 |
|---|
| RESULTS OF FACULTY POLL ON CONCENTRATIONS, OCTOBER 2006 |
|---|
Number Eligible to Participate: 247 Number/Percent Participated: 76 (30.77%)
| Response_Question_1 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 69 | 90.79 |
| No | 7 | 9.21 |
| Response_Question_2 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 62 | 81.58 |
| No | 14 | 18.42 |
| Response_Question_3 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 56 | 73.68 |
| No | 20 | 26.32 |
| Response_Question_4 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 54 | 71.05 |
| No | 22 | 28.95 |
| Response_Question_5 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 67 | 88.16 |
| No | 9 | 11.84 |
| Response_Question_6 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 57 | 75.00 |
| No | 19 | 25.00 |
| Response_Question_7 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 66 | 86.84 |
| No | 10 | 13.16 |
| Response_Question_8 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 58 | 76.32 |
| No | 18 | 23.68 |
| Response_Question_9 | Frequency | Percent |
|---|
| Yes | 56 | 73.68 |
| No | 20 | 26.32 |
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_1 |
|---|
I approve of this recommendation because ...it meets the needs of the faculty and students.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... students are often mistaken about the
relative importance of the concentrations and the other requirements.
|
seems like a resonable thing to make sure there is consistancy with the mission.
|
Major concentrations provide depth in the chosen area. Liberal arts background is critical for all students.
|
Well done.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ... most students will leave SJU with the BA / BS as their terminal degree.
|
I note that the sample prose is more widely interpretable than the justificatory preamble of the the question.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... Student should know what they are
responsible bor, and what are the goals and mission of the departments.
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_2 |
|---|
I approve of this recommendation because ...it gives the student a broader education.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ... a broadly educated student should a central goal of a jesuit education
|
"should be" but not required to.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... BUT, a student who is in the HAUB
school already has TWO majors, the GER and the HAUB core and major
requirements. Clearly, if EITHER is reduced in scope (and my preference
is for the GER to be reduced) a minor should be feasible.
|
If they so desire. We need to free up program major constraint to provide this flexibility.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because it makes the point that a moderate depth
study outside the major concentration is desirable.
|
They should be , but it should not be required.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ... students need options in life.
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_3 |
|---|
I approve of this recommendation because ...it gives the student a chance to examine issues in various majors.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... students often lock themselves into
major programs that they regret having chosen once they have the
opportunity to experience the variety of course offerings and
disciplines at the college level
|
The only
reservation I have with this recommendation is that the time of
declaring a major is too early. Students should not declare majors
until their sophomore years.
|
Yes, I believe that it better allows stduents to experience the"academy" as such
|
We should have it so they can wait even longer- say Sept of their 2nd year. We claim t a liberal arts school.
|
Why not even later, i.e., end of sophomore year
|
I approve of
this recommendation because it gives students the opportunity to make a
choice about major that is informed by experience. Although some
disciplines may have been encountered in high school, many others will
not have been.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because it is desirable to make the point that the
choice of major should be a considered one. That said there will be
majors that will require the choice to be made earlier.
|
this is an important issue to me
|
I approve
however I think it a bad idea to discourage/forbid students who have a
pretty good idea of what their major will be from stating a
major/intended major. The terminology "intended major" should be ok.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... Generally, in the sciences students
must being their major courses immediately upon arrival or they will
have to take summer courses. Probably the same is true in business
majors. I think other majors may not be as structured and dependent on
prerequisites and can allow more time for students to make a decision.
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_4 |
|---|
I approve of this recommendation because ...it gives the student a more liberal arts education.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ... I agree with the stated rationale
|
Some major
depaartments just dont and cant see that students majoring in their
field are not declaring an intention to commit themselves and their
waking lives eternally to its study. Rather it is something they have
an interest in learning about amongst other interests!
|
agree in
principle, but there may be differences between divisions, perhaps?
natural sciences may require a higher cap generally than the
humanities, for example? would not like to impose rigid mandates that
are too challenging for disciplines to achieve their academic goals.
