graduating. Additionally, Curry Health Center identified indicators for students at risk of failing
to graduate and concluded that students who are referred to SOS and report binge drinking are, indeed, at a much
higher risk of dropping out.
BACKGROUND
The University of Montana strives to create an environment where each student reaches his or her highest potential
inside and outside of the classroom with the ultimate goal of receiving a college degree. Curry Health Center
supports this mission by providing services to help students stay in class and achieve academic and personal success.
A pilot study was conducted to investigate possible ways the unit can assist the Division of Student Affairs in
identifying students who are at risk of dropping out before graduating. Additionally, the unit identified indicators for
students at risk of failing to graduate.
Numerous studies have found an inverse correlation between academic achievement and alcohol use (HSPH, 2000;
Molstad, S., et al., 1998; Carey, K.B., 1993; Engs, R.C., et al., 1996). Studies on this subject have found that
drinkers, especially heavy drinkers, earn lower Grade Point Averages (GPAs) than non-drinkers (Maney, D.W.,
1990). Based on data gathered at the University, students who earn A’s consume fewer numbers of drinks and spend
less time drinking than students who earn C’s (NCHA, 2006). At the very least, alcohol use adversely affects the
academic success of University students. Curry Health Center hypothesized it might also lead to lower graduation
rates.
Because of its rich database history and the ability to investigate alcohol use rates, the Self Over Substance (SOS)
program was the subject of the pilot study. The SOS program is a division of Counseling and Psychological Services
at the Curry Health Center. The goal of SOS is to educate and motivate students to address high-risk behaviors
associated with heavy alcohol or other drug use.
The population referred to SOS is comprised of students who have been issued a Minor In Possession citation as of
fall 2005 or have been mandated by Residence Life for using alcohol in the dorms. Students who fall within these
parameters may or may not have intrinsic characteristics that make them less likely to graduate.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The purpose of the study was to compare retention rates of University students who were referred to SOS with
students who were not, and, if a correlation was found, to provide Curry Health Center with a way to identify
students who are at risk of dropping out.
All research questions posed by this study focus on students enrolled as traditional first-year students in the fall or
spring semesters of 2001/02.
Main Research Question: Is a referral to the SOS program an indicator of a student who might struggle to graduate?
23
Additional Research Questions:
Graduation rates
1. What percentage of students who were referred to SOS graduated?
a. What percentage of students who reported binge drinking graduated?
b. What percentage of students who reported low-risk use graduated?
2. What percentage of students who were not referred to SOS graduated?
Still enrolled
1. What percentage of students who were referred to SOS are still enrolled?
a. What percentage of students who reported binge drinking are still enrolled?
b. What percentage of students who reported low-risk use are still enrolled?
2. What percentage of students who were not referred to SOS are still enrolled?
Dropping out
1. What percentage of students who were referred to SOS left UM before graduating?
a. What percentage of students who reported binge drinking left before graduating?
b. What percentage of students who reported a low-risk use left before graduating?
2. What percentage of students who were not referred to SOS left UM before graduating?
Limitations
1. Retention is affected by many factors.
2. Not every first-year student lives in the dorms. During the study timeline, referral to SOS for those students is
unlikely.
3. Data on quantity and frequency of alcohol intake is self-reported on an intake questionnaire during the first SOS
session.
4. Some students referred to SOS did not attend the intake session or complete the questionnaire.
5. Students who were referred to SOS during the spring semester 2002 did not complete the intake questionnaire
until fall semester 2002, making their substance use data unavailable for this study.
6. SOS is a program designed to encourage students to address their high-risk behaviors associated with alcohol or
other drug use. Retention rates might be lower for other students in this population who did not have the benefit of
SOS intervention.
Sample Selection
The population selected for this study was traditional freshmen who enrolled at the University in the fall of 2001 and
the spring of 2002. Data collection was limited to students defined as traditional first-year freshmen. Transfer
students, non-traditional students, students at the College of Technology, and part-time students were excluded.
By selecting this group, researchers could assess graduation rates six years after the students first enrolled. The
population was divided into groups (Group 1 and Group 2) based on SOS referral status. The sample group (Group
1) was further divided into subgroups based on self-reported alcohol use.
Population
UM students enrolled as first-year students in the fall and spring of 2001/2002:
Group 1: Students referred to the SOS program
Group 1a: Students referred to the SOS program and reported binge drinking
Group 1b: Students referred to the SOS program and reported low-risk use
Group 1c: Students referred to SOS but did not complete the intake questionnaire during the study timeline
Group 2: Students who were not referred to the SOS program
24
Data was collected during the fall semester of 2007. The sample for the study was collected using Curry Health
Center’s SOS Access database. Student identification numbers of subjects who were referred to SOS during either
fall semester 2001 or spring semester 2002 were pulled from the SOS database.
The group of subjects was divided into 2 subgroups based on self-reported substance use. Self-reported use rates
were gathered using an intake questionnaire at the first session of the SOS program. Students who reported binge
drinking (defined as 5 or more drinks for men, 4 or more for women, in a single setting in the past 2 weeks) were
grouped into the high-use group; students who did not report this behavior were grouped into the low-use group.
Students who did not complete the intake questionnaire during the study timeline did not fall into either the high or
low-use group, so a third subgroup was identified.
A spreadsheet containing three lists of student ID numbers, but no other identifying factors, was given to the Office
of Planning, Budget & Analysis to obtain graduation status information. The percentage of students who had
graduated and the percentage that were still registered were calculated.
25
FINDINGS
Table 1: Retention Rates for Incoming, Traditional Freshmen, 2001-02
Retention rates for incoming (traditional) freshmen 2001-02
Referred to
S
O
S
Totals
Graduated
Still Enrolled
Left UM
High Use
209
81
38.8%
20
9.6%
108
51.6%
Low Use
52
22
42.3%
7
13.5%
23
44.2%
Did not complete
intake
57
12
21.1%
3
5.3%
42
73.6%
All SOS
318
115
36.2%
30
9.4%
173
54.4%
2659
1392
52.4%
128
4.8%
1139
42.8%
Not Referred
to SOS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Those referred to SOS are a unique group of students who are at a higher risk of leaving the University without a
degree. Binge drinking proved to be an additional risk factor. Students who self-reported binge drinking during the
previous two weeks graduated at a lower rate (39%) than students who did not report binge drinking (42%).
It is clear from the findings that students who are referred to SOS leave the University at a higher rate than the
comparison group, and students who reported binge drinking had a higher drop out rate (52%) than students who
reported low use (44%). Perhaps the best way to identify students who need additional help is to focus efforts on
students who are referred to SOS and report binge drinking.
An interesting trend can be seen in the group of students that were referred to SOS, but reported low-risk use. While
the drop out rate for the group was essentially the same as the comparison group, a higher percentage of students
were still working on earning their degrees six years later. Alcohol use not only leads to a lower grade point average,
it also appears to delay academic progression as well. A future study investigating the progress of students who fit
into this group could paint a clearer picture of how alcohol use hinders academic success at the University.
During data collection, an additional subgroup within the sample group emerged. A substantial number of students
who were referred to SOS did not complete the intake questionnaire during the study timeline. This group had a
