DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Department Name:
Director:
Assessment Contact(s)
(if not the director):
Department Mission Statement:
Department Vision Statement:
Student Housing & Residential Life (SHRL)
Don Yackley
Mark Vitek, Assistant Director for Assessment and Conduct, and Rebecca Szwarc, Administrative Assistant for Assessment
A diverse community of students, staff, and faculty who foster student success in living-learning environments by building
relationships, promoting engagement, and leading with an ethic of care.
Student Housing & Residential Life is the unrivaled residential experience in student success!
1. Hone and enhance a supportive, intentional and advocacy based program for residents that focuses on the provision of
services; cultivation of study and life skills; and the development of a vibrant campus life. DSAES Strategic Initiatives #1d &
#2e.
2. Establish learning outcomes for student leaders (resident advisors, desk assistants and RHA officers) and ensure that they
are achieving those outcomes. DSAES Strategic Initiatives #1c & #2c.
Department Goals: (include DSAES
strategic plan mapping)
3. Explore ways to make on-campus housing better able to meet the unique needs of international students and more
desirable to them as a place to live. DSAES Strategic Initiatives #1b, #3b & #3c
4. Enhance First and Second Year Residential Experience (FYRE and SYRE) programs, fine-tuning the structure and co-curricular
involvement opportunities. FYRE and SYRE will increase program attendance by 20%. DSAES Strategic Initiatives #1a, #1e &
#4c.
1
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Program or Services Being Assessed: Student Housing & Residential Life General Program and Services
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Purpose
Method
Program Objective(s)
Objective - Assess the general
Students are more likely o be successful if The Educational Benchmarking, Inc., (EBI)
satisfaction and perceived learning they are satisfied with their environment Residential Survey will be administered to
that occurs from residents who live and if their environment is conducive to all residents. The EBI is a yearly national
learning. This survey measures resident
survey that allows the institution to rate
in residence halls.
satisfaction with SHRL services and
current performance, compare to past
Learning Outcomes:
personnel; as well as with students'
performance, and benchmark against
As a result of living on campus,
satisfaction with their college experience. other institutions. Goal is to achieve an
students will:
-Demonstrate satisfaction with their It also measures perceived learning and
average 5.5 on a 7-point Likert scale, which
college experience.
- integration to campus.
is equivalent to a 75% satisfaction rate.
Demonstrate knowledge of academic
Objective is to maintain 5.5 EBI goal on 3
factors already above the goal; move 4
and social resources to help navigate
intermediate (score of 5.25-5.49) factors
their transition to University life.
above goal; and move at least half of the
-Engage with faculty outside the
12 of the "issue" (score below 5.25) factors
classroom.
to the intermediate or better level. Results
will be compared to previous years' EBI
surveys and benchmarked against other
institutions.
2
Goal(s)
Supported
The Residential EBI will SHRL goal #1
be administered once and DSAES
a year at a time when Strategic
it does not interfere
Initiatives
with another massive #1d & #2e.
survey (MAP-Works).
That may be in
November or March.
Preliminary results will
be available soon after
survey closes.
Benchmarking data
will not be available
until July.
Frequency / Timeline
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Results:
The ACUHO-I EBI Resident Survey was sent to all residents living in UH-managed housing except Resident Advisors, live-on staff and faculty. There were 5,281
student residents, of which 1,665 residents responded, for a 31.5% response rate. Although the percentage of respondents was lower than last year, we had 45
more actual respondents than last year. The survey was administered mid-March to mid-April. .
EBI changed its survey since last year, lowering the number of factors from twenty-two to twenty. In some factors, they added or removed questions. Thirteen
factors remained essentially the same; they reworked and/or renamed five factors; added two new factors; and removed four factors. As in past years, questions
are scored on a 7-point Likert scale. The goal is to get a score of 5.5 or above, which represents a 75% satisfaction rate, and counted as “good”. Scores in the 5.25
to 5.49 range are classified as “needs work”, and scores below 5.25 are classified as “issue”.