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_5 |
|---|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... again, students often become locked
into majors, in particular in the Haub school, before they have the
full oppportunity to experience the array of university offerings. Many
students report (to me) regretting that initial decision.
|
They should at least be able to complete a minor.
|
The number
of courses required for students to complete a major in business is a
too high, so high as to do a disservice to business students. The
business school or individual departments should take steps to reduce
the number of courses required for students to major in business and
there should be a presumptive cap of around 14. It is a scandal that
students in the business school are deprived of the ability to use
electives in a meaningful way, and it is not the GER which is
responsible for this situation. It is the policy of instituting the
Business Core which is responsible and must be changed, not the GER.
|
I strongly agree with this!
|
there is room to consolidate the HSB core to raise rigor and lessen redundancy (HSB faculty member)
|
It is a
travesty that the business school curriculum in this restrictive. In
effect, it denies HSB students access to a liberal arts education,
which remains the core of this university.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ...reviewing is good; nothing irreversible here
|
Essential
that some outside the box thinking occur with respect to what is
necessary course and credit wise to meet AACSB requriements concerning
competencies
|
Yes, but,
this is constrained by AACSB requirements. The answer is not in
reducing the Business core, but, reducing the GEP requirements or even
more so, counting courses such as Business ethics as a GEP requirement
and so on. However, the Business core should be reviewed keeping in
mind AACSB requirements and examining "better" ways of delivery,
especially, if students do not have to declare a major until later
|
However, we must also keep our eye on maintaining the accreditation of the Business program.
|
Does this affect the number of major courses?
|
I approve of this recommendation because all core requirements should be continually reviewed.
|
I approve but applies to flexibility to complete a minor, but not necessarily a second major.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... A minor may be extremely valuable to
these students, particularly in a competitive market.
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_6 |
|---|
I approve of this recommendation because ...so that they are better prepared.
|
Absolutely,
my son was placed in a higher level computer science class and later
found out he could have taken a different class to fulfill that major
requriement. He has no background in computer science and his major is
not computer science.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... in particular, I think that we, at sju,
do a poor job of ensuring that our students have an appropriate and
meaningful first year experience. This sort of concentrated advising
would be one part of a more meaningful frosh experience.
|
Or at least advising should be available
|
This is a great idea, but may in practice be difficult to implement. How is this advising going to take place?
|
Still
mandating 3 theology and 3 philosophy courses runs counter to the
stated goal of "intentional learning"--this needs to change!
|
ABOLUTELY
|
It is
completely unacceptable for incoming students to have no say in the
courses for which they register (beyond declaring a major or division).
|
I approve of this recommendation because ...this is essential IWith this in place I would change my ans to q3
|
This is
essential first step in empowering students and making them accountable
for the educational decisions including course selections they make
|
This is absolutely crucial for our students engagement in the first year programming.
|
theoretically,
sounds good. would not want to burden faculty with these advising
duties during the summer, however. an advising center in both colleges
would be a possible solution.
|
This is extremely important, especially if the student is not declaring a major.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because in principle it is fine. I am not clear
that it can be carried out in the framework of the kind of orientation
that we currently do.
|
I agee but I see some of us working on a 12 month schedule.
|
great idea.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... Some come to SJU thinking it is an
extension of senior year -- fun and games, and are not focused on
career planning, or even on the general goals of "learning".
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_7 |
|---|
I approve of this recommendation because ...it gives them a logical roadmap to follow.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ... i agree with the rationale.
|
I believe there should at least be a core exerience that all of the studetns within a major should have taken.
|
This makes alot of sense!
|
A clear
progression will be more evident in some majors rather than others.
Each department should have the flexibility to design a progression
that best fits the discipline.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ...good in general; vague enough to allow
individual subjects to fit it to their requirements
|
Most
concentration progtrams need more prerequisites listed than currently
obtained - as it is many students take courses that dont lead them to
more advanced, complex nuanced understanding at end of time here
|
when appropriate. not sure this principle suits all disciplines necessarily.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ... This is a firm "maybe" because not all courses need to be in a hierarchy.