much lower graduation rate (21%) and the highest overall drop out rate (74%).
Further investigation into the characteristics of this group showed little homogeneity. Twenty-eight percent were
referred during the spring semester and would not have filled out the intake questionnaire until fall semester 2002,
after the study timeline. Eighteen percent left the University before enrolling in the program and another 18 percent
substituted SOS with a different substance use program. Twelve percent simply didn’t answer this particular
question on the survey. While it shows promise, no conclusions can be drawn from the low retention rate of this
group at this time. Additional work to identify common characteristics of this group could provide insight into a
group of students who are at a particularly high risk of dropping out.
The unit’s efforts to design a working template were fruitful. The pilot study clearly identified a group of at-risk
students who could potentially be helped by an “early-warning” system and additional support. By employing this
26
template and utilizing other databases within the Curry Health Center, administrators could conceivably identify
other unique groups of at-risk students.
REFERENCES
Carey, K.B. (1993). Situational Determinants of Heavy Drinking Among College Students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 40(2), 217 – 220.
Engs, R., Diebold, B.A., & Hanson, D.J. (1996). The Drinking Patterns and Problems of a National Sample of
College Students, 1994. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 41(3), 13 – 33.
Harvard School of Public Health. (1995). Binge Drinking on American College Campuses: A New Look at an Old
Problem, August 1995.
Lall, R., & Schandler, S.L. (1991). Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST) Scores and Academic Performance in
College Students. College Student Journal, 25(2), 245 – 251.
Maney, D.W. (1990). Predicting University Students’ Use of Alcoholic Beverages. Journal of College Student
Development, 31, 23 – 32.
Molstad, S., McMillan, C., Kher, N., & Kilcoyne, M. (1998). Family History and Alcohol Consumption Patterns of
College Students at a Rural Southern University. Education, 119(1), 142 – 147.
National College Health Assessment, Spring 2006. University of Montana. (N=1706)
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G.W., Davenport, A., & DeJong, W. (1999). Binge Drinking on Campus: Results of a
National Study. Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, 1 – 9.
Wechlser, H., Lee, J.E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (1999). College Binge Drinking in the 1990’s: A Continuing Problem.
Results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 College Alcohol Study.
27
Disability Services for Students (DSS)
Submitted by Assistant Director of Disability Services for Students Dan Burke
ABSTRACT
DSS conducted a survey to identify why so many students with disabilities had withdrawn during spring semester
2006. Thirty students agreed to participate. The results showed that the chief reason for withdrawal was a medical
condition.
BACKGROUND
Disability Services for Students assures that students with disabilities have as much access to the University’s
programs and facilities as any student. DDS’ goals are to coordinate reasonable program modifications for otherwise
qualified students with disabilities, to advocate for an accessible and hospitable learning environment for students
with disabilities, and to endorse self-determination by students with disabilities.
In spring 2006, the withdrawal rate for students with disabilities was exceptionally high. It was necessary for DSS to
assess retention and determine if a lack of accessibility or failure to provide reasonable modifications may have been
factors that contributed to the spike in the withdrawal rate. DSS was approached by a group of students in a fourthyear communications course taught by Alan Sillars. The student group was recruited to assess withdrawal patterns of
students with disabilities, especially during the spring 2006 semester.
To determine why students with disabilities withdraw and why there was a sudden increase in such withdrawals,
DSS sought to establish a baseline of information about withdrawals on the part of students with disabilities;
determine why a single semester saw a significant increase in withdrawals of students with disabilities; and assess
whether a lack of reasonable modifications and other services provided by DSS were significant factors.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
DSS created a list of 118 disabled students who had withdrawn during the past 3 years. To increase the response rate,
the unit sent a letter, approved by staff members, to every student on the list. The letter informed students that a
member of the research team would be contacting them. A number of letters were deemed “undeliverable.” Many of
the phone numbers were disconnected. The unit called the working numbers up to three times to increase the chances
of getting students on the phone. If successful, the unit administered a phone survey.
Of the 35 individuals DSS was able to reach, 30 were willing to take the survey, a refusal rate of 14.2 percent. The
sample consisted of eight freshmen, five sophomores, three juniors, ten seniors, and four graduates. The percent of
respondents re-enrolled in college was 55.2. The mean age of respondents was 31.2 years old, with a standard
deviation of 13.4 years, and a range of 18-66 years old.
The rights of the research participants were protected by the following: strict confidentiality; no attempted harm to
the participants; informed, voluntary participation; and a follow-up call, by which participants could learn the results,
if desired. Because the research team had access to names, addresses, and sensitive information regarding the
disabilities of former students, confidentiality was a high priority. No identifying characteristics were included in the
final write-up of the study. The research team was urged to be attentive to the individual during the interview and
mindful of his or her reactions and well-being. Furthermore, the participants had “a full understanding of the risks
involved,” which is compliant with the standards of informed consent (Babbie 2005, p. 69). No participant was
forced to answer survey questions. Participants were permitted to stop at any time. Respondents were given the
option to receive a copy of the final results via e-mail.
28
DSS assisted the research team in making accommodations to meet the needs of students who were disabled in such
a way that they were not able to use a conventional telephone.
A combination of Likert scales, open-ended questions, matrix-style questions, and semantic differentials were used
in the phone questionnaire to allow for varied data computations. The reasons for withdrawal were very
circumstantial. Open-ended questions allowed respondents to expand upon specific circumstances. Respondents
were asked to explain their main reason for withdrawing, and to discuss the positive and negative aspects of their
relationship with DSS and their relationship with the University.
To compensate for potential problems of validity that are often associated with open-ended answers, the matrix-style
questions were utilized to back up findings. Semantic differentials and Likert scales were used to assess attitudes
toward DSS and the University, and investigate other specific topics that may have contributed to the respondents’
withdrawal—accessibility, social life, financial issues, assistance needs, etc. These topics were put into a matrix to
facilitate responses and comparisons. General demographic questions were asked at the end of the questionnaire.
FINDINGS
In general, students with disabilities did not attribute their withdrawals to difficulties posed by their disability,
insufficient accommodations, or a lack of support at the University. A significant number returned to the University
within a year of withdrawal.
The sampling frame consisted of 118 individuals. DSS was able to reach 35. Thirty were willing to take the survey.
Participants were asked to describe, in their own words, the main reason they withdrew from the University.
Categories were constructed from typical responses. Findings show that 40 percent of the sample withdrew due to an
escalation of a medical condition. Twenty percent of respondents (the next highest percentage) claimed to withdraw
because they were not ready for school or were homesick (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Next, respondents were asked a series of questions regarding various factors that might have influenced their
decision to withdraw (see Figure 2). DSS asked participants to rate the factors on a scale of 1-4 (1=no influence,
2=small influence, 3=moderate influence, and 4=strong influence). Several factors are worth noting, due to their
influence or lack of influence:
29