Of the three major indicator factors, Overall Satisfaction fell in the “needs work” range (5.29), and Overall Learning (5.23) and Overall Program Effectiveness (5.09)
fell in the “issue” range. SHRL had four scores in the “good” range (one more than last year): Satisfaction: Roommates (5.80), Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Student Staff
(5.70), community Environment (5.58) and Facilities (5.50). Four factors fell between 5.25 and 5.49: Satisfaction: Safety and Security (5.44), Satisfaction: Hall/Apt
Environment (5.36), Learning: Sense of Community (5.34) and Overall Satisfaction (5.29). The rest of the factors fell below 5.25: Overall Learning (5.23), Overall
Program Effectiveness (5.09), Learning: Self-Management (5.03), Learning: Personal Interactions (4.99), Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Programming (4.98), Learning: Diverse
Interactions (4.98), Satisfaction: Room Assignment or Change Process (4.88), Learning: Alcohol and Drug Use (4.88), Satisfaction: Services Provided (4.85), Learning:
LLC Connections and Support (4.73), Learning: Sustainability (4.59), and Satisfaction: Dining Services (4.29).
This year, only two factors showed statistically significant improvement over last year: Overall Learning (+.18) and Learning: Life Skills (+.10). Five factors showed
improvement, but it was not statistically significant: Satisfaction: Roommates (+.10), Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Student Staff (+.10), Learning: Personal Interactions
(+.08), Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Programming (+.07), Learning: Alcohol and Drug Use (+.03) and Satisfaction: Facilities (+.02). Two factors showed no change over last
year: Overall Program Effectiveness (0) and Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Environment (0). Four factors showed declines in scores, but they were not statistically significant:
Learning: Sustainability (-.07), Satisfaction: Room Assignment or Change Process (-.09), Overall Satisfaction (-.10), and Learning: LLC Connections (-.14). Four factors
showed a statistically significant decline in scores: Satisfaction: Safety and Security (-.19), Satisfaction: Services Provided (-.20), Satisfaction: Dining Services (-.25)
and Learning: Diverse Interactions (-.37). The last two factors did not appear on previous EBIs, so there was no comparison: Satisfaction: Community Environment
and Satisfaction: Sense of Community.
Wh
dt
S l t6 C
i Cl
d All I tit ti
th O
ll L
i
3
i ifi
tl hi h
th
th
f ll th
d
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
When compared to our Select 6, Carnegie Class and All Institutions, the Overall Learning score was significantly higher than the means of all three groups, and we
were ranked 2 of 7. 8 of 43, and 63 of 262, respectively. The Overall Program Effectiveness mean was higher than the Select 6 and Carnegie Class means, and lower
than the All Institution mean, but the differences were miniscule. The ranks were 4 of 7, 18 of 43 and 107 of 262, respectively. The Overall Satisfaction was below
all three group means, but the difference was not statistically significant, and the rank was 4 of 7, 29 of 43, and 141 of 262, respectively.
Regarding the other factors, the Learning: LLC Connections & Support mean was higher than the Select 6 and Carnegie Class means, but the difference was not
significant; and it was equal to the All Institution mean. The ranks for this factor were 3 of 7, 21 of 43, and 117 of 262, respectively. The five factors for which the
SHRL mean was not statistically different than the means of the three groups were: Satisfaction: Hall/Apt. Environment, Satisfaction: Facilities, Satisfaction:
Roommates, Satisfaction: Community Environment, and Learning: Self-Management. The nine factors where the SHRL mean was statistically lower were:
Satisfaction: Hall/Apt. Staff, Satisfaction: Hall/Apt. Programming, Satisfaction: Services Provided, Satisfaction: Room Assignment or Change Process, Satisfaction:
Safety and Security, Satisfaction: Dining Services, Learning: Personal Interactions, Learning: Sense of Community, and Learning: Alcohol and Drug Use. For two
factors, the SHRL means were lower than the group means, but the significance was mixed. For Learning: Diverse Interactions, the difference from the Select 6 and
Carnegie Class means was not significant, but the difference from the All Institution mean was significant. For Learning: Sustainability, the difference from the
Select 6 and All Institution means was significant, but the difference from the Carnegie Class mean was not.
