2013
Community College Survey of
Student Engagement Benchmarks of
Effective Educational Practice –
Spring 2013 Results
IR Report #238A
Office of Institutional Research
August 2013
Introduction to CCSSE
The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) utilizes a set of five benchmarks of
effective educational practice in community colleges. These benchmarks allow member institutions,
with missions focused on teaching, learning, and student success, to gauge and monitor their performance in areas that are central to their work. A description of the five benchmarks appears below.
Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice
Active and Collaborative Learning
Students learn more when they are actively involved in their education and have opportunities to
think about and apply what they are learning in different settings. Through collaborating with others
to solve problems or mastering challenging content, students develop valuable skills that prepare
them to deal with the kinds of situations and problems they will encounter in the workplace, the
community, and their personal lives.
Student Effort
Students’ own behaviors contribute significantly to their learning and the likelihood that they will
successfully attain their educational goals.
Academic Challenge
Challenging intellectual and creative work is central to student learning and collegiate quality. Survey items address the nature and amount of assigned academic work, the complexity of cognitive
tasks presented to students, and the standards faculty members use to evaluate student performance.
Student-Faculty Interaction
In general, the more contact students have with their teachers, the more likely they are to learn effectively and persist toward achievement of their educational goals. Through such interactions, faculty
members become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous, lifelong learning.
Support for Learners
Students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success and
cultivate positive working and social relationships among different groups on campus.
During spring semesters in 2007, 2009 and 2013, classes were randomly selected for inclusion in
CCSSE. Class participation rates were 70% in 2007; 81% in 2009; and 45% in 20131. The most recent
CCSSE results could be skewed given the low response rate.
An advantage of participating in CCSSE is that Colleges have the opportunity to make comparisons between their performance and that of similar colleges. CCSSE provides summary information for several
college groupings that are referenced in the College’s Institutional Research reports. The summary information associated with the 2013 Cohort utilizes a three-year cohort (2011 through 2013) of participating colleges. The 2013 CCSSE Cohort includes 718 institutions from 48 states and the District of Columbia, three Canadian provinces, plus Bermuda, Micronesia and the Northern Marianas. Eighty colleges, including CCP, are classified as Extra-Large Colleges since their credit students number 15,000+.
A listing of Extra-Large Colleges appears at the end of this report. A third college grouping provided
1. The late distribution of the surveys and the directive from the Faculty Federation not to participate in activities
of a voluntary nature until a faculty contract was signed may have accounted for the much lower response rate in
spring 2013.
1
by CCSSE is 2013 Top Performing Colleges. Top Performing Colleges are those that scored in the top
10 percent of the cohort by benchmark. CCSSE does not provide a list if these Colleges and comparison
information for this latter grouping of colleges is limited in scope to just benchmark information.
The Institutional Research Office issued a series of four reports in summer 2013 based on the Community College Survey of Student Engagement. These reports are as follows…
Institutional Research Report #238A
Community College Survey of Student Engagement Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice
Spring 2013
This report explores CCP’s benchmarks of student engagement as measured by the 2013
CCSSE student responses. CCP engagement is compared throughout the report with the
2013 CCSSE Cohort and the Extra-Large Colleges group. Comparisons of CCP
engagement with 2013 Top Performing Colleges is limited to benchmark scores.
Institutional Research Report #238B
Community College Survey of Student Engagement - A Comparison of Student Responses
in Spring 2013, 2009 and 2007
As implied in the title, this report focuses on intra-institutional comparisons of student
engagement benchmarks across the three time periods the survey process was undertaken
by the College.
Institutional Research Report #238C
Community College Survey of Student Engagement Trends in Students’ Use, Satisfaction and Importance of CCP Support Services
In addition to gathering information about student engagement, the CCSSE explores
student use, satisfaction and perceived importance of 11 institutional support services.
