Community College Survey
of Student Engagement
SOWELA Technical Community College
2016 Key Findings
Table of Contents
Key Findings: A Starting Point 2
Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice 3
Aspects of Highest Student Engagement 4
Aspects of Lowest Student Engagement 5
2016 CCSSE Special-Focus Items 6
CCFSSE 8
1
Key Findings: A Starting Point
The Key Findings report provides an entry point for reviewing results from your administration of the
2016 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). The report provides college-specific
data in an easy-to-share format including benchmark comparisons between the college, top-performing
colleges, and the CCSSE cohort. It also highlights aspects of highest and lowest student engagement at
the college, as well as results from five CCSSE special-focus items. Select faculty survey data are also
highlighted.
Community College Student Part-Timeness
In each annual administration, the Center for Community College Student Engagement has included
special-focus items on CCSSE to allow participating colleges and national researchers to delve more
deeply into student experiences and areas of institutional performance of greatest interest to the field.
Five items designed to elicit information about community college students and part-timeness were
added to the 2016 CCSSE administration. The results of these findings are on pages 6-7 of this report.
Benchmark Overview by Enrollment Status
Figure 1 below represents your institution's CCSSE benchmark scores by student enrollment status.
Figure 1
Less than full-time students
Full-time students
35.9
48.7
46.3
51.8
37.3
53.6
47.9
52.3
53.1
57.9
Benchmark Scores
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Active and Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort Academic Challenge Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
2
Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice
The CCSSE benchmarks are groups of
conceptually related survey items that address key
areas of student engagement. The five benchmarks
denote areas that educational research has shown to
be important to students’ college experiences and
educational outcomes. Therefore, they provide
colleges with a useful starting point for looking at
institutional results and allow colleges to gauge and
monitor their performance in areas that are central
to their work. In addition, participating colleges
have the opportunity to make appropriate and
useful comparisons between their performance and
that of groups of other colleges.
Performing as well as the national average or a
peer-group average may be a reasonable initial
aspiration, but it is important to recognize that these
averages are sometimes unacceptably low. Aspiring to
match and then exceed high-performance targets is the
stronger strategy.
Community colleges can differ dramatically on such
factors as size, location, resources, enrollment
patterns, and student characteristics. It is important to
take these differences into account when interpreting
benchmark scores—especially when making
institutional comparisons. The Center for
Community College Student Engagement has
adopted the policy “Responsible Uses of CCSSE and
SENSE Data,” available at www.cccse.org.
CCSSE uses a three-year cohort of participating
colleges in all core survey analyses. The current cohort
is referred to as the 2016 CCSSE Cohort (2014-2016)
throughout all reports.
CCSSE Benchmarks
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 master
challenging content, students develop valuable skills that
prepare them to deal with real-life situations and problems.
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. These survey items
address the nature and amount of assigned academic work,
the complexity of cognitive tasks presented to students, and
the rigor of examinations used 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 to
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 provide important support services, cultivate positive
relationships among groups on campus, and demonstrate
commitment to their success.
For further information about CCSSE benchmarks, please visit
www.cccse.org.
Figure 2
*Top-Performing colleges are those that scored in the top 10 percent of the cohort by benchmark.
SOWELA Technical Community College 2016 CCSSE Cohort 2016 Top-Performing Colleges*
42.7
50.0
59.6
49.2
50.0
57.9
46.0
50.0
56.9
50.2 50.0
59.0
55.7
50.0
59.8
Benchmark Scores
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Active and Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort Academic Challenge Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
Notes: Benchmark scores are standardized to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 25 across all respondents. For further
information about how benchmarks are computed, please visit www.cccse.org.
3
Aspects of Highest Student Engagement
Benchmark scores provide a manageable starting point for reviewing and understanding CCSSE data. One way to
dig more deeply into the benchmark scores is to analyze those items that contribute to the overall benchmark
score. This section features the five items across all benchmarks (excluding those for which means are not
calculated) on which the college scored highest and the five items on which the college scored lowest relative to
the 2016 CCSSE Cohort.
The items highlighted on pages 4 and 5 reflect the largest differences in mean scores between the institution and
the 2016 CCSSE Cohort. While examining these data, keep in mind that the selected items may not be those that
are most closely aligned with the college’s goals; thus, it is important to review all institutional reports on the
CCSSE online reporting system at www.cccse.org.
Figure 3 displays the aggregated frequencies for the items on which the college performed most favorably relative
to the 2016 CCSSE Cohort. For instance, 15.5% of SOWELA Technical Community College students, compared
with 8.6% of other students in the cohort, responded often or very often on item 4h. It is important to note that
some colleges’ highest scores might be lower than the cohort mean.
Figure 3
SOWELA Technical Community College 2016 CCSSE Cohort
15.5%
8.6%
47.2%
30.1%
49.6%
37.5%
57.4%
42.7%
76.1%
60.8%
Aggregated Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4h
Often or
Very often
9d
Quite a bit or
Very much
9e
Quite a bit or
Very much
13e1
Sometimes
or Often
13h1
Sometimes
or Often
Table 1
Benchmark
Item
Number Item
Active and Collaborative Learning 4h Tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)
Support For Learners 9d Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)
Support For Learners 9e Providing the support you need to thrive socially
Student Effort 13e1 Frequency: Skill labs (writing, math, etc.)
Student Effort 13h1 Frequency: Computer lab
Notes:
For Item(s) 4 (except 4e), often and very often responses are combined.