EBI provides specific recommendations for improvement based on which factors have the highest impact on our particular residents and showed low performance.
EBI’s recommendations as top priorities for improvement are: Learning: Personal Interactions (4.99), Learning: Self-Management (5.03), Learning: Diverse
Interactions (4.98), Learning: Alcohol and Drug Use (4.88), Satisfaction: Safety and Security (5.44), Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Environment (5.36), Satisfaction: Dining
Services (4.29) and Learning: Sense of Community (5.34).
Action:
The results are currently under review by SHRL administrators. The results have not yet been shared with the rest of SHRL staff, but will
be soon. No other changes have been made so far.
4
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Program or Services Being Assessed: Services to International Students
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Purpose
Program Objective(s)
Global learning and multicultural
To determine why more international
competency is a goal for UH
students are not living on campus.
students, and a diverse resident
Currently, the percentage of international
population is an ideal way to provide students in UH-managed residence halls
opportunities for multicultural
mirrors the percentage of international
engagement. However, many
students on campus almost exactly. Since
international students, who clearly international students obviously need
need housing, are choosing not to
housing, theoretically, the proportion of
live on campus. Therefore, the
international students in housing should be
objective is to explore what it would higher.
take to increase on-campus
housing's appeal to international
students, thus fostering a greater
global, multicultural on-campus
environment.
Goal(s)
Supported
In conjunction with the Office of
The survey would be SHRL goal #3
International Student and Scholar Services administered once in and DSAES
(OISSS), develop a Campus Labs survey to September. If focus
Strategic
be sent to all international students to
groups are done, they Initiatives
determine what would make them more would be in November #1b, #3b &
likely to want to live on campus. OISSS has of February.
#3c.
agreed to send it out. They do not
separate those living on campus from
those living off campus, so we will
probably have to branch the survey
accordingly. Depending on the results, we
may try to conduct focus groups to explore
further.
Method
5
Frequency / Timeline
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Results:
With the assistance of the Office of International Student and Scholar Services (ISSS), SHRL conducted a survey of international students to determine what might
make living on campus more attractive to them. SHRL staff members first interviewed ISSS staff members to get their input. Then, SHRL devised the survey, and
ISSS sent it to 3,897 international students. There were 244 responses. Of those who responded, 32.4% were from India, 10.7% from China, and the rest from 54
different countries. Graduate students comprised 68.4% of the respondents, and 31.6% were undergraduates. Off-campus residents accounted for 58.6% of the
respondents; 28.7% live in UH-managed housing, and 12.7% in the partnership properties.
Most important reasons cited for living on campus were convenience/close to everything (96.4% chose “extremely important” or “very important”), no
car/transportation (76.2%), improve grades/have more study time (71.4%) and to achieve academic success (70.2%). For those who live on campus, cost was the
most important factor in choosing where to live (84.5% chose “extremely important” or “very important”), followed by “wanted a kitchen” (63.1%), did not a meal
plan (56.0%), and wanted year-around housing (53.6%). Asked if they planned to live on campus next year, 42.9% said yes, and 40.5% said no (the other 16.6%
were unsure).
Of those who live off campus, 41.8% live 6-10 miles away; 29.1% live 1-5 miles away; and 19.2% live 11-20 miles away. The number one reason given for choosing
to live off campus was “thought it would be cheaper” (67.4%). Rents paid most often were $201-$300 (24.8%), and $301-$400, $401-$500 and $501-$600 (13.5%
each). Asked if having year-around housing would make them more likely to live on campus, 48.9% said “yes, definitely” or “yes, probably”.