Student responses in 2013 are compared intra-institutionally with their predecessors in
2009 and 2007 and inter-institutionally with the 2013 CCSSE Cohort and the
Extra-Large Colleges group.
Institutional Research Report #238D
Assessment of Mission Effectiveness: Development of General Education and Workforce Skills
Results Based on Spring 2013 Community College Survey of Student Engagement
The CCSSE survey also explores 15 areas related to the development of general
education and workforce skills and affective attributes. Student responses to these
items in 2013 are compared intra-institutionally with their predecessors in 2009 and
2007 and inter-institutionally with the 2013 CCSSE Cohort and the Extra-Large
Colleges group.
2
Benchmark Scores
The following table contains average scores for the five benchmarks. Scores were computed by averaging the scores on individual survey items that comprise each benchmark. Benchmark scores are standardized so that the mean for all students is 50 and the standard deviation is 25. Higher benchmark
scores indicate greater levels of effectiveness. Score Differences reflect the difference between the comparison group score and CCP’s score on the benchmark. Benchmarks that received highest grades at
CCP were Academic Challenge and Student Effort. These benchmarks also resulted in the largest differences in scores between CCP and the groups of comparison colleges. Support for Learners was a dimension of student engagement that received the lowest benchmark score at CCP (see Table 1). Across the
benchmarks, CCP’s scores were higher than the Extra Large Colleges and the 2013 CCSSE Cohort. The
College was among the Top-Performing Colleges for Academic Challenge and also scored well in the
Student Effort benchmark (see Figure 1).
Table 1
2013 Benchmark Summary Table— All Students
Figure 1
2013 CCP Benchmark with CCSSE Cohort and Top-Performing Colleges
3
Active and Collaborative Learning Benchmark
Seven items contributed to the Active and Collaborative Learning Benchmark which focused
on student collaboration and involvement in academic activities in and out of the class. CCP’s
performance for this benchmark was above it’s institutional peers. Compared with their peers at
other participating institutions, CCP students:
Participated in class discussions significantly more often (see Table 2, Item 4a)
Prepared class presentations less often (see Table 2, Item 4b)
Worked on projects or assignments with other students both in and outside of class more
often (see Table 2, Item 4f and 4g)
Tutored other students more often (see Table 2, Item 4h)
Participated in a community-based project as part of a course more often (see Table 2,
Item 4i)
Discussed their readings or class work with others outside of class more often (see Table
2, Item 4r).
.
Benchmark Scores
All Students
Community College of
Philadelphia
Extra Large
Colleges
2013 CCSSE
Cohort
52.8
49.7
50.0
Table 2
Mean Rating of Items in Active and Collaborative Learning Benchmark
** T-test (2-tailed) significant group difference
4
description
Student Effort Benchmark
Eight items contributed to the Student Effort Benchmark, which focused on class preparation and resource usage. CCP’s performance for this benchmark surpassed it’s institutional peers. Compared to
their peers, CCP students:
Prepared multiple drafts of an assignment significantly more often (see Table 3, Item 4c)
Came to class significantly better prepared (see Table 3, Item 4e)
Read more books for pleasure or personal enrichment (see Table 3, Item 6b)
Accessed tutoring services and computer labs more often (see Table 4, Item 13.1d & 13.1h)
Accessed skills labs less often (see Table 4, Item 13.1e)
In addition, CCP students’ ability to integrate information from multiple sources and the number of
hours they spent preparing for class was in line with the Cohort averages (see Table 3, Item 4d & 10a).