For Item(s) 9, quite a bit and very much responses are combined.
For Item(s) 13, sometimes and often responses are combined.
4
Aspects of Lowest Student Engagement
Figure 4 displays the aggregated frequencies for the items on which the college performed least favorably relative
to the 2016 CCSSE Cohort. For instance, 12.0% of SOWELA Technical Community College students, compared
with 33.0% of other students in the cohort, responded often or very often on item 4b. It is important to note that
some colleges’ lowest scores might be higher than the cohort mean.
Figure 4
SOWELA Technical Community College
2016 CCSSE Cohort
12.0%
33.0%
45.4%
65.5%
37.1%
50.8%
18.8%
21.8%
41.0%
59.7%
Aggregated Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4b
Often or
Very often
4d
Often or
Very often
4f
Often or
Very often
6b
5 or more
6c
5 or more
Table 2
Benchmark
Item
Number Item
Active and Collaborative Learning 4b Made a class presentation
Student Effort 4d Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information
from various sources
Active and Collaborative Learning 4f Worked with other students on projects during class
Student Effort 6b Number of books read on your own (not assigned) for personal enjoyment or
academic enrichment
Academic Challenge 6c Number of written papers or reports of any length
Notes:
For Item(s) 4 (except 4e), often and very often responses are combined.
For Item(s) 6, 5 to 10, 11 to 20, and more than 20 responses are combined.
5
'
2016 CCSSE Special-Focus Items
The Center adds special-focus items to CCSSE each year to augment the core survey, helping participating
colleges and the field at large to further explore fundamental areas of student engagement. The 2016 special-
focus items elicit new information about students’ experiences associated with enrollment status such as
persistence, goals, expectations for time to completion, and knowledge about whether or not instructors teach
full time at their college. Frequency results from the first five special focus module items for your college and
the 2016 CCSSE Part-Timeness item-set respondents are displayed across pages 6 and 7.
Figure 5: Including this term, but excluding summers, how many academic terms have you been enrolled at this college?
SOWELA Technical Community College (N=323)
2014-2016 Part-Timeness Respondents (N=135,320)
25.6%
17.4%
32.2%
28.6%
14.0%
14.3%
28.2%
39.7%
Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 term 2 terms 3 terms 4 or
more terms
SOWELA Technical Community College (N=325)
2014-2016 Part-Timeness Respondents (N=135,537)
28.4%
31.5%
29.8%
20.8%
23.4%
21.1%
9.3%
12.7%
9.3%
13.9%
Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 terms 1 term 2 terms 3 terms 4 or
more terms
Figure 6: Of the academic terms you have been enrolled at this college but excluding summers, how many academic terms
have you been enrolled full time?
6
Figure 7: What is your number one goal for attending this college?
SOWELA Technical Community College (N=323)
2014-2016 Part-Timeness Respondents (N=135,261)
11.5%
8.7%
60.7%
45.8%
21.8%
38.6%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
3.9%
Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
To earn a certificate To earn an associate degree To transfer to
a four-year institution
To update job
skills (not degree
or transfer-seeking)
None of the above
Figure 8: From the time you started here, how long do you anticipate it will take you to complete your certificate or degree at
this college?
SOWELA Technical Community College (N=324)
2014-2016 Part-Timeness Respondents (N=135,381)
8.0%
9.0%
60.0%
45.9%
23.9%
31.0%
1.7%
5.8%
6.4%
8.3%
Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Less than a year 1-2 years 3-4 years
5 or more years
Not seeking a
certificate or degree
Figure 9: Do you know if your instructors this academic term teach full time or part time at this college?
SOWELA Technical Community College (N=316)
2014-2016 Part-Timeness Respondents (N=133,737)
27.0%
27.8%
31.0%
35.7%
42.0%
36.5%
Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
I know this
about all
of my instructors
I know this
about some
of my instructors
I do not know
this about any
of my instructors
7
CCFSSE
The Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE), designed as a companion survey
to CCSSE, elicits information from faculty about their perceptions regarding students’ educational experiences,
their teaching practices, and the ways they spend their professional time—both in and out of the classroom.
CCFSSE data suggest that at most colleges, part-time faculty outnumber full-time faculty, and are also less
likely to refer students to academic support services. Below you will find frequency results for part- and
full-time faculty at your college describing how frequently they refer students to advising and planning services,
peer tutoring, and skill labs.
Figure 10: How often do you refer students to the following services?
N.A. Rarely/Never Sometimes Often
Percentage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Academic
Advising
Peer
Tutoring
Skill Labs
(writing, math,etc.)
Full-time
faculty
N=30
Part-time
faculty
N=7
Full-time
faculty
N=30
Part-time
faculty
N=7
Full-time
faculty
N=30
Part-time
faculty
N=7
Table 3
Academic Advising/
Planning
Peer or
Other Tutoring
Skill Labs
(writing, math,etc.)
Response
Full-Time
Faculty
Part-Time
Faculty
Full-Time
Faculty
Part-Time
Faculty
Full-Time
Faculty
Part-Time
Faculty
N.A. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0%
Rarely/Never 30.0% 28.6% 10.0% 42.9% 36.7% 71.4%
Sometimes 26.7% 57.1% 46.7% 42.9% 10.0% 14.3%
Often 43.3% 14.3% 43.3% 14.3% 36.7% 14.3%
8