89.7 percent of respondents (M=1.21, SD=0.68) said accessibility to buildings had no influence on their
decision to withdraw

93.1 percent of respondents (M=1.41, SD=0.58) said that accessibility to DSS had no influence on their
decision to withdraw

82.8 percent of respondents (M =1.24, SD=.58) said accessibility to classrooms/lectures had no influence on
their decision to withdraw

27.6 percent of respondents said financial problems were a moderate influence

20.7 percent of respondents (M=2.21, SD=1.26) said financial problems were a strong influence

41.4 percent of respondents (M=2.52, SD=1.40) said escalation of a medical condition was a strong influence

86.2 percent (M =1.14, SD=.35) of respondents said that poor faculty relations had no influence on their
decision to withdraw

93.1 percent (M=1.10, SD=.41)of respondents said that poor peer relations had no influence on their decision
to withdraw (see Table 1 for complete results)

86.2 percent (M=1.24, SD=.69) of respondents said that inadequate disability accommodations had no
influence on their decision to withdraw (see Table 1 for complete results)
Figure 2
30
Table 1: Factors Concerning Withdrawal
Factors
No Influence
Freq.
Building Access
DSS Access
Classroom Access
Financial Problems
Social Acceptance
Academic Problems
Medical Condition
Faculty Relations
Peer Relations
Disability Accommodations
26
27
24
14
27
14
12
25
27
25
Small
%
89.7%
93.1%
82.8%
48.3%
93.1%
48.3%
41.4%
86.2%
93.1%
86.2%
Freq.
Moderate
%
1
1
3
1
1
5
2
4
1
2
3.5%
3.5%
10.3%
3.5%
3.5%
17.2%
6.9%
13.8%
3.5%
6.9%
Freq.
1
0
2
8
0
6
3
0
1
1
%
3.5%
0.0%
6.9%
27.6%
0.0%
20.7%
10.3%
0.0%
3.5%
3.5%t
Strong
Freq.
1
1
0
6
1
4
12
0
0
1
%
3.5%
3.5%
0.0%
20.7%
3.5%
13.8%
41.4%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
Total Frequencies=29 Responses
Respondents were then asked if they had any additional comments on the set of factors concerning their withdrawal.
This was an open-ended question. Though only 37 percent of participants had additional comments, 63 percent of
those who did said that financial issues were a factor. Communication issues, with either DSS or faculty, were
mentioned by 27.6 percent of respondents. One respondent said their lack of awareness of DSS early in their college
career was a factor.
When asked about the positive aspects of the University, 43.3 percent of respondents mentioned faculty/staff, and
33.3 percent mentioned their majors or classes they had taken. Furthermore, 30.0 percent claimed the environment
was a positive aspect of the University. Respondents also mentioned the outdoors, a beautiful campus, the size of the
campus, and Missoula/location as positive factors. See Table 2 for full results.
Table 2: What are the Positive Aspects of the University of Montana?
Number of Responses
Environment
Disability Services
Faculty/Staff
Assistance
Accessibility
Classes/Major
Financial
No Response/None
9
5
13
2
2
10
1
3
% of Responses
30.0%
16.7%
43.3%
6.7%
6.7%
33.3%
3.3%
10.0%
When asked about the negative aspects of the University, the highest percentage of respondents (24%) mentioned
financial issues. Of these respondents, three reported having issues with the Financial Aid Office. They found the
paperwork to be too complicated and did not receive adequate help. Others thought the cost of rent and tuition was
burdensome, or claimed to have had a hard time balancing work and school. Overall, there was a wide range of
factors that were mentioned as negative factors. See Table 3.
31
Table 3: What are the Negative Aspects of the University of Montana?
Number of Responses
Financial
Communication
Awareness of DSS
Parking
Professors/Staff
Withdrawal Policies
Tutoring
Housing
Social
COT
Geographic
Advising/Academic
Accessibility
No response/None
% of Responses
7
3
1
3
4
3
1
1
3
1
1
4
1
5
24.1%
10.3%
3.4%
10.3%
13.8%
10.3%
3.4%
3.4%
10.3%
3.4%
3.4%
13.8%
3.4%
17.2%
When asked about the positive aspects of their relationships with DSS, 51.7 percent of respondents named
assistance/accommodations provided by DSS. Thirty-one percent of the respondents said they were impressed with
the staff. Testing (10.3%), tutoring (6.9%), and advising (3.4%) were also mentioned as positive aspects.
Table 4: What are the Positive Aspects of Disability Services?
Number of Responses
Assistance/accommodations
Testing
Tutoring
Advising
Staff
None
15
3
2
1
9
6
% of Responses
51.7%
10.3%
6.9%
3.4%
31.0%
20.7%
When asked about the negative aspects of their relationships with DSS, respondents most frequently mentioned the
insufficiency of resources (16.7%). Four respondents (13.3% of those surveyed) were not satisfied with the
staff/employees at DSS. However, most (66.7% of respondents) had no negative aspects to report. See Table 5.
Table 5: What are the Negative Aspects of Disability Services?
Number of Responses
Testing
Registration
Staff/employees
Awareness of DSS
Resources
None
3
1
4
1
5
20
% of Responses
10.0%
3.3%
13.3%
3.3%
16.7%
66.7%
DSS decided to compare the answers given by respondents who had re-enrolled at the University with the answers of
respondents who had not. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups and a few trends.
(Note: the first two rows in Table 6 are the average opinions of the University and DSS on a 10-point scale, and the
other rows are the mean scores on a scale of 1-4).
Interestingly, the average opinion of students who did not re-enroll was higher than the students who did, both with
respect to the University and DSS. Also, students who re-enrolled rated financial issues as a stronger influence on
their decision to withdraw than students who did not. See Table 6.
32
Table 6: Factors of Withdrawal and Re-enrollment
Have you re-enrolled?
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Opinion of UM
Yes
No
16
13
6.50
7.85
2.25
2.23
Opinion of DSS
Yes
No
16
12
7.50
8.83
2.22
1.53
Accessibility to buildings?
Yes
No
16
12
1.19
1.00
.54
.00
Accessibility to DSS?
Yes
No
16
12
1.25
1.00
.77
.00
Accessibility to
classrooms/lectures?
Yes
No
16
12
1.25
1.08
.58
.29
Financial problems?
Yes
No
16
12
2.50
1.75
1.32
1.14
Social acceptance?
Yes
No
16
12
1.25
1.00
.77
.00
Academic problems?
Yes
No
16
12
1.75
2.17
1.00
1.19
Escalation of a medical
condition?
Yes
No
16
12
2.31
2.67
1.35
1.50
Poor faculty relations?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
16
12
16
12
16
12
1.13
1.17
1.19
1.00
1.44
1.00
.34
.39
.54
.00
.89
.00
Poor peer relations?
Inadequate disability
accommodations?
Correlations were computed to see if any factors that influenced students’ decisions to withdraw were related to each
other. As one might expect, social acceptance and poor peer relations were correlated at a level of .69. This