For all respondents, when asked if they would be interested in living in an international house, 52.7% said they would be extremely interested or very interested,
and another 25.2% said they would be moderately interested. When asked if they would be interested in living on a theme floor specific to their culture, 39.2%
would be extremely or very interested, and 24.8% moderately interested.
When comparing undergraduate and graduate respondents, it is not surprising that the graduates tended to mirror the overall sample, since they comprised more
than two-thirds of the sample.
• Graduates were more likely to make their housing arrangements after they came here (25.6%); undergraduates made arrangements farther in advance.
• Undergraduates were more likely to live on campus (65% in UH-managed or partnership housing), whereas graduates were more likely to live off campus (69%).
• In regards to their decision to live on campus, undergraduates were more likely to cite as extremely important or very important the achievement of academic
success, to have the full college experience, and to experience American culture. They were more than twice as likely to cite “to make new friends”; almost twice as
likely to cite “to participate in extracurricular activities”; and more than four times as likely to cite “all costs paid through my UH account”.
U d
d t
lik l t
t
d h i th
d t
Wh th
h li d ff
k d if th
ld b
lik l t li
6
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
• Undergraduates are more likely to want year-around housing than graduates. When those who lived off campus were asked if they would be more likely to live
on campus if there were year-around housing, 23% said “yes, definitely, and another 35% said “yes, probably”. For graduates, 47% answered affirmatively.
• Undergraduates who lived off-campus were more likely to live with family (37%), live further away from campus, and pay less in rent than graduates. Graduates
were more likely to live with roommates they didn’t previously know (42%).
• When asked if they would be interested in an international house, 60% of undergraduates were extremely interested or very interested, and another 24% were
moderately interested. Of the graduates, 50% were extremely interested or very interested, and another 26% were moderately interested.
• When asked about a culture-specific theme floor, 35% of undergraduates were extremely interested, compared to 18% of graduates.
There were over 500 comments. Overwhelmingly, the most common theme was cost. However, there were also a large number of thoughtful observations and
suggestions.
Action:
Based on the survey results, the comments, and the interview with ISSS staff members, the SHRL Assessment Committee prepared a list of recommendations for
SHRL administration. These included suggested changes to the SHRL website, and a list of possible programs, services and changes in procedures to be explored for
feasibility and practicality. The list includes short term, medium term and long term projects. The recommendations are under review.
7
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Program or Services Being Assessed: Partnership Apartments
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Purpose
Program Objective(s)
Objective - Assess the general
Cambridge Oaks and Cullen Oaks are
satisfaction and perceived learning aprtment complexes located on campus,
that occurs from residents who live but run by two different private
companies, public/private partnerships.
in residence halls.
Their residents are counted as living on
Learning Outcomes:
campus. Students are more likely o be
As a result of living on campus,
successful if they are satisfied with their
students will:
-Demonstrate satisfaction with their environment and if their environment is
college experience.
- conducive to learning. This survey
Demonstrate knowledge of academic measures resident satisfaction with the
and social resources to help navigate partnerships' services and personnel; as
well as with students' satisfaction with
their transition to University life.
their college experience. It also measures
-Engage with faculty outside the
perceived learning and integration to
classroom.
campus.
Method
The Educational Benchmarking, Inc., (EBI)
Apartment Survey will be administered to
all residents of Cambridge Oaks and Cullen
Oaks. The EBI is a yearly national survey
that allows the institution to rate current
performance, compare to past
performance, and benchmark against
other institutions. Goal is to achieve an
average 5.5 on a 7-point Likert scale, which
is equivalent to a 75% satisfaction rate.
Objective is to maintain 5.5 EBI goal on 3
factors already above the goal; move 4
intermediate (score of 5.25-5.49) factors
above goal; and move at least half of the
12 of the "issue" (score below 5.25) factors
to the intermediate or better level. Results
will be compared to previous years' EBI
surveys and benchmarked against other
institutions.