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_8 |
|---|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... this is a crucial feature of a
university level education. Students can only understand the difference
between scholarly-level inquiry the sort of inquiry modeled in general
courses by having such opportunities for concentrated learning among
students with similar interests and excited faculty working in their
areas of specialization.
|
of course this should be the case.
|
This will
demand better staffing! We need to have a 3-2 load not a 3-3 load if we
are serious about about ourselves as "preeminent."
|
No
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ...What I REALLY want to vote for is making
sure that harder courses are not forced upon large numbers of unwilling
and unready students. This would gut course and cheat the ready &
willing students
|
Not only
does this aid in development odf membership in community of learners
for students but it enables more rigorous course to be given since do
not need to pitch to such a heterogeneous student group
|
Yes - but. I
would not want to RESTRICT students who are non-majors or non-minors
from taking a course designed for majors and minors. However, we would
not be expected to change the course to accommodate such students.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ...certain course should involve content from courses across the entire curriculum.
|
| Yes_Response_Comments_for_Question_9 |
|---|
I approve of
this recommendation because ...this would allow them to synthesize the
material they have studied and to draw their own conclusions. it also
assists them in constructing logical arguments.
|
I approve of
this recommendation because ... I agree with the rationale. I do think
that each department should have complete control concerning the
stucture and content of such a course.
|
Also a very good idea, but not implementable for small majors, unless done on an independent-study basis.
|
Yes
|
I approve of this recommendation because a unifying course should tie together the strands of a major.
|
Although I agree in principal, some majors with small enrollments might find this recommendation difficult to implement.
|
I approve of this recommendation because ... This is the wave of the future.
|
Capstone should also include some of the integrating experiences from general requirements.
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_1 |
|---|
I just spent
30 minutes filling out this damn thing and now all of my comments have
been deleted. Additionally, for the record, College Council (A & S)
make quite clear to the administration and the elections board that the
forced use of social security numbers for any purpose other than the
payment of salary and taxes was unacceptable. Those who recognized the
danger of this procedure have registered an ID number for voting. Until
this usage becomes part of any other faculty surveys, I will abstain
from participating.
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_2 |
|---|
Some
majors have such burdensome requirements at present that completing the
major and having the ability to complete a minor (6 additional courses)
would require cutting down the General Education Requirement. The GER
should not be cut. In addition, it is often good for individual
students to be able to pursue minors, but this is not the case for
every student.
|
It is unclear the difference between a minor and a second major. Right now it is possible to complete a minor.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ...potentially too restrictive
|
Desirable, but not necessary.
|
Unless the GER is radically reduced, certain majors will preclude the possibility of having a minor.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ...it may compromise /restrict the curriculum of certain majors
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_3 |
|---|
I think if a
students knows what they want they should beable to make such a
declaration. I see no harm in allowing in comming students to declara
their major.
|
Flexibility would allow students the option of declaring a major at any point in their course of study.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ...needs to be linked with
iron-clad guarantees of advisement before freshman courses are chosen
(see q6)
|
Let those that want to declare, do so
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... there are many student who
know exactly where they are going. This has the hint of "paternalism"
which I personally abhor about the attitude of some faculty and the
administration to our students.
|
In most
instances, a declaration of major, or, at least, a declaration of
division, is important information in placing students in their
first-semester courses.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ...some students are very sure
about their choice in major. However, those who are not sure should be
allowed to remain undeclared until certain.
|
Many
students have a good sense of their major. For them it is an advantage
to begin ASAP. It is also beneficial as some majors, such as education,
to begin early as there is little room for electives based upon state
certificaiton requirements.
|
Students in
our program need to declare their major from the very beginning in
order to complete all the certification requirements
|
Students who
are pursuing PA Level I teaching certification have a clearly defined
scope and sequence of courses necessary to follow to assure program
completion within four years.
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_4 |
|---|
I
do not know what a persumptive cap mens but if it is a required cap I
do not agree this should be set individually by the deciplines.
|
caps get to be artifical and the department knows best what is need for a career in their area.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ...not sure of implications
SURVEY PROTOCAL SHOULD ALLOW ME TO LEAVE QUESTIONS UNANSWERED
|
some majors may require more, some less
|
This will be a pro forma and busy work exercise for some majors. Their current course work is mandidated.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... a department is responsible
to provide students majors that meet the needs of their intended
professions.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because it is too vague and does not respond to reality.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ...decisions about major s/b at Dept level
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ...again, this may compromise/restrict certain majors.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... Different accreditation
associations may dictate the number and types of courses.
|
The
Education Department must follow Pennsylvania Department of Education
policies and procedures. With that said, I do not expect that the
students in the Education major will be overburdened with course
requirements.
