Introduction
This study attempted to gauge the Cleveland State University student body’s
perception of various student services. In this process, several strong trends emerged,
which are discussed in some depth inside. This sample consisted of 304 undergraduate
students, and covered Dining, Parking, Safety, as well as more general topics regarding
the university.
Concerns about affordability and general dissatisfaction with parking emerged as
themes, as did positive evaluations of the Rec Center and a generally high feeling of
safety.
Demographics
Our sample was 57.35% female, and 95.76% full­time students. Nearly half ­­
45.23% ­­ were employed part­time (here defined as working fewer than 40 hours a week.
The overwhelming majority of students, 92.12%, were single; with 53.05% not currently in a
relationship, and 39.07% currently in a relationship.
The mean age of the sample was 21.77, the median 20, and the mode 19, though
respondents ranged from as young as 18 to as high as 54.
The ethnicity of the sample was
predominantly “White” (65.9%), with
“Black or African­American” (18.77%)
and “From multiple races” (9.96%)
being the next largest demographics.
The class rankings were fairly evenly
distributed, if somewhat frontloaded,
with 30.8% Freshmen, 32.25% Sophomores, 21.38% Juniors, and 15.58% Seniors. The
GPA distribution was skewed toward the positive end, with a mode of 3.6­4.0, for 34.41%
of respondents.
The most interesting part of this sample is possibly the large percentage of
respondents who live on­campus; 55.67% of the sample lives on­campus, as compared to
~8% across the university in 2012. This provides us with a unique opportunity not only to
study the student body, but to specifically look at the resident population.
84.04% of students typically take classes from 8 am to noon; 70.21% take classes
from noon to 6 pm; another 19.5% take night classes.
Respondents hailed from a wide variety of economic backgrounds; while the mode
was <$20k (21.64%), the distribution was remarkably even.
Q35 Income
1. Attitude toward CSU
The consensus is generally positive: on a scale of 1­5, with 1 meaning “strongly
disagree” and 5 meaning “strongly agree,” reactions were primarily neutral to positive, with
an overall mean of 3.74, or 54% satisfaction. Additionally, across the five questions,
46.38% of respondents stated that they agree with the statement (mode of 4).
These items were computed into a scale ­­ CSU Satisfaction ­­ which is used to
measure the effects of different items on overall satisfaction, evaluation, and attitudes
toward CSU. The scale has a Cronbach's of .953, and the ANOVA between items is
significant at <.001.
2. Attitude toward specific aspects
Rated on a scale of 0 (terrible) to 10 (outstanding), students attitudes fell mostly in
line with expectations, based on historical information. Overall, the grand mean was 7.01,
or 70.1% satisfaction. Students reported the most dissatisfaction with parking, with a
mean of 4.26, or slightly worse than indifferent; the mode response was 0, with 24.83% of
respondents evaluating parking as “terrible.” Dining options on campus, however, hovered
around the central point at 5.19, with a mode of 5. The only other item notable on the low
end is vending machines with a mean of 6.06; the remaining items all scored very high,
topping out with the Recreation Center at 8.91. (See appendix A for the complete list of
modes)
Analysis was performed to determine what effect, if any, these factors had on overall
satisfaction with CSU. All items were standardized, and both a simple linear regression
was performed, highlighting a relationship between the dining options on campus (p <.05),
the campus itself (p <.001) and overall satisfaction. In a stepwise multiple regression,
these were the only two items to load, at the same or greater degrees of confidence.
It is interesting to note that despite the low overall evaluation of parking services,
and the ongoing dialog regarding them, that this had relatively little effect on overall
satisfaction with the university.
3. Attitudes toward specific dining establishments
Rated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all satisfied) to 7 (very satisfied),
respondents had a slightly below­indifferent opinion on dining options as a whole, with only
Papa John’s (4.24), Grill Nation (4.14) and Bar UNO (4.04) boasting means above the
midpoint. Viking Marketplace and Au Bon Pain brought up the rear, at 3.14 and 3.18
respectively. The grand mean was 3.67, or 38% satisfaction.
Perhaps most notable however, is how few respondents had actually visited the
establishments in question. As shown in figure 3a and appendix C, with the lone exception
of Bar Uno, most students have never been to these locations, and it is not particularly
close.
Figure 3.a
Based on this discrepancy, we analyzed the relationship between these responses
and overall satisfaction with CSU, and several interesting patterns emerged. Firstly, an
ANOVA was performed, which found significant relationships with Bar UNO (p<.01), and
The Fenn Shoppe (p<.01), and near­significance with Grill Nation (p=.051), Papa John’s
(p=.053) Chop’d & Wrap’d (p=.065) and The Atrium Cafe (p=.066). However, no variables
flagged as significant in multiple regression analysis.
All told, with overall satisfaction being strongly correlated with satisfaction with the
university in section two, it is unsurprising that an individual’s satisfaction with specific
dining options might also be important factors in determining their satisfaction with CSU;
though viewed as a whole, there was not a significant relationship between attitudes
toward the establishments as a whole, and CSU satisfaction.