8
Goal(s)
Supported
The Apartment EBI will SHRL goal #1
be administered once and DSAES
a year at a time when Strategic
it does not interfere
Initiatives
with another massive #1d & #2e.
survey (MAP-Works),
and at the same time
as the Resident EBI.
That is in March-April.
Preliminary results will
be available soon after
survey closes.
Benchmarking data
will not be available
until July.
Frequency / Timeline
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Results:
The ACUHO-I/EBI Apartment Survey was sent to all UH student residents of our public/private partnership apartment complexes, Cambridge Oaks and Cullen Oaks,
a total of 1,132 people. Of those, 189 responded, for a total 16.7% response rate. Cambridge Oaks had a 27.6% response rate, and Cullen Oaks had an 11.6%
response rate. The survey was administered mid-March to mid-April.
The Apartment EBI changed from last year. There were sixteen factors last year; this year, there were twenty. Fourteen of the factors from last year remained
essentially the same. They were: Apartment Selection Criteria, Satisfaction: Contract and Lease, Satisfaction: Apartment Condition, Satisfaction: Apartment
Environment, Satisfaction: Apartment Staff and Policies, Satisfaction: Services and Facilities Provided, Satisfaction: Safety and Security, Satisfaction: Apartment
Programming, Satisfaction: Dining Services, Learning: Life Skills, Learning: Diversity and Social Justice, Learning: Personal Interactions, Overall Satisfaction, and
Overall Program Effectiveness. One factor, Overall Learning, changed so much that it can’t be compared to last year. One factor from last year, Learning: Personal
Development, was eliminated. Factors new this year are: Satisfaction: Roommates, Satisfaction: Community Environment, Learning: Alcohol and Drug Use,
Learning: Sense of Community, and Learning: Sustainability. Questions concerning alcohol and drug use had been asked previously, but had not been reflected in a
factor.
As in past years, questions are scored on a 7-point Likert scale. The goal is to get a score of 5.5 or above, which represents a 75% satisfaction rate, and counted as
“good”. Scores in the 5.25 to 5.49 range are classified as “needs work”, and scores below 5.25 are classified as “issue”.
Three factors scored in the “needs work” range compared to last year, when there were none. They were: Satisfaction: Roommates (5.36), Apartment Selection
Criteria (5.33), and Satisfaction: Community Environment (5.25). All of the rest of the factors scored in the “issue” range. Cambridge Oaks scored below Cullen
Oaks on all factors except Dining Services, where they were even.
Four factors showed statistically significant improvement over last year: Overall Program Effectiveness (+.73), Learning: Life Skills (+.67), Satisfaction: Apartment
Staff and Policies (+.44), and Satisfaction: Safety and Security (+.40). Eight factors improved, but the change was not statistically significant: Learning: Alcohol and
Drug Use (+.37), Overall Satisfaction (+.31), Satisfaction: Apartment Environment (+.31), Satisfaction: Apartment Programming (+.30), Satisfaction: Services and
Facilities Provided (+.26), Apartment Selection Criteria (+.22), Satisfaction: Contract and Lease (+021), and Satisfaction: Apartment Condition (+.08). There was no
change from last year in Learning: Personal Interactions. There was a decline in Satisfaction: Dining Services (-.44), but it was not statistically significant. There was
a statistically significant decline in Learning: Diversity and Social Justice (-.62). There was no comparison year for the other five factors.
Wh
dt
th
i
iti
th
l f t
th t
d t
b
th
f th S l t 6 C
9
i Cl
d All I tit ti
A
t
t S l ti
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
When compared to other universities, the only factor that scored at or above the means of the Select 6, Carnegie Class and All Institutions was Apartment Selection
Criteria, but the difference was not significant. Although the means of Satisfaction: Dining Services and Learning: Life Skills were below those of the three
comparison groups, the differences were not significant. All of the other factors scored significantly below the comparison groups.