correlation was statistically significant at the .05 level. A significance of .05 means that a correlation of this size
would occur strictly due to chance less than five times out of 100. On the same note, inadequate accommodations
were correlated to accessibility to DSS at a level of .72, which is also significant and signifies a strong correlation.
Similarly, social acceptance and accessibility to classrooms were correlated at a level of .54 (p<.05).
33
Surprisingly, poor peer relations were moderately correlated with accessibility to buildings at a level of r=.44
(p<.05). There was also a moderate correlation between academic problems and accessibility to classrooms (r=.38,
p<.05). In hindsight, this statistic makes sense; if one cannot get to class, academic problems will surface. See
Table 7.
Table 7
Bldg. Access DSS Access Class Access Finance Prob. Social Accept. Acad. Prob. Med. Cond. Faculty Relat. Peer Relat.
DSS Access
Class Access
0.02
.509*
0.00
Financial
0.28
Problems
Social Accept. 0.11
-0.14
-0.02
-0.06
.537*
-0.09
Academic Prob. 0.33
-0.22
.382*
0.03
0.22
Medical
0.00
Condition
Faculty
-0.13
Relations
Peer Relations .437*
-0.27
0.24
0.18
0.00
0.20
-0.10
-0.17
0.01
-0.10
0.36
-0.01
-0.06
0.19
0.16
.689*
0.23
-0.16
-0.10
0.11
0.00
0.14
-0.06
0.01
Disability
0.04
.716*
-0.15
Accom.
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
0.16
RECOMMENDATIONS
DSS cannot conclude that mid-semester withdrawals have been a result of a failure to provide students with
reasonable modifications. The data suggests that a variety of factors influence a student’s decision to withdraw, the
most common being an exacerbation of a medical condition.
Though respondents were taken from a pool of students who had withdrawn over a five year period, the study
sample was still rather small, making it difficult to draw conclusive results that pertain to either general reasons for
withdrawal or that explain the spike in withdrawals in spring 2006. Also, a significant number of students could no
longer be reached, as their phone numbers and addresses in Cyberbear were no longer current.
Thus, DSS will continue to replicate these survey efforts once or twice each year to increase the likelihood of getting
in touch with the students who withdrew and establish a more reliable baseline of withdrawal data.
Furthermore, DSS is devising new questions for the surveys that will result in statistical insight about student
persistence at the University based on a number of factors, including the disability code. This data will be mined
from the student records databases and should provide DSS more insight into student withdrawals.
34
Disability Services for Students
Submitted by Assistant Director of Disability Services for Students Dan Burke
ABSTRACT
DSS wished to assess teaching assistants’ familiarity with disability rights legislation. A DSS research team
surveyed teaching assistants and students with disabilities about their experiences with teaching assistants. Two
online surveys were developed—one for former teaching assistants and one for students—to collect data. The
surveys contained parallel questions and identical rating systems to facilitate comparison. The results showed that
that teaching assistants are, in general, not satisfied with their preparedness for dealing with the requests of students
with disabilities.
BACKGROUND
Instructors often play key roles in arranging testing accommodations. To coordinate these reasonable program
modifications and to ensure a hospitable work environment, DSS educates faculty about the civil rights of students
with disabilities. In addition, DSS informs faculty of their responsibility to provide reasonable modifications.
Tenured and tenure-track faculty learn about disability rights during faculty orientation and often have the
opportunity to recognize and respond to requests for reasonable modifications from students with disabilities over
the years.
Teaching assistants, on the other hand, may not have the same level of knowledge and exposure. The University
often employs graduate teaching assistants to teach first-year courses, typically those offered to meet general
education requirements. Teaching assistants are therefore a crucial link in supporting students with disabilities.
DSS was approached by a group of graduate students in a communications course who wished to provide a
consultation to DSS as part of a class project. All of the students had been teaching assistants in the past and were
interested in determining if students with disabilities experience barriers to access in the courses taught by teaching
assistants. The students indicated that they, themselves, had not felt well prepared to handle these requests in their
instructive roles.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The research team set out to determine if teaching assistants: (1) received adequate training and possessed adequate
knowledge of disability rights laws, (2) knew how to comply with rules related to reasonable modifications, and (3)
wanted more information about these issues.
The research team surveyed teaching assistants and students with disabilities about their experiences with teaching
assistants. Two online surveys were developed—one for former teaching assistants and one for students—to collect
data. The surveys contained parallel questions and identical rating systems to facilitate comparison.
On April 3, 2007, DSS opened the online survey for students with disabilities on the University’s Select Survey site.
The director of DSS sent 811 e-mail notices to students who had registered with the unit and were enrolled in spring
2007. The director sent a reminder seven days later. Both e-mails, which included a link to the survey page, elicited
numerous responses within 24 hours of being sent. The survey closed after two weeks on April 17, 2007.
A total of 111 students (a response rate of 13.7%) entered the survey site and read at least the opening page. One
student did not agree to the confidentiality question that opened the survey and did not answer any items. Of the
remaining 110 respondents, 20 (18%) did not answer any items on the survey. Thus, the core study group consisted
of 90 students for a response rate of 11 percent.
35
Teaching assistants were invited to participate in an online survey on the Survey Monkey Web site. DSS does not
know how many teaching assistants were contacted, nor does it know how they were contacted. Fifty teaching
assistants responded to the survey.
FINDINGS
In spring 2007, DSS served between eight and nine percent of the overall University student body. One can conclude