The real story here is how relatively few respondents have actually visited the
establishments in question, especially considering the large amount of on­or­near campus
residents are present in the sample.
4. Attitudes toward dining options in general
Attitudes toward dining were likewise fairly ambivalent, with an average score of
2.91 on a scale of 1 to 5, or 47.75%, very nearly the center point. One item of note is that
51% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that “CSU dining places are open
when I need them.”
In stark contrast to the specific questions, an ANOVA showed a strong relationship
(p<.05) between CSU satisfaction and every single measure, with the notable exception of
“Options should be healthier,” which was entirely irrelevant. A stepwise multiple regression
found that the measures “The service at CSU dining establishments is good,” “I am
generally satisfied with dining options on CSU’s campus,” and “CSU dining places are
clean” all correlated significantly (p<.05) with satisfaction.
4. Attitudes toward vending
Opinions on vending machines was more or less ambivalent, with the notable
exception of the topic of nutrition. As “Food in CSU vending machines is nutritious” (2.68)
and “CSU vending machines should offer healthier food” (3.51) are both measurements of
the same concept ­­ namely, the nutritional value of vending offerings ­­ it’s reasonable to
assume that this issue is of some interest to the student body. The average level of
satisfaction across the measurements was 2.97, or 49.25%. However, it was not
significantly related to overall satisfaction with CSU.
The data on how vending impacts satisfaction is inconclusive at best. A one­way
ANOVA finds a strong correlation (p<.01) between satisfaction and “There is a wide
selection of drinks in CSU vending machines”, though stepwise regression finds a
relationship between general satisfaction with vending and satisfaction with CSU (p<.001).
With no clear patterns emerging without some degree of statistical cherry­picking, it
seems prudent to say vending is likely a meaningful factor in student experience, though
not a crucial one, and that students are generally satisfied or indifferent with vending and
feel that the offerings are insufficiently healthy, though this has no impact on their overall
satisfaction with the university.
6. Open­ended questions: Dining
A variety of open­ended questions were asked regarding dining, specifically “What
is your favorite place to eat on CSU’s campus, and why?”, “What specific place to eat on
CSU’s campus are you least satisfied with, and why?” and “Any general suggestions for
improving campus dining at CSU?” While a wide variety of responses were gathered,
relatively few patterns emerged.
Satisfaction and dissatisfaction were fairly equally distributed throughout the
responses, with a slight preference to Grill Nation and and Chop’d & Wrap’d as favorites,
and a slight trend of dissatisfaction with Viking Marketplace, usually referencing hours of
operation, or food that has sat on a buffet for too long; comments such as “the Viking
marketplace, because of the hours and food doesn't always taste good” and “...it is very
frustrating to HAVE to get a meal plan and then not be able to use it because Viking
Marketplace closes at 8.”
One common suggestion was expanding the utility of dining dollars and meal
swipes to various locations in the near­campus area. Additionally, expanding the hours of
operation on nights and weekends; several students requested some manner of dining
option that was open upon exiting their 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. classes.
7. Parking
Several
questions were asked
regarding parking,
transportation, and
safety. Reflecting the
fact that the majority of
respondents live
on­campus, walking
was an unsurprisingly popular choice of transportation.
Just to be certain, the relationship between walking and living on campus was
tested, and found to be significant. Most students who drive, however, park in CSU lots
(32.85%), as opposed to meters (7.94%) or other lots (10.11%).
As regards students’ opinions on parking in the larger scale, several trends
emerged. GIven historical
precedent, it is perhaps
unsurprising to find that
overall satisfaction was
lower than most other
measures, with a mean of
2.49, or 49.25%
satisfaction. These items
were coded into the scale “Parking Satisfaction,” which proved to be a reliable
measurement of the concept (Cronbach's of 8.16).
While this section included questions regarding public transportation, those were
excluded from the scale, as they were deemed unrelated to the core concept. It is worth
noting that these two items were by far and away the most positive in the section; “It’s easy
to take public transportation to CSU” came in at 3.37, topped only by “Taking public
transportation is a good value for CSU students” at 3.54.
In terms of parking satisfaction measures, two items stood out, both dealing with the
price of parking; “The cost of parking on CSU’s campus is fair” came in at 2.16, and the
mode response was “strongly disagree” with 34.42% of respondents choosing it. “CSU
parking is affordable” ranked slightly worse, with a mean of 2.02 and a mode response of
“strongly disagree” with 42.39% of respondents choosing it. All other modes were 3, or
“neutral,” and if these two items measuring price satisfaction are removed from the scale,
the mean improves somewhat to 2.65 (though the Cronbach's drops to 7.38 ­ still valid,
but worth noting regardless).
Given all this, it seems not unreasonable to conclude that parking is an issue of
some importance to the student body. The data back this up, as the relationship between
Parking Satisfaction and CSU satisfaction was found to be significant at p< .001. It stands
to reason, therefore, that improving parking satisfaction could have a powerful effect on on
overall student satisfaction.