EBI makes recommendations on what should be top priorities for improvement based on what has high impact on the residents and whether the performance was
high or low. They recommend that top priority be given to Satisfaction: Contract and Lease, Learning: Life Skills, and Satisfaction: Apartment Programming
(negative correlation). In addition, they suggest either monitoring or improving factors that have low impact on Overall Performance Effectiveness, but also have a
low performance; including: Satisfaction: Apartment Condition, Satisfaction: Apartment Environment, Satisfaction: Apartment Staff and Policies, Satisfaction:
Services and Facilities Provided, Satisfaction: Safety and Security, Learning: Diversity and Social Justice, Learning: Intrapersonal Development and Learning: Personal
Interactions.
Action:
These results will be shared with the partnership apartment complexes (Cambridge Oaks and Cullen Oaks).
10
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Program Objective(s)
Learning Outcomes
As a result of participating in the
FYRE program, students will:
-Persist in their studies to the next
level.
Demonstrate a higher degree of
satisfaction with their college
experience.
Purpose
To gauge the impact of the FYRE program
on the student success of FYRE residents,
including the extent to which FYRE
residents feel supported in their choices;
are engaged in college life; and persist in
their studies.
Goal(s)
Supported
The EBI Resident Survey will be sent to all The EBI will be
SHRL goal #4
residents, and data collected from FYRE
administered once in and DSAES
Strategic
residents will be filtered out and compared March. Program
to the aggregate results. In addition, as a attendance rates will Initiatives
be examined at the
#1a,#1e &
measure of student success, GPAs and
persistence will be pulled and compared end of May. GPAs will #4c.
be pulled mid-July.
to rates of all first-year students.
Attendance rates to FYRE programs will be Persistence will be
determined in
examined and compared to last year.
September.
Results will be tracked over time.
Method
11
Frequency / Timeline
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Results:
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the special activities and services offered to first-year students through the FYRE (First Year Residential Experience)
program, the EBI scores for freshmen were extracted and compared with the aggregate EBI scores (which included the freshmen scores). The ACUHO-I EBI Resident
Survey was sent to all residents living in UH-managed housing except Resident Advisors, live-on staff and faculty. There were 5,281 student residents, of which
1,665 residents responded, for a 31.5% response rate. Of the residents who were sent the survey, 1,458 were freshmen. There were 614 self-identified freshmen
who responded, for a 42.1% response rate.
Of the 20 factors on the EBI, freshmen means were higher than the aggregate mean scores on 18 of the factors, although the difference was not always statistically
significant. On one factor (Satisfaction: Roommates), the means were equal (5.80). On one factor (Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Environment), the mean was lower (5.29),
but it was not statistically significant (-.07).
Of the18 freshmen factors that scored higher than the aggregate mean, 12 were statistically significantly higher: Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Student Staff (+.33),
Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Programming (+.25), Learning: LLC Connections and Support (+.24), Overall Program Effectiveness (+.21), Overall Satisfaction (+.20), Overall
Learning (+.19), Learning: Sustainability (+.17), Learning: Alcohol and Drug Use (+.16), Satisfaction: Room Assignment or Change Process (+.15), Learning: Personal
Interactions (+.15), Learning: Diverse Interactions (+.14), and Satisfaction: Safety and Security (+.11).
There were 5 factors in the “good” range (5.50 or above), as compared to 4 of the aggregate factors. Those freshman factors were: Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Student
Staff (6.03), Satisfaction: Roommates (5.80), Satisfaction: Facilities (5.60), Satisfaction: Community Environment (5.60), and Satisfaction: Safety and Security (5.55).
There were also 5 factors in the “needs work” range (5.25-5.49), as compared to 4 of the aggregate scores. Those freshman factors were: Overall Satisfaction
(5.49), Overall Program Effectiveness (5.30), Overall Learning (5.42), Learning: Sense of Community (5.41), and Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Environment (5.29). Note that
all three of the “Overall” scores are in the “needs work” range, as compared to only one of the aggregate “Overall” scores.
It would appear that the special activities and services offered to freshmen are making a difference, since freshmen are reporting higher rates of satisfaction and
perceived learning, and the overall program effectiveness is higher.