Benchmark Scores
All Students
Community College of
Philadelphia
Extra Large
Colleges
2013 CCSSE
Cohort
55.9
49.4
50.0
Table 3
Mean Rating of Items 4, 6, and 10 in Student Effort Benchmark
** T-test (2-tailed) significant group difference
5
Table 4
Mean Rating of Item 13 in Student Effort Benchmark
** T-test (2-tailed) significant group difference
6
Academic Challenge Benchmark
Based on responses to the ten survey items that comprise the Academic Challenge Benchmark, CCP students, on average, indicated they were sufficiently challenged across a number of dimensions. CCP had
the highest mean score for this benchmark, placing it at the top among it’s peers. Compared to students
attending peer institutions, CCP students indicated they:
Worked significantly harder to meet their instructors’ expectations (see Table 5, Item 4p)
Analyzed, synthesized, and evaluated information significantly more often (see Table 5, Item
5b, 5c, & 5d)
Applied new concepts, theories, or performed new skills more often (see Table 5, Item 5e & 5f)
Read significantly more assigned readings (see Table 6, Item 6a)
Wrote more papers (see Table 6, Item 6c)
Students at CCP were also more challenged of by their exams but felt more encouraged to study than
their peers (see Table 6, Item 7 & 9a).
Benchmark Scores
All Students
Community College of
Philadelphia
Extra Large
Colleges
2013 CCSSE
Cohort
57.8
50.0
50.0
Table 5
Mean Rating of Items 4 and 5 in Academic Challenge Benchmark
** T-test (2-tailed) significant group difference
7
Table 6
Mean Rating of Items 6, 7, and 9 in Academic Challenge Benchmark
** T-test (2-tailed) significant group difference
8
Student-Faculty Interaction Benchmark
Six survey items focusing on communication between students and faculty were used to measure the
Student-Faculty Interaction Benchmark. CCP’s performance for this benchmark surpassed it’s institutional peers. The results show that CCP students expressed an intermediate level of engagement with
faculty that was higher than their peers at other institutions. Compared to their peers, CCP students indicated they:
Contacted their instructors via email less often (see Table 7, Item 4k)
Discussed their grades or assignments with their instructors significantly more often (see Table 7,
Item 4l)
Engaged in conversations with faculty about readings or class work outside of class significantly
more often (see Table 7, Item 4n)
Received prompt feedback from faculty on their academic performance significantly more often
(see Table 7, Item 4o)
Worked with faculty on extracurricular activities more often (see Table 7, Item 4q)
On average, CCP students discussed their career plans with an instructor or advisor at or about the same
frequency as students attending other institutions (see Table 7, Item 4m).
Benchmark Scores
All Students
Community College of
Philadelphia
Extra Large
Colleges
2013 CCSSE
Cohort
53.8
48.6
50.0
Table 7
Mean Rating of Items in Student-Faculty Interaction Benchmark
** T-test (2-tailed) significant group difference
9
Support for Learners Benchmark
Seven items were included in the Support for Learners Benchmark that contained questions concerning
campus climate, academic, and student support services. CCP’s performance for this benchmark exceeded the Extra Large and overall Cohort averages; however, within all of the benchmarks, it was the
College’s lowest performing index. Compared to their peers, CCP students indicated that they received:
Less support to achieve success in college (see Table 8, Item 9b)
More encouragement to interact with students from diverse backgrounds (see Table 8, Item 9c)
About the same amount of support for their out-of-classroom obligations (family, work, etc.) (see
Table 8, Item 9d)
More social support (see Table 8, Item 9e)
Significantly more financial support (see Table 8, Item 9f)
In addition, CCP students accessed academic advising and career counseling services more often than
their peers at other institutions (see Table 8, Item 13.1a & 13.1b).