The open­ended questions followed predictably from the responses: requests for
lower prices ­­ specifically reduced overnight prices for students with guests ­­ and a
rallying cry for more available spots to students who had purchased hangtags was a
common occurrence. All told, the open­ended questions regarding parking were
remarkably similar in tone and content to the survey data; as such, they are not expounded
upon further.
8. Safety
The feedback on campus safety was very positive overall, with the majority of
respondents agreeing with positive statements such as “I am generally satisfied with the
safety of CSU’s campus,” and disagreeing with negative statements like “I feel unsafe at
CSU,” as shown in figure 8a.
Figure 8a
Negatively worded items such as “There is a lot of crime on CSU’s campus” were
reverse­coded, and placed into the scale “CSU Safety.” The questions regarding the
quantity of security guards and/or police were likewise reverse coded, ensuring that high
numbers indicate satisfaction with CSU’s safety, and low scores indicate dissatisfaction.
The scale proved to be a reliable measurement, with a Cronbach's of .804.
Additionally, this shows that on the whole, students feel safer than not; the scale has a
grand mean of 3.41 on a 5­point instrument, or 60.25% satisfaction.
All told, this is a resounding endorsement of campus security services; the only
items coming in somewhat negative refer to the number of police (2.71) and security
guards (2.74) that CSU should have. Safety satisfaction was found to have a significant
relationship with CSU satisfaction (p< .005), Multiple regression analysis found significant
relationships between two variables and satisfaction: “I am generally satisfied with the
safety of CSU’s campus,” and “The police at CSU do a good job;” both were significant at
p<.005.
As regards the open­ended questions, there was one dominant theme; that of
needing more police officers. By far and away the most common type of response
addressed this, with comments like “MORE CAMPUS POLICE TO CIRCULATE AT
NIGHTFALL and security in the lots at night,” “Please we need more officers around
campus and they should be there 24/7” as well as positive reinforcement such as “I think
CSU feels safer than any streets at Ohio State. Overall good security for being located
downtown” dominate the responses.
9. Bookstore
Patterns of
usage were roughly
in keeping with
expectations for a
college bookstore;
most students
visited less than
once per month
(56.69%) and
typically purchased
books (79.92%), with apparel also making a strong showing (52.65%).
Open­ended questions revealed that outside of the listed options, school supplies
(notebooks, pencils) were a commonly purchased item; recommendations for additional
inventory were inconclusive, though additional clothing options were a recurring theme.
Several questions were asked regarding attitudes toward the bookstore, using our
5­point agreement scale. Interestingly, the two lowest­scoring items, “I will get a fair price if I
sell back books at Viking Outfitters” (2.26) and “The books at Viking Outfitters are
reasonably priced” (2.38) both deal with price in some regard, again showing student’s
concern with affordability.
The overall mean of these items was 3.05, or 51.37% satisfaction. Regression
analysis revealed two measures that directly impacted CSU satisfaction; “The store has
good service” and “The books at Viking outfitters are reasonably priced” (both p < .005). It
stands to reason then, that since a belief that the books offered are reasonably priced was
both one of the lowest scores, and most important factors, that addressing the perceived
reasonability of the books could go a long way toward increasing satisfaction at CSU.
However, given the sometimes byzantine nature of the textbook market, a straightforward
solution may prove difficult.
10. Rec Center
Attendance at the Rec
Center varied a fair amount,
with most respondents
attending “a few times a week”
(25.09%), followed closely by
“never” (21.51%). As regards
the Rec Center’s website, the
overwhelming majority of
respondents (64.54%) have never been to the site, with 15.96% visiting less than once per
month.
Several questions were asked
regarding the Rec Center; these
items were also used to construct a
scale, “Rec Center Satisfaction,”
which proved reliable (Cronbach's of .889), and had a mean of 3.70 ­­ or
67.5% ­­ which places it among the
most unequivocally positive
responses occurring in the survey.
It was thought that perhaps excluding two items, specifically “I am aware of the
programs at the CSU Rec Center,” and “I am aware of everything the Rec Center has to
offer” would enhance reliability, as these two items differ enough conceptually as to warrant
examination. However, removing the items actually decreased the reliability (Cronbach's of 8.65, a drop­off of .24). Since it would seem that awareness of the Rec Center’s
services is strongly tied to satisfaction with the Center, these measures are included in the
scale.
Through regression analysis, we find that two factors significantly relate to CSU
satisfaction; “It is easy to park at the CSU Rec Center” (p< .005) and “The CSU Rec
Center has convenient hours” (p< .05). In addition, the variable created (Rec Center
Satisfaction) did have a significant correlation with CSU satisfaction (p< .001). All told, it
looks as though convenience matters, though in general, high degrees of satisfaction with
the Rec Center predict similar satisfaction with the University as a whole.