Action:
This information will be shared with the department leadership, and the FYRE staff. They will use it to review program strengths and weaknesses, and make
changes where necessary.
12
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Program or Services Being Assessed: Second Year Residential Experience Program (SYRE)
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Purpose
Method
Program Objective(s)
Learning Outcomes
To gauge the impact of the SYRE program The EBI Resident Survey will be sent to all
As a result of participating in the
on the student success of SYRE residents, residents, and data collected from SYRE
including the extent to which SYRE
SYRE program, students will:
residents will be filtered out and compared
residents feel supported in their choices; to the aggregate results. In addition, as a
-Persist in their studies to the next
level.
- are engaged in college life; and persist in measure of student success, GPAs and
their studies.
Demonstrate a higher degree of
persistence will be pulled and compared
satisfaction with their college
to rates of all second-year students.
experience.
Attendance rates to SYRE programs will be
examined and compared to last year.
Results will be tracked over time.
13
Goal(s)
Supported
The EBI will be
SHRL goal #4
administered once in and DSAES
March. Program
Strategic
attendance rates will Initiatives
be examined at the
#1a, #1e &
end of May. GPAs will #4c.
be pulled in mid-July.
Persistence will be
determined in
September.
Frequency / Timeline
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Results:
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the special activities and services offered to second-year students through the SYRE (Second Year Residential Experience)
program, the EBI scores for sophomores were extracted and compared with the aggregate EBI scores (which included the sophomore scores). The ACUHO-I EBI
Resident Survey was sent to all residents living in UH-managed housing except Resident Advisors, live-on staff and faculty. There were 5,281 student residents, of
which 1,665 residents responded, for a 31.5% response rate. Of the residents who were sent the survey, 1,378 were sophomores. There were 359 self-identified
sophomores who responded, for a 26.1% response rate.
When comparing sophomore factor means to the aggregate means, 1 out of 20 factors scored above the aggregate, mean, and the difference was statistically
significant. That factor was Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Student Staff (+.11). The other 19 sophomore factors scored below the aggregate means; in 6 of the factors, the
difference was statistically significant. Those six factors were: Satisfaction: Dining (-.21), Learning: Self-Management (-.13), Learning: LLC Connections and Support (.12), Overall Satisfaction (-.11), Satisfaction: Roommates (-.11), and Learning: Sense of Community (-.11). For the rest of the factors, the difference was not
statistically significant.
There were three sophomore factors that fell into the “good” range (5.50 or above), as compared to four for the aggregate factors. The three sophomore factors
were: Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Student Staff (5.91), Satisfaction: Roommates (5.69), and Satisfaction: Community Environment (5.55). There were also three
sophomore factors that fell into the “needs work” range (5.25-5.49), as compared to four of the aggregate factors. Those sophomore factors were: Satisfaction:
Facilities (5.48), Satisfaction: Safety and Security (5.39) and Satisfaction: Hall/Apt Environment (5.31). The rest of the sophomore factors fell into the “issue” range
(below 5.25).
SHRL department staff will need to explore why sophomores as a whole seem less satisfied with the accommodations, services, and perceived learning than the
residents as a whole.
Action:
This information will be shared with the department leadership, and the SYRE staff. They will use it to review program strengths and weaknesses, and make
changes where necessary.
14
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Program or Services Being Assessed: Resident Advisors (RAs)
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Purpose
Program Objective(s)
As a result of their employment, RAs As campus leaders, RAs should be able to
will be able to:
demonstrate and model to their residents
-Demonstrate critical thinking.
how all aspects of their college experience
-Communicate effectively.
- integrates into their learning, and how
their whole college experience prepares
Describe their impact on their
them for their future professions and
residents.
affects their future lives. This seeks to
gauge that understanding.