Benchmark Scores
All Students
Community College of
Philadelphia
Extra Large
Colleges
2013 CCSSE
Cohort
52.5
48.9
50.0
Table 8
Mean Rating of Items in Support for Learners Benchmark
10
2013 Comparison Group of Extra-Large Colleges (15,000+ Students)
Institution
American River College
Anne Arundel Community College
Austin Community College
Bakersfield College
Bergen Community College
Blinn College
Broward College
Chaffey College
College of DuPage
College of Lake County
College of Southern Nevada
Columbus State Community College
Community College of Allegheny County
Community College of Philadelphia
Daytona State College
De Anza College
Des Moines Area Community College
Edison State College
El Paso Community College
Florida State College at Jacksonville
Foothill College
Fresno City College
Front Range Community College
Georgia Perimeter College
Glendale Community College
Glendale Community College
Grand Rapids Community College
Grossmont College
Harper College
Henry Ford Community College
Houston Community College
Ivy Tech Community College - Central Indiana
Jefferson Community and Technical College
Johnson County Community College
Kingsborough Community College
Kirkwood Community College
LaGuardia Community College
City
Sacramento
Arnold
Austin
Bakersfield
Paramus
Brenham
Ft. Lauderdale
Rancho Cucamonga
Glen Ellyn
Grayslake
Las Vegas
Columbus
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Daytona Beach
Cupertino
Ankeny
Fort Myers
El Paso
Jacksonville
Los Altos Hills
Fresno
Westminster
Decatur
Glendale
Glendale
Grand Rapids
El Cajon
Palatine
Dearborn
Houston
Indianapolis
Louisville
Overland Park
Brooklyn
Cedar Rapids
Long Island City
- Continued on Next Page -
11
State
CA
MD
TX
CA
NJ
TX
FL
CA
IL
IL
NV
OH
PA
PA
FL
CA
IA
FL
TX
FL
CA
CA
CO
GA
AZ
CA
MI
CA
IL
MI
TX
IN
KY
KS
NY
IA
NY
Year of
Participation
2013
2012
2013
2011
2012
2012
2011
2013
2012
2012
2011
2013
2013
2013
2013
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
2012
2011
2012
2011
2011
2011
2013
2012
2012
2011
2013
2011
2013
2012
2011
2013
2012
Institution
Lansing Community College
Lone Star College – CyFair
Lone Star College - North Harris
Macomb Community College
Madison Area Technical College
Mesa Community College
Metropolitan Community College
Miami Dade College
Milwaukee Area Technical College
Modesto Junior College
Monroe Community College
Montgomery College
Moraine Valley Community College
Mt. San Antonio College
Northern Virginia Community College
Northwest Vista College
Oakland Community College
Owens Community College
Ozarks Technical Community College
Palm Beach State College
Palomar College
Pasadena City College
Pima Community College
Portland Community College - Sylvania
Richland College
Riverside City College
Sacramento City College
Salt Lake Community College
San Antonio College
Santa Fe College
Santa Monica College
Seminole State College of Florida
Sinclair Community College
South Texas College
St. Petersburg College
Tarrant County College District
The Community College of Baltimore County
Tidewater Community College
Triton College
Tulsa Community College
Valencia College
Vincennes University
Wake Technical Community College
City
Lansing
Cypress
Houston
Warren
Madison
Mesa
Omaha
Miami
Milwaukee
Modesto
Rochester
Rockville
Palos Hills
Walnut
Annandale
San Antonio
Bloomfield Hills
Perrysburg
Springfield
Lake Worth
San Marcos
Pasadena
Tucson
Portland
Dallas
Riverside
Sacramento
Salt Lake City
San Antonio
Gainesville
Santa Monica
Sanford
Dayton
McAllen
St. Petersburg
Fort Worth
Baltimore
Norfolk
River Grove
Tulsa
Orlando
Vincennes
Raleigh
12
State
MI
TX
TX
MI
WI
AZ
NE
FL
WI
CA
NY
MD
IL
CA
VA
TX
MI
OH
MO
FL
CA
CA
AZ
OR
TX
CA
CA
UT
TX
FL
CA
FL
OH
TX
FL
TX
MD
VA
IL
OK
FL
IN
NC
Year of
Participation
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2011
2013
2012
2012
2013
2012
2012
2011
2011
2011
2013
2012
2012
2013
2011
2011
2012
2011
2011
2012
2013
2012
2012
2013
2013
2012
2013
2012
2013
2013
2013
2012
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013