that teaching assistants are very likely to encounter students with disabilities. Of the 50 teaching assistants that
responded, 25 (50%) reported having had at least one student with disabilities in their courses.
Overall, teaching assistants rated the effectiveness of their accommodations for these students as “Average” to
“Above Average,” with an average rating of 3.57. Ten percent rated the effectiveness as “Excellent,” while 40
percent gave no response to this item (responses are shown in Figure 3).
Figure 3: Rate the overall effectiveness of your accommodations for students with disabilities
45
40
35
30
Percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poor
Below Average
Average
Above
Average
Excellent
N/A
Responses
When asked how effectively they communicated with these students, teaching assistants again responded in the
“Average” to “Above Average” range, with an average rating of 3.68 (21% responded “Average;” 23% responded
“Above Average;” and 42% did not respond). Responses to this item are shown in Figure 4.
36
Figure 4: Communication with students with a disability
45
40
35
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
Poor
Below
Average
Above
Average
Average
Excellent
N/A
Responses
When asked to rate the effectiveness of their communication with DSS, however, 51 percent of the teaching
assistants answered “'Not Applicable.” Fifteen percent of the respondents answered “Average,” while 20 percent
answered “Poor” or “Below Average.” Responses to this item are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Communication with DSS staff regarding accommodations
60
50
40
30
Percent
20
10
0
Poor
Below
Average
Average
Above
Average
Responses
37
Excellent
N/A
Seventy-one percent of student respondents indicated they had requested some form of test accommodations. Of
these, another 9 percent had requested readers or scribes on exams, and 11 percent had requested assistive
technology for use on exams. Thirty-eight percent had asked teaching assistants for their help in finding note-takers.
Forty-six percent had requested other accommodations from their teaching assistants. Examples of other
accommodations include: interpreters, Assistive Listening Devices, tape recordings of lectures, provisions for
flexibility in attendance due to periodic exacerbations of a condition, and alternative furniture. These responses are
shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: What reasonable accommodations do you most typically request?
80
70
60
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
Extended Time
Reader/Scribe
Assistive
Tech
Note
Other
Taking
Responses
Respondents rated their interaction with teaching assistants more favorably than the teaching assistants rated their
interactions with students. The average rating was 3.8 out of 5, while 37 percent responded “Excellent.” “Average”
and “Above Average” ratings accounted for 50 percent of all responses to this item. See Figure 7.
38
Figure 7: Rate the overall effectiveness of the Instructor/TA.
40
35
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
Below
Average
Poor
Neutral/
Average
Above
Average
Excellent
Responses
Students gave teaching assistants an average rating of 4 with regard to teaching assistants’ understanding of the
principles of confidentiality. Forty-six percent of students gave their teaching assistants “Excellent” ratings, while 47
percent answered “Above Average” (19 %) or “Average” (28 %).
Figure 8: Rate TAs understanding of principles of confidentiality.
50
45
40
35
30
Percent
25
20
15
10
5
0
Poor
Below Average
Average
Above
Average
Excellent
Responses
In summary, the findings indicate that students’ level of satisfaction with their teachings assistants, and the
accommodations provided by them, exceed the teaching assistants’ level of satisfaction with themselves. This
suggests that teaching assistants might not feel as prepared as they would like when responding to requests from
students with disabilities. It is also important to note that teaching assistants did not find their communication with
DSS to be particularly effective.
39
RECOMMENDATIONS
With the help of communications students, DSS developed and piloted a 30-minute training curriculum. The unit
attended a “dress rehearsal” presentation of the curriculum at the end of spring semester 2007.
The curriculum should be presented to teaching assistants before the academic year begins. DSS will locate staff
resources to make such a presentation, though the week before school begins is one of the busiest weeks for the
department. This new training curriculum should be implemented in autumn 2008.
40
Enrollment Services
Submitted by Operations Manager Amy Zinne
ABSTRACT
Enrollment Services sent surveys to approximately 2,100 students who were accepted to the University in the fall of
2006, but did not enroll. The goals were to (1) evaluate how satisfied applicants were with Enrollment Services; (2)
learn why they applied for admission, but did not enroll; and (3) compare applicants’ perceptions of the University
with the schools they eventually chose to attend.
One hundred applicants completed the survey. Most of the respondents were nonresidents (70%). While satisfied
with their contact with the University, resident and nonresident respondents chose to attend another university for
one of the following reasons: finances, academic programs, or location.
BACKGROUND
Enrollment Services attracts, supports, and enhances student enrollment at the University by providing quality
information, services, and complete financial options to make the college enrollment process efficient, accessible,
and student-centered.
The Non-enrolled Student Survey was designed to evaluate the level of student satisfaction with each step of the
admissions process, from the time students first learn about the University until they are accepted. In order to
improve its processes and strategies, the unit wished to determine the factors attract students to the University and
why they eventually choose to complete their education elsewhere.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
In late October, Enrollment Services sent an e-mail to 2,100 accepted, non-enrolled students, offering them a chance
to win a $200 REI gift card as incentive to complete an online survey. (E-mail is the only effective way to
communicate with students, because the physical addresses they provide are often outdated.) A second offer was
issued in mid-November.
When the survey closed a month later, the unit tabulated the results, analyzed the data, and prepared the NonEnrolled Survey Executive Summary.
FINDINGS
The respondent pool had the following characteristics:

Seventy percent were non-residents (from 23 states)

More than half of respondents (58 percent) reported a family income of $60,000 or greater

Forty-four percent stayed in their home state, out of which 84 percent listed cost and/or distance from home
as factors in their decision

Seven percent were not going to be attending a college or university

Forty-nine percent reported that they were not going to be attending college in their home state
41

Students decided to attend the following colleges: MSU (8), Western Washington (5), the University of
Colorado (3), the University of Oregon (2), Colorado State University (2), Carroll College (2), MSUBillings (2), and the University of Washington (2)
Responses to the question “How satisfied were you with the following at The University of Montana?” are shown in
the graph below. In general, respondents were overwhelmingly very satisfied or satisfied with the Enrollment
Services and Residence Life processes. The only problem area seems to be the Financial Aid package, which is
consistent with students deciding not to attend the University because of financial reasons.
How satisfied are you with the following at UM?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Prospective Student Admissions Process
Process
UM Publications
Financial Aid Office
% Somewhat Satisfied/Not Satisfied
Financial Aid
Package
Residence Life
Office
% Very Satisfied/Satisfied
Reasons students did not enroll at The University of Montana:
Non-Residents
(19) finances/could not afford to attend/were offered more aid or scholarships elsewhere
(16) location/wanted to stay closer to home/wanted a bigger or smaller city
(12) academic program
(4) decided on their school because friends were already going there
(1) playing sports
Residents
(5) location/wanted to leave Montana/wanted a bigger or smaller city
(4) academic program
(3) financial/could not afford to attend/were offered more aid or scholarships elsewhere
(2) decided on another school because friends were already going there
Reasons students applied to The University of Montana:
Non-Residents
42
Housing Application
Process
(40) Missoula/outdoors/Montana beauty
(15) academic program/reputation
(9) friends or family
(1) cost/close to home
Residents
(9) cost/close to home
(6) Missoula/outdoors/beauty
(6) safety school
(5) academic program/reputation
(1) legacy
RECOMMENDATIONS
Financial concerns continue to be the primary reason nonresident students choose to attend other universities.
Enrollment Services will review the awarding and packaging of scholarships to determine how to make the greatest
impact on students who would enroll if they could.
43
Foreign Student and Scholar Services (FSSS)
Submitted by Program Coordinator Mona Mondava
ABSTRACT
To assess the level of student satisfaction with FSSS services and programs, the unit surveyed foreign students
during spring semester 2007. For the purposes of the study, foreign students were defined as individuals who did not
hold U.S. citizenship. Findings indicate that the vast majority of respondents were very satisfied with the services
and activities offered by FSSS and their overall experience at The University of Montana; however, respondents
were less satisfied with financial aid and employment opportunities. Data showed discrepancies in satisfaction based
on the following variables: (1) academic level (undergraduate vs. graduate), (2) sex, and (3) region of origin.
BACKGROUND
The mission of FSSS is to cater to the general welfare of foreign students enrolled at The University of Montana,
from admission, to practical training, to graduation. FSSS provides direct support and consultation services to help
students and scholars achieve their educational and professional goals, and aims to foster intercultural understanding
and goodwill.
The unit often acts as liaison between students and the federal government, the community, and other departments
on campus. FSSS assists in the reception and orientation of foreign students, helping them to integrate with the
University and community. FSSS interprets immigration regulations and laws and assists students and scholars in
maintaining legal status and taking advantage of benefits related to their visa status. FSSS also provides advising
related to academic, personal, cultural, and financial issues, and other concerns that arise. The unit works closely
with other departments on campus.
FSSS has found it valuable to conduct the Foreign Student Survey in order to ensure student satisfaction and
improve the quality of services and programs the unit offers.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The survey was conducted online in April 2007. The web-based questionnaire contained 50 questions, approximately
7 of which were open-ended. Every registered foreign student at the University (n = 415) received a postcard one
week before the survey opened, which contained a number that would allow him or her to access the survey. The
postcard explained the nature and the purpose of the survey as soliciting feedback that would help FSSS enhance its
services. To encourage participation, students who completed the survey were offered a chance to win $100 and
other prizes in a drawing. To maintain confidentiality, the number assigned to each student was kept separate from
the list of names. The survey was available online for three weeks, during which time, students received periodic
reminders.
FINDINGS
A total of 136 international students responded to the survey, yielding a 33 percent response rate. Women constituted
55 percent of respondents, and approximately 80 percent of respondents were undergraduate students. The majority
of the respondents hailed from Asia (60%), followed by Europe (19%), Central/South America and the Caribbean
(6%), Africa (5%), North America (3%), and Oceania (2%). Incidentally, the regions of origin among the group
surveyed roughly reflected those of the larger foreign student population at the University in terms of geographic
distribution. Over 50 percent of the respondents fell into the 20-24 age range. Fifty-two percent commenced their
studies at the University during the 2006-07 academic year.
44
Respondents who began their studies at the University during 2006-07 expressed satisfaction with “Pre-arrival
information received” (84% satisfied); “Reception upon arrival” (81% satisfied); “Orientation programs attended”
(75% satisfied); and “Campus housing arrangements” (60% satisfied). No statistically significant differences were
found among the different demographic variables in rating these items. However, when analyzed by academic level,
more undergraduate students (69%) were satisfied with campus housing than were graduate students (35%).
Respondents gave high ratings to aspects of academic life such as “Academic advising” (87% satisfied); “Studentfaculty relations” (96% satisfied); “Relevance of courses to your needs/interests” (84% satisfied); “Opportunities to
improve English language skills at UM” (78% satisfied); and “Availability of library resources” (88% satisfied). No
significant differences were found between undergraduates and graduates, male and female, or among respondents
from different geographic regions. Fewer Europeans (72%) reported a need to improve their English language skills
compared with Asians (84%).
As for social life at the University, respondents were generally satisfied with the opportunities they had to interact
with local people. Programs such as the Missoula International Friendship Program (MIFP) and the International
Peer Assistant Program were created to offer social opportunities in a more structured manner. Seventy percent of
respondents who had participated in MIFP were satisfied with the relationships they had established with community
members, while 66 percent of those who had peer assistants thought it was a positive experience.
More than 50 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the sources of financial aid available to them, and
approximately 40 percent were dissatisfied with on-campus employment opportunities. More graduates (55%) than
undergraduates expressed dissatisfaction with financial aid.
Respondents gave FSSS consistently high marks on attitude of the office staff and quality of service (over 90%
satisfied).
When asked about problems encountered at the University, respondents mentioned the following most frequently:
language barriers and cultural differences; lack of job opportunities and insufficient sources of financial aid; and low
racial/ethnic diversity. When asked about the main attractions, location, safety, quality of academic programs and a
friendly environment were all popular responses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Most survey questions elicited similar answers regardless of the gender, region of citizenship, or academic level of
the respondent. Therefore, it appears that most aspects of international students’ experiences at the University are
fairly similar. Furthermore, the results of the study seem to be consistent with previous surveys. The majority of
students were generally satisfied with our services and programs, but were least satisfied with the availability of
financial aid programs and employment opportunities on campus. One way to address these unmet needs is to
increase the number of campus non-work study positions and the number and amount of scholarships for
international students.
The Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs has submitted a proposal to the University’s Foundation to
establish an endowment that would create work opportunities on campus, similar to the work-study program. In
