2005 ADULT LEARNER INVENTORY
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, ST. PAUL
Introductory Comments
The Noel-Levitz/CAEL Adult Learner Inventory (ALI) was completed by students in Concordia’s face-to-face cohort programs in late November or early December of 2005. Student invitations to participate were sent via email, and the survey was available for online completion only. Attempts were made to contact 378 students. Ninety-eight students completed all or some of the survey for a response rate of 26%. Because of the relatively low response rate, results may not be indicative of student opinion in all face-to-face cohorts. A comprehensive institutional report of results was received from Noel-Levitz in January 2006. The report that follows contains a summary of the overall results, comparisons with a national group of students completing the same survey, Concordia M.A. vs. B.A. comparisons, and comparisons between ALI responses and responses of online cohort students taking the Priorities Survey for Online Learners (PSOL) on 7 institutional items used on both surveys. Numerical results by program are available if requested.
ALI Executive Summary of Findings
Comparative results are generally encouraging. Compared to the national ALI sample, Concordia satisfaction levels are statistically significantly higher on 8 of the 40 individual national items and significantly lower on only 1 item. The technology skills item on which satisfaction is significantly lower for Concordia respondents is also rated as comparatively low in importance. National items are grouped into 7 scales. Concordia satisfaction averages are significantly higher on 1 scale, the Teaching-Learning Process, and significantly lower than the national sample on none of the scales.
B.A. respondent scores are higher (better) on the 2 overall university experience items. B.A. satisfaction averages are higher and B.A. performance gaps are smaller (better) on all 7 scales. The comparatively small number of M.A. respondents (23) may be a mitigating factor.
Ten institutionally developed items are included on the ALI. Seven of those items are listed as institutional strengths in the Noel-Levitz report: Participation in this academic program enhances my job effectiveness, Class discussions effectively promote my learning, Faculty care about my learning, Participation in this program improves my leadership capabilities, Faculty effectively challenge me to engage course content, Faculty create a learning environment that effectively engages me to learn from other students, and Working with the same student cohort throughout the program enhances my learning. Two of the institutional items are identified as institutional challenges: The balance between program pace and quality meets my educational goals and The quality of feedback about my work from instructors contributes effectively to my learning.
On the 7 common institutional items on both surveys, the largest performance gaps for both PSOL and ALI groups are on The quality of feedback about my work from instructors contributes effectively to my learning and The balance between program pace and quality meets my educational goals. There is a negative PSOL gap (satisfaction higher than importance) on Working with the same student cohort throughout the program enhances my learning. The performance gap for ALI respondents is also the smallest (best) on this item. Performance gaps for PSOL respondents are somewhat smaller on all 7 common items. (Because of a lower ALI response rate and a different M.A./B.A. makeup of respondent groups, ALI/PSOL comparisons should be viewed with caution.)
Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance of a number of possible information sources and enrollment factors. The factors with highest average importance for Concordia respondents are Convenient time and place, Ability to transfer credits, and The Institution’s Web site as source of information.
Demographic Information
The ALI contains a number of demographic items. Responses on a few of these items are summarized below.
Educational goal / Number of respondents / Percentage of respondentsBachelor’s degree / 72 / 73.5%
Master’s degree / 23 / 23.5%
Other goal / 1 / 1.0%
No answer / 2 / 2.0%
Length of time in current program / Number of respondents / Percentage of respondents
4 months or less / 9 / 9.2%
5-9 months / 21 / 21.4%
10-14 months / 42 / 42.9%
More than 14 months / 23 / 23.5%
No answer / 3 / 3.1%
Current Program / Number of respondents / Percentage of respondents
M.A. in Organizational Management / 16 / 16.3%
M.A. in Organizational Management, Human Resource Emphasis / 7 / 7.1%
B.A. in Information Technology in Management / 16 / 16.3%
B.A. in Human Resource Management / 11 / 11.2%
B.A. in Marketing Management and Innovation / 6 / 6.1%
B.A. in Organizational Management and Communication (on campus) / 24 / 24.5%
B.A. in Organizational Management and Communication (off campus) / 16 / 16.3%
No Answer / 2 / 2.0%
Gender and racial/ethnic breakdowns are not included above but are generally indicative of students overall in face-to-face cohorts.