Method
Assessment Team members will introduce
and explain the learning objectives to RAs
during training. Close to the end of the Fall
semester, Assessment Team members will
attend a regularly scheduled meeting and
ask RAs to discuss the learning objectives
as a group. During the Spring semester,
Assessment Team members will conduct
short, individual interviews with a
representative sample of RAs, asking 5
specific questions to gauge their
understanding of the totality of their
experience. This method of assessment is
a pilot program, and as such, consistency
of results is a concern. Therefore, the
SHRL Assessment team will conduct the
interviews.
Goal(s)
Supported
RA training is in
SHRL goal #2
August. The
and DSAES
Assessment Team will Strategic
ask to participate in a Initiatives #1c
regular meeting in
& #2c.
November. Interviews
will be conducted in
February, March and
April.
Frequency / Timeline
Results:
Delayed until 2015-2016.
Action:
Modified learning outcomes and methodology, and more clearly defined purpose for a more focused assessment to be done in 2015-2016.
15
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Program or Services Being Assessed: Desk Assistants (DAs)
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Purpose
Program Objective(s)
As a result of their employment, DAs As campus leaders, DAs should be able to
will be able to:
demonstrate and model to their residents
-Demonstrate critical thinking.
how all aspects of their college experience
-Communicate effectively.
- integrates into their learning, and how
their whole college experience prepares
Describe their impact on their
them for their future professions and
residents.
affects their future lives. This seeks to
gauge that understanding.
Method
Assessment Team members will introduce
and explain the learning objectives to DAs
during training. Close to the end of the Fall
semester, Assessment Team members will
attend a regularly scheduled meeting and
ask DAs to discuss the learning objectives
as a group. During the Spring semester,
Assessment Team members will conduct
short, individual interviews with a
representative sample of DAs, asking 5
specific questions to gauge their
understanding of the totality of their
experience. This method of assessment is
a pilot program, and as such, consistency
of results is a concern. Therefore, the
SHRL Assessment team will conduct the
interviews.
Goal(s)
Supported
DA training is in
SHRL goal #2
August. The
and DSAES
Assessment Team will Strategic
ask to participate in a Initiatives #1c
regular meeting in
& #2c.
November. Interviews
will be conducted in
February, March and
April.
Frequency / Timeline
Results:
Delayed until 2015-2016.
Action:
Modified learning outcomes and methodology, and more clearly defined purpose for a more focused assessment to be done in 2015-2016.
16
DSAES Assessment Plan for AY 2014-2015
Program or Services Being Assessed: RHA Officers
Learning Outcome(s) and/or
Purpose
Program Objective(s)
As a result of their employment, RHA As campus leaders, RHA officers should be
officers will be able to:
able to demonstrate and model to their
-Demonstrate critical thinking.
residents how all aspects of their college
-Communicate effectively.
- experience integrates into their learning,
and how their whole college experience
Describe their impact on their
prepares them for their future professions
residents.
and affects their future lives. This seeks to
gauge that understanding.
Method
Assessment Team members will introduce
and explain the learning objectives to RHA
officers during a meeting. Close to the end
of the Fall semester, Assessment Team
members will attend a regularly scheduled
meeting and ask RHA officers to discuss
the learning objectives as a group. During
the Spring semester, Assessment Team
members will conduct short, individual
interviews with each RHA officer, asking 5
specific questions to gauge their
understanding of the totality of their
experience. This method of assessment is
a pilot program, and as such, consistency
of results is a concern. Therefore, the
SHRL Assessment team will conduct the
interviews.
Goal(s)
Supported
RHA officers start to
SHRL goal #2
meet in August. The and DSAES
Assessment Team will Strategic
ask to participate in a Initiatives #1c
regular meeting in
& #2c.
November. Interviews
will be conducted in
February, March and
April.
Frequency / Timeline
Results:
On hold and under review.
Action:
Although the RHA officiers do receive a stipend, their job is more voluntary, and so the same learning outcomes might not be appropriate for them as for other
student employees. Will determine whether we can modify this assessment to fit them, or whether we need to devise something else.
17