addition, the Missoula International Friendship Program is planning to launch a grant-writing campaign to help
secure funding for foreign student scholarships.
45
Residence Life
Submitted by Community Affairs Director, University Villages, Kelly Magnuson
ABSTRACT
Residence Life provides comfortable and competitively priced housing for University students that meet all safety
and health codes. Every year, Residence Life assesses its services and programs in order to measure their
effectiveness. The 2006-07 survey results indicate that students residing in the residence halls are satisfied with the
overall facilities and programs provided by the hall staff and campus community. Some residents suggested
improvements in laundry services, technology, and customer service.
BACKGROUND
Residence Life and its housing environments promote academic learning and engender the positive aspects of
community living that celebrate difference and encourage students to actively engage with the campus. The facilities,
environment, and programs offered by Residence Life must be student-preferred and must effectively respond to the
ever-changing needs of today’s students.
As students’ needs change, Residence Life adjusts and improves its services accordingly. Surveying students about
their satisfaction is an effective method for measuring the unit’s success in more than just providing desirable
housing and offering employment. Residence Life also supports the educational mission of The University of
Montana by providing instructive co-curricular opportunities and programs for students.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The unit made an online survey available to all residents living in University housing facilities. Residents were
informed about the survey in three ways: (1) Residence Life sent an e-mail to all current residents in the residence
halls (2,318 students), (2) the hall staff hand-delivered postcards to their residents, and (3) information was posted on
the DEN network (in-house TV channel).
The information directed residents to a link that would take them to the online survey and asked them to complete
the survey by a certain deadline to assure their name would be entered in a drawing for prizes. The survey asked
residents to evaluate current services and to provide suggestions for improvement. The online survey software
collected and tabulated the data.
FINDINGS
Of the 2,318 potential residents contacted, 815 responded (35.16%). Results indicated that the vast majority of
respondents were satisfied with the services, facilities, and programs provided within the Residence Halls. Some
respondents provided suggestions for improvement, mostly in the area of customer service.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Residence Life should continue to provide its current services. Based on specific respondent feedback, the unit has
established the following recommendations:
1. Use Craighead and Sisson Villages as a beta site for a limited wireless network solution.
2. Plan for and establish classroom space and programs in the residence halls.
3. Plan and fund more capital improvement projects on an established schedule.
4. Provide additional training for staff in the areas of customer service (including dealing with difficult people) and
46
employee supervision.
5. Update custodial cleaning techniques and products.
6. Continue to improve Residence Life Web pages for better readability and navigation.
7. Consult with the Curry Health Center’s Health Enhancement division to improve orientation programming for
new students, especially in the areas of personal safety and substance abuse.
8. Continue to try to increase faculty involvement in Residence Hall living learning centers.
9. Relocate the Residence Life Technology Center to Elrod Hall to consolidate services and provide better customer
services for students.
47
Residence Life
Submitted by Community Affairs Director, University Villages, Kelly Magnuson
ABSTRACT
Residence Life administered a survey and solicited feedback from residents of the University Villages to measure the
efficacy of its services and programs. Tenants and their families were generally satisfied with the environment and
services at University Villages. However, some residents suggested improvements related to customer service,
maintenance, policy enforcement, Internet services, and visibility and accessibility of the Community Assistant.
BACKGROUND
Residence Life-University Villages residences meet all health and safety codes established by the State of Montana,
and offer instructive, co-curricular opportunities and programs that support the educational mission of the
University.
University Villages strives to build a sense of community by offering educational services and programs tailored to
single students as well as students with families, encouraging residents to celebrate diversity and appreciate
differences in residents’ ethnic, socioeconomic and family system backgrounds. University Villages promotes a
continually changing “Community Living Model” that incorporates healthy values, behaviors, and choices essential
to a successful college career, such as fostering interpersonal relationships and developing personal integrity.
To meet the ever-changing needs of today’s students and their families, Residence Life collects data through an
annual survey of residents. With the information responsive residents provide, University Villages can first assess its
facilities, measure the efficacy of services and programs, and make changes and improvements based on the results.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
To increase the survey’s response rate, University Villages decided to forgo the paper version and, instead, to
conduct the survey online.
The survey was first publicized to residents in December 2006 through the University Villages newsletter, The
Cornerstone, which is delivered to 574 apartments every 2 weeks. While in the past the paper survey was inserted
directly into the newsletter, this year, University Villages included an insert that directed residents to the online
survey and ran “advertisements” that informed readers about the survey and asked them to take it online before
December 31.
As students had only one week of classes left before finals, their focus was elsewhere; timing was not ideal. To
offset this disadvantage, the survey remained open longer in the event respondents wished to complete it after finals
week. In fact, the survey was never closed. As further incentive, University Villages offered respondents a chance to
win prizes, including two $100 gift cards, movie passes, laundry soap, one Griz t-shirt, and a set of coffee mugs.
Of the 574 apartments that received notices about the survey, 53 completed it. The online survey was “down” for a
time, possibly preventing some residents from taking it if they did not try to access the site more than once. This
might account for the decrease in response (down two percent from 2005).
The online tool was designed by Community Affairs Coordinator Kelly Magnuson. Most of the questions remained
unchanged from previous years; however, some new questions about diversity and Internet service were included.
The survey utilized multiple choice and open-ended questions. Residents were asked to rate or describe their level of
satisfaction with various aspects related to service and environment, including the Community Assistant, customer
48
service, the University Villages Office, maintenance, community, and safety. The survey also asked residents for
overall comments and suggestions. As names were not included on the surveys, residents were assured of
confidentiality.
FINDINGS
A vast majority of respondents were satisfied with the services, facilities, and programs of the University Villages.
Residents were more satisfied with the customer service of the main staff than in years past, as shown in the Table 1.
There were some changes in our staff during this time, and staff worked at having more positive attitudes.
Table 1: Main Office Staff
Staff was courteous
and very helpful
Received poor
customer service
2005
2006
53%
75%
8%
2%
In the “other comments” section, multiple respondents reported receiving different information from different staff
members. University Villages needs to improve the consistency of both verbal and written information, and to
improve the means of communicating information, so that residents are not misguided and subsequently penalized
with a late fee.
According to the data, residents were more satisfied with maintenance services this year than they were in the past.
For results regarding maintenance personnel and repair in 2006, see Table 2.
Table 2: Maintenance personnel and repair
2006
Handled repair in a
timely manner
Handled repair in a
timely manner and was
helpful and courteous
Repaired in a
reasonable amount of
time, but unfriendly
53%
25%
5%
Repair was completed
when I was not home
17%
Repair was never
completed
0%
In previous years, three to five percent of the repairs were reported as being incomplete or unattended. In 2006,
tenants reported that no repairs (0%) were left undone. Everyone who submitted a work order felt that it was
completed in a timely manner; however, five percent of respondents indicated that, although the repair was done, the
staff was not friendly. University Villages will communicate feedback regularly to work crews.
Five respondents wrote that they would like more notice when maintenance personnel come to their apartments.
While this may not seem like a high number, it is nearly ten percent of respondents. These residents wanted
49
