1. Running head: ASSESSING STUDENT SATISFACTION AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 1
Assessing Student Satisfaction at Clemson University: Data Analysis
A.F. Burke, Ariel Cochrane-Brown, Matthew J. Kirk, Katie E. Koltys, Donald W. Wetzel, Jr.
Clemson University

2. ASSESSING STUDENT SATISFACTION AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 2
Our assessment project is to analyze the qualitative data from the 2009 and 2010 National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). One strategic advantage of assessing a nationally
normed instrument is that the data has already been collected using proven data collection
techniques. The survey is issued to all undergraduate freshman and seniors and consists of
approximately 100 multiple choice questions and one qualitative question. Our assessment
project specifically focused on the qualitative responses to the open ended question: “If you have
any additional comments or feedback that you’d like to share about the quality of your
educational experience, please type them below.” In the 2009 survey, we received 140 total
responses. For 2010 we received 145 total responses. The raw qualitative data varied in length
from a simple two word exclamation, to in-depth narratives spanning multiple paragraphs.
Our client, Dr. Todd Chamberlain, recommended that we begin our analysis by
individually reviewing the data and notating common themes. Once this step was completed, we
reported our findings as a group and agreed on 13 emergent themes. During our next client
meeting we presented Dr. Chamberlain with these 13 themes, and his response was to focus on
identifying more broad and over-arching themes. He suggested we quantify the responses for
each of the 13 themes we had initially identified to see if these themes were indeed the most
common. For this next step, we again divided each of the 13 themes among our group, and we
each tallied how many comments were in each category. Our results proved the importance of
being able to quantify qualitative data.
When we reviewed the quantitative data from each of our 13 themes, it was plain to see
that many of our categories were not broad themes. For example, we had identified Budget Cuts,
and Return on Investment as two of our common themes; however, each of these themes only
received 2.6% of the overall responses. Our quantitative analysis showed that during our initial

3. ASSESSING STUDENT SATISFACTION AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 3
review of the common themes, we were all drawn to the comments which were more eloquent
and passionate. These comments stood out to us, and were therefore listed as common themes,
even though they were not the most frequently addressed subjects. During this group meeting we
identified five common themes based on the number of responses under each category, which
were: Student Services, University Direction, Social Engagement, Educational Experience, and
Non-Affiliated. We then reviewed all of our responses as a group and determined which themes
applied to which comments. As we coded, we made the distinction between responses and
comments. It was important to us to recognize that one response could have multiple comments
in various theme categories. Therefore by the end of our coding process, we reviewed 285
responses, and 329 individual comments. We further determined that if a Non-Affiliated
comment also contains a theme, we would only code that comment as a theme.
At Dr. Chamberlain’s suggestion, we also included some of our previous 13 common
themes as “sub-categories” under each of our five identified broad themes. Our final step in the
data analysis process was to take each of the five themes, and the “sub-categories” under each
theme and apply the same quantitative metrics we previously used. We also identified the
number and percentage of freshman and seniors for each comment, as well as whether the
comment was positive or negative. Out of 329 total comments, the University Direction theme
received 19 overall comments. 89% of the responses were seniors and 95% of the comments
were critical of Clemson’s direction. Even though these comments only made up 6% of the total
comments, the data shows that Clemson seniors have serious concerns about the direction of
their university.
The Social Engagement theme received 30 overall comments, and 70% of these
comments were supportive of the direction. It is interesting to note that of the supportive

4. ASSESSING STUDENT SATISFACTION AT CLEMSON UNIVERSITY 4
comments only 29% of these comments were freshman. As this data is from 2009 and 2010 it
would be interesting to compare this data to the 2012 survey to see how these freshman feel
about Social Engagement as seniors. The 29% approval rating would indicate the next wave of
Clemson students was generally unsatisfied with Social Engagement on campus.
The Student Services theme received 33 total comments, and 27 of these comments were
critical of student services on Clemson’s campus. Some of the individual services criticized most
frequently were advising (39%), diversity education (21%) and financial services (12%). The
Educational Experience theme was the most frequently commented theme with 41% of the
overall comments. 76% of the commenters were Seniors and 57% left negative comments about
their educational experience. The most frequently commented sub-categories were curriculum
content (37%), Faculty/Staff/Administrator Interactions (28%) and Teaching Practices (11%). It
is interesting to note than 6% of comments were also directed towards the E-portfolio, and 100%
of these comments were negative. Finally, the Non-Affiliated comment section tallied 112 (34%)
of the total comments left. 63% of the comments in this category were positive. Many of these
comments were simple exclamations such as “Clemson Rocks!” or “Clemson is the best place in
the world!” 32% of these comments were related to the actual survey, which may be an indicator
of survey fatigue on Clemson’s campus.