Student Surveys Planning Group
Executive Committee Meeting
December 19, 2007 Meeting Notes
1) Review process for approving surveys
· Reasons for a gate keeping role
o Conduct and schedule major student surveys based on institutional priorities
o Response rate concerns
o Survey fatigue and annoyance to students
· If gate keeping desired, how to improve the process
o Feedback on the current process and ideas for making it work better
o Communication from senior officers regarding importance of coordinating student surveys to coordination
Notes: We recognized that de facto not all student surveys are going through the SSPG for approval, and this creates both an unfair situation and hinders coordination. In some cases this may be due to lack of knowledge of the SSPG and our policies, and could be rectified by better communication of those policies, something we have discussed in the past. In other cases, that may not be the issue, and it puts into question whether we have a mandate with any force behind it to be the gatekeepers for student surveys.
We discussed that we have always given schools local control over surveys of their own students. We do ask that they seek SSPG approval if surveying students University-wide. We discussed whether senior managers in central administration should have the authority to determine the student surveys that their area will conduct. This is happening somewhat de facto anyway, and unevenly. So, some central areas seek the approval of the SSPG for student surveys, and others do not.
We identified two options. One would be to renew and confirm that we have a mandate to approve student surveys. Another would be to revise our policies to adapt to the de facto environment. This could be done by recognizing that vice-presidents have the authority to determine what surveys they want to conduct in their areas without approval of the SSPG. If we pursue this option, we would still want the SSPG to play a coordination role, because we believe coordinating student surveys is good for all stakeholders. We said we should document the level of coordination that has occurred in recent years, in particular, the Spring quarter surveys, as evidence that coordination is valuable to the University.
We discussed the possibility of bringing together the vice-presidents and the SSPG executive committee to discuss this issue and determine the best approach. (We have since decided to discuss it at the February 20th SSPG meeting as a next step.)
2) Plans for the COFHE graduating senior survey in an off-year (not a COFHE project, not full participation, voluntary)
Notes: The group was informed that we approached COFHE about only asking a portion of their graduating senior survey instrument questions this year, but were told that is not possible. COFHE is pursuing a more modular approach to their surveys in the future, and we may have that option at some point in time. We agreed that we still want to conduct the senior survey annually, including this year, even if that means in its entirety, and will proceed accordingly. (To clarify, the COFHE senior survey is conducted as a full fledged COFHE project every fourth year. We are expected to participate in those years. During off years, we are provided the opportunity to conduct the survey with technical assistance from COFHE (host web survey, send emails to students, and provide our data and peer data), and to share data with COFHE peers that also conduct the survey in off years. This year is an off year, but COFHE still requires that we ask all the survey instrument questions in order to conduct the survey with their assistance and to receive peer data.)
3) Dissemination of results from the 2007 COFHE Enrolled Student Survey and Parents Survey (update)
· SSPG website reports
· Venues other than SSPG
Notes: Debbie Crimmins presented findings from the COFHE Enrolled Student Survey and the COFHE Parents survey at a special SSPG meeting in November. Those analyses are available on the “members only” SSPG website. Other analyses are available upon request. It is also possible to present findings at meetings other than the SSPG, if desired. Debbie Crimmins and Mary Desler agreed to meet to plan a brief report for the parents listserv. (A report was sent via the listserv in January.)
4) COFHE Enrolled Student Survey-Lite proposal (perhaps in 2009)
Notes: Similar to our desire to only ask a portion of the COFHE graduating senior survey instrument questions, there is a COFHE project that is looking at their enrolled (undergraduate) student survey and designing a more concise version of it that could be administered in “off years” or years when it is not a COFHE project. Tentative plans are to make it available in Spring of 2009.
5) Other materials/reports to include on SSPG secure website
COFHE official reports on student surveys (senior, enrolled undergrads and alumni)? Not timely, but still useful?
Survey reports/findings from other student surveys on campus (when available and if stakeholder willing to make available)?
Notes: It was agreed that making COFHE reports and internal/Northwestern survey reports available on the SSPG secure website would be a useful service to SSPG members.
6) Agenda for winter quarter SSPG meeting
· IT/Educause survey results presentation (Brian Nielsen, Bob Taylor and Bob Davis)
· College Board Admitted Student Questionnaire (ASQ) results (Mike Mills)
Note: It was agreed that our Winter quarter meeting will include an NUIT presentation of findings from the ECAR survey and a presentation by Mike Mills on findings from the College Board’s Admitted Student Questionnaire.