maintenance staff to begin making appointments to do repair work, so that personnel would not enter their
apartments when they were not home or when they were in the shower. Unfortunately, setting appointments does not
always work, especially when emergencies arise. University Villages tries to minimize potentially awkward
situations by telling personnel not to enter if they hear the shower running or if the timing appears to be inconvenient
for the resident.
Most respondents (92 percent) indicated that their CA provided “opportunities for people to meet each other.”
However, each year, residents offer the following feedback: “I do not know my CA.” Some wished their CA was
more visible and present to spot violations and enforce policies on pets and smoking. For more, see Table 3.
Table 3: Does your CA enforce policy?
Yes
66%
Sometimes
26%
Never
8%
Each Community Assistant is responsible for approximately 100 apartments; he or she does not always have much
of interaction with individual residents. Multiple residents wished to know more about their CA, and some wanted
their CA to plan more child-friendly activities. University Villages has tried putting on child-friendly events in the
past, but they were not well attended. Staff will continue to explore options.
No survey question specifically addressed the issue of communication; however, the comments about being unaware
of when maintenance personnel would be entering the building and not knowing much about the CA were
compounded by other communication-related criticisms. Respondents faulted the newsletter’s timeliness; lack of
information about activities, policies and other matters of importance; and misinformation provided by office
personnel. University Villages will continue to work on minimizing these complaints by improving the consistency
of information and improving communication.
Currently, University Villages does not provide Internet service in the apartments. Residents need to use the
Community Center or set up their own service through a provider in town. When asked whether they have a
computer in the home and pay for outside internet service, 79 percent of respondents answered yes. The survey
reveals that 85 percent of respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay for Internet service provided by
University Villages, depending on the cost per month.
Table 4: Amount willing to pay for internet service
$25/month
49%
$35/month
26%
$45/month
11%
$55/month or more
Not willing to paying
for internet service
50
0%
13%
Table 5: Do you feel safe living in the University Villages?
Yes, all of the time
68%
Some of the time
30%
No
2%
Twenty-one percent of respondents requested more security patrol and nine percent requested more lighting.
The vast majority of respondents (92 percent) found it beneficial to be living in a diverse community.
RECOMMENDATIONS
University Villages has established the following recommendations for action, based on comments and suggestions
that appeared five or more times in the surveys:
1. Continue to work with the local campus police force to increase frequency and visibility of foot and bike patrols.
2. Be vigilant about finding areas that are not well-lit and report them to the University Villages Office.
3. Improve visibility of CAs, so residents will know their names, where they live, and what their role is at University
Villages. One way to open communication channels is for residents to see their CA more frequently.
4. Improve the consistency and means of communicating information to residents, so that residents do not receive
the wrong information and then receive a penalty, such as a late fee, for not being properly informed.
5. Continue to explore ways to provide Internet service.
6. Use the monthly newsletter to inform residents about maintenance protocol. When residents understand how
University Villages operate, they seem to be more flexible with their requests.
7. Increase frequency of popular social events, such as bowling and barbecues, and offer activities for single students
and couples.
51
University Dining Services (UDS)
Submitted by Assistant Director for Residential Dining Byron Drake
ABSTRACT
After completing a self-assessment based on the National Association of College and University Food Services
(NACUFS) Professional Practices Manual, UDS conducted a comprehensive peer review called the Professional
Practices Review. A team of professionals from the university food service industry visited The University of
Montana to assess UDS operations. The unit compared the self-assessment with the team’s findings and developed
action plans for each practice needing to be changed.
BACKGROUND
UDS is a self-operated state auxiliary, providing for the food service needs of the multi-campus community of the
University. UDS enriches the campus community by providing outstanding cuisine and service for dining, learning,
and celebrating.
During 2006-07, UDS welcomed the opportunity to participate in a Professional Practices review. The findings acted
as a great assessment tool, and will help to (1) ensure that UDS is performing in accordance with professional
standards; (2) clarify the information UDS will need to gather to grow the department strategically; (3) provide best
practices education for staff; (4) focus on departmental weaknesses, prioritize change, and allocate resources; and (5)
develop strategic operations and capital plans.
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
The NACUFS Professional Practices Visitation Program provides colleges and universities with a voluntary and
non-binding operational review of their food service departments. Experienced food service directors and senior
managers visit the institution to determine the degree to which a university’s operations conform to best practices as
outlined in the Professional Practices in College & University Food Services manual (PPM), an assessment guide
and professional development tool published by NACUFS. When the review is complete, host institutions receive
oral and written reviews from the Professional Practices team. The team provides recommendations to help the
institution improve their food service operations. Any action subsequently taken by the institution is voluntary.
The PPM is organized into principles that are supported by best practices. The manual is comprised of the following
fifteen chapters:
1. Professionalism
2. Organization
3. Planning
4. Marketing
5. Operational Controls
6. Human Resources
7. Menu Management
8. Purchasing/Receiving/Storage
9. Food Safety
10. Service Management
11. Safety and Security
12. Facilities Management
13. Technology
14. Capital Improvement
52
15. Contract Services
In December of 2005, UDS assigned a separate committee to address each of the 15 chapters in the NACUFS PPM
Committees, which were comprised of UDS employees, non-UDS employees, and key stakeholders. The committees
reviewed each chapter in detail and submitted reports to UDS management. Together, the reports comprised the selfreview that was sent to the Professional Practices team.
The Professional Practices team consisted of one team leader, Arthur Korandanis, Director of Auxiliary Services,
College of the Holy Cross, and six team members: Sharon Coulson, Foodservice Director, University of CaliforniaDavis; Mary Lou Kennedy, Director of Dining & Bookstore Services, Bowdoin College; Patti Klos, Director of
Dining Services, Tufts University; Mona Milius, Associate Director of Residence/Dining, University of Northern
Iowa; Blake Widdowson, Associate Director of Cash Operations, University of Richmond; and Christine McLane,
NACUFS Member Services Coordinator.
On Thursday, November 2, 2006, the Professional Practices team presented their findings to UDS senior
management, the Vice President for Student Affairs, and other University executive officers. The team submitted a
formal written report to President Dennison, Vice President Teresa Branch, and the UDS Senior Management Team.
After the peer review was complete, UDS management asked the University committees to revisit their chapters in
light of the peer review and investigate any discrepancies. UDS management developed short term action plans to
meet urgent needs and flagged other areas to be addressed during the strategic planning process for Unit Operations
Plans.
FINDINGS
Overall, the findings of the Professional Practices team were very positive. The self–review was much more critical.
UDS’ peers had two recommendations: (1) improve the recruitment, orientation, and training process of staff; and
(2) improve communication within the department, especially with regards to operations among management and
classified staff.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recruitment, orientation, and training will be addressed by the new Assistant Director for Operational Support and
Professional Development. Overall, the UDS senior staff and unit management are addressing communication issues
with the assistance of the new Assistant Director. UDS is conducting an exhaustive examination and review of its
current positions. An organizational restructure might be needed to properly grade each position and attract higher
quality candidates. Some current positions might be targeted for strategic pay increases. Based on the outcomes of
this review, UDS will develop specific initiatives to improve recruitment.
Other specific details and action plans are being incorporated into the UDS 2008-2013 Strategic Plan and into the
Unit Operational Plans, as appropriate. The draft of the UDS 2008-2013 Strategic Plan is currently being reviewed.
Operational plans will be developed as parts of the plan are approved.
53