Survey Structure
On 40 national ALI items and 10 institutionally supplied items, respondents are asked to identify the degree to which that item/factor is important to them and then also the degree to which they are satisfied with that item/factor. On those items, Noel-Levitz calculates performance gaps (average importance level minus average satisfaction level). Smaller gaps indicate better performance. Only importance scores are solicited on 29 additional items on information sources and enrollment factors. Only satisfaction scores are requested on 2 items related to the overall university experience. Similar national importance-satisfaction items are also grouped into 7 scales: Outreach, Life and Career Planning, Financing, Assessment of Learning Outcomes, Teaching-Learning Process, Student Support Services, and Technology. Items making up the scales are listed in APPENDIX A on pages 11-12. Statistical significance tests were conducted only in comparisons of Concordia’s overall average satisfaction levels with those in the national comparison group.
Strategic Planning Overview
The Noel-Levitz report includes a strategic planning section. The following definitions are used.
Strengths are items with high Concordia importance overall and also high Concordia satisfaction overall. More specifically, strengths are items both above the midpoint in importance and also in the upper quartile (25%) of satisfaction scores.
Challenges are items with high Concordia importance overall and also low Concordia satisfaction overall.
They are items above the midpoint in importance and also in the lower quartile in satisfaction or the top quartile of performance gap scores.
Benchmarks are items of relatively high Concordia importance for which Concordia scores are statistically significantly higher than the national average in either satisfaction or importance. There are no items of high importance on which the Concordia satisfaction level is significantly lower than the national average.
Seven of the 10 campus related program relevance, engagement, and faculty care are identified as institutional strengths. Two items related to faculty feedback indicate a challenge area.
(Items in each section are listed in descending order of average importance to CSP respondents.)
Strengths and ChallengesStrengths
17. I receive timely responses to my requests for help and information.
41. Participation in this academic program enhances my job effectiveness. (campus item)
49. Class discussions effectively promote my learning. (campus item)
9. I have a clear understanding of what I'm expected to learn in my courses.
40. I am able to obtain information I need by phone, fax, e-mail, or online.
46. Faculty care about my learning. (campus item)
48. Participation in this program improves my leadership capabilities. (campus item)
24. My instructors respect student opinions and ideas that differ from their own.
47. Faculty effectively challenge me to engage course content. (campus item)
37. Instructors incorporate my life and work experiences in class activities and assignments.
45. Faculty create a learning environment that effectively engages me to learn from other students. (campus item)
43. Working with the same student cohort throughout the program enhances my learning. (campus item)
Challenges
44. The balance between program pace and quality meets my educational goals. (campus item)
15. My instructors provide timely feedback about my academic progress.
1. My program allows me to pace my studies to fit my life and work schedules.
42. The quality of feedback about my work from my instructors contributes effectively to my learning. (campus item)
21. I'm assessed on the knowledge and skills I'll need in my life and career.
39. The learning experiences within my program of study challenge me to reach beyond what I know already.
20. I receive the help I need to stay on track with my program of study.
13. My advisor is knowledgeable about requirements for courses and programs of interest to me.
Benchmarks
Higher Satisfaction than National Group
17. I receive timely responses to my requests for help and information.
40. I am able to obtain information I need by phone, fax, e-mail, or online.
37. Instructors incorporate my life and work experiences in class activities and assignments.
2. Sufficient course offerings within my program of study are available each term.
36. I can receive credit for learning derived from my previous life and work experiences.
32. Information is available online to help me understand what I need to do next in my program of study.
Higher Importance than National Group
21. I'm assessed on the knowledge and skills I'll need in my life and career.
37. Instructors incorporate my life and work experiences in class activities and assignments.
53. This institution's Web site as source of information
Comparative Results on Overall Experience
The ALI contains 2 items related to overall satisfaction with the university experience. Although Concordia scores are slightly higher, there is not a significant difference in results.
(7 = very satisfied or definitely yes to 1 = not satisfied at all or definitely not)
Item / Average Concordia Score / Average National Score / Mean DifferenceHow would you rate your overall satisfaction with this program? / 6.14 / 5.97 / 0.13
Would you recommend this program to other adult learners? / 6.30 / 6.28 / 0.02
Comparative Results on Scales
Survey results are grouped into over-arching scales in the Noel-Levitz analysis. The * notation indicates that the average satisfaction level for Concordia students is higher (at the 0.05 level of significance) on the Teaching-Learning Process scale. Concordia satisfaction levels are significantly lower on none of the scales. In cells with 3 numbers below, the top number is the average satisfaction level, the middle number is the average satisfaction level, and the bottom number is the average performance gap.
(7 = very important or very satisfied to 1 = not important at all or not satisfied at all)
Scale / Average Concordia Scores / Average National Scores / Mean Satisfaction DifferenceOutreach / 6.32
5.80
0.52 / 6.47
5.68
0.79 / 0.12
Life and Career Planning / 6.18
5.39
0.79 / 6.31
5.21
1.10 / 0.18
Financing / 6.03
5.44
0.59 / 6.18
5.34
0.84 / 0.10
Assessment of Learning Outcomes / 5.90
5.20
0.70 / 5.94
5.21
0.73 / -0.01
Scale / Average Concordia Scores / Average National Scores / Mean Satisfaction Difference
Teaching-Learning Process / 6.35
5.90
0.45 / 6.25
5.66
0.59 / 0.24*
Student Support Systems / 6.07
5.40
0.67 / 6.10
5.33
0.77 / 0.07
Technology / 5.98
5.46
0.52 / 6.08
5.37
0.71 / 0.09
Comparative Results on National Individual Importance-Satisfaction Items
Concordia’s average levels of satisfaction are significantly higher on 8 of these items and significantly lower on just one item. The item on which the Concordia satisfaction is significantly lower is also one on which the average importance level is comparatively low. The largest Concordia performance gaps are on I'm assessed on the knowledge and skills I'll need in my life and career, Mentors are available to guide my career and life goals, and This institution offers strategies to help me cope with the multiple pressures of home, work, and my studies. The smallest (best) performance gaps on Processes and procedures for enrolling here are convenient (satisfaction exceeds performance on this one) and My instructors encourage student-to-student interactions through a variety of techniques.
Cell entries and the range of possible scores follow the same pattern as in the previous table. Significance levels are listed in the last column; a lower level of significance indicates a greater chance that the difference between groups is meaningful (*** 0.001 level, ** 0.01 level, *0.05 level).
Item / Average Concordia Scores / Average National Scores / Mean Satisfaction Difference1. My program allows me to pace my studies to fit my life and work schedules. / 6.53
5.67
0.86 / 6.70
5.74
0.96 / -0.07
2. Sufficient course offerings within my program of study are available each term. / 6.36
5.95
0.41 / 6.54
5.20
1.34 / 0.75**
3. This institution assists students who need help with the financial aid process. / 5.99
5.56
0.43 / 6.11
5.37
0.74 / 0.19
4. My instructors involve me in assessing my own learning. / 5.79
5.48
0.31 / 5.98
5.39
0.59 / 0.09
5. I receive the help I need to improve my technology skills. / 5.52
4.80
0.72 / 5.88
5.25
0.63 / -0.45**
6. Staff are available to help me solve unique problems I encounter. / 6.27
5.60
0.67 / 6.31
5.55
0.76 / 0.05
7. This institution provides students with the help they need to develop a plan of study before enrolling. / 6.12
5.34
0.78 / 6.24
5.24
1.00 / 0.10
8. I receive adequate information about sources of financial assistance available to me. / 5.64
5.13
0.51 / 6.09
4.97
1.12 / 0.16
9. I have a clear understanding of what I'm expected to learn in my courses. / 6.54
5.97
0.57 / 6.58
5.82
0.76 / 0.15
Item / Average Concordia Scores / Average National Scores / Mean Satisfaction Difference
10. This institution offers strategies to help me cope with the multiple pressures of home, work, and my studies. / 5.85
4.75
1.10 / 5.91
4.66
1.25 / 0.09
11. Technical support is available to me when I need it. / 5.96
5.55
0.41 / 6.09
5.31
0.78 / 0.24
12. Processes and procedures for enrolling here are convenient. / 6.09
6.12
-0.03 / 6.50
6.02
0.48 / 0.10
13. My advisor is knowledgeable about requirements for courses and programs of interest to me. / 6.34