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_5 |
|---|
Frist, read
what AACSB says, then what the GER will be and then determine whether a
minor or second major is simply a pipe dream.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... Quite the contrary.... My
students in DSS are unable to get the depth of courses in the major to
be more competitive.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ...the GEP should be the first
step in determining how many electives there are, before any mandates
are made at the school level.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ...it should be up to the faculty in the Haub school to make this determination.
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_6 |
|---|
You would first need to implement a Professional Advising Center for CAS to do this.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... I have this thing against
too much hand-holding with students. Provide plenty of information and
let them make their own decisions: good or bad. How else do they learn?
|
If there are
core requirement than this advising can commence during the first
semester rather than infringing upon faculty summer research time
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ...esp w the GEP, there are not
going to be many choices in the first year anyway; puts an undue burden
on advisors.
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_7 |
|---|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... Their are some areas that
are perfectly amenable to a cafeteria approach and to make a blanket
statement is silly.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because it is just motherhood and apple
pie. As Jean Luc Godard put it a film should have a begiining ,a middle
, and an end, but not necessarily in that order.
|
Majors with very few students probably could not comform completely to this recommendation:
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_8 |
|---|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because .as long as a non-major or
non-minor met the prerequisites the student should be able to take
upper division courses in which the student has an interest...
|
Is this
really a problem. If a student in area A wants to take an advanced
course in area B, the he/she should be able to and the teacher should
teach to the majors. Either student will get it or drop the course. If
you want, you could say no pass/fail for this advanced course.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... it once again assumes that
students cannot make good decisions when given appropriate information.
If the course expectations are clearly stated that requirements assume
certain previous knowledge then this issue should be moot.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because it is unneccessary. If the major
is properly constructed this will necessarily be the case.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ...as long as prereqs are met, any student s/b able to be in a class.
|
I strongly
disagree. I majored in the humanities in college, but went on to grad
school in the sciences. This was only possible because I was able to
take senior-level courses in science. We should never discourage any
student from taking an advanced course for which he or she is qualified!
|
Replace the
"should" with " might" and I would approve. Does not make sense to me
to "require" reserved courses for majors and minors.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ... If a student wants to try something, let him/her try.
|
| No_Response_Comments_for_Question_9 |
|---|
This hsould be left to the academic unit.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because .although there are some majors
where this would work in others the final course although drawing on
what the student has learned in previous classes would not integrate
but rather specilaize the student...
|
This may not be practical in some majors.
|
Although I
believe integration at end is essential, not sure it can best be
achieved within major only - I prefer a more inclusive capstone course
|
If possible
this is great, but it seems to me that I cannot speak for whether this
is feasible or indeed even appropriate for all fields of knowledge.
|
Only if its a meaningful experience.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ... Obviously, ALL is a silly
word in this context. Courses frequently build on the knowledge of
prerequisites.
|
I do not approve of this recommendation because ...decisions re majors s/b at Dept level
|
I am
skeptical about mandating a senior capstone experience for my
department; there are a number of different ways of completing a major,
and I do not yet see how a capstone experience (with its implied
standardization) would help achieve integration without narrowing the
field.
|
I do not
approve of this recommendation because ...many majors may benefit from
a capstone course. However, departments/majors should determine this.
|
Contingency Table ===>Question 1 cross Question 10
32.00::29.92 12.00::11.79 8.00::9.07 8.00::9.07 8.00::8.16 68.00
1.00::3.08 1.00::1.21 2.00::0.93 2.00::0.93 1.00::0.84 7.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 4.31
Contingency Table ===>Question 1 cross Question 11
19.00::19.04 22.00::20.85 17.00::18.13 10.00::9.97 68.00
2.00::1.96 1.00::2.15 3.00::1.87 1.00::1.03 7.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 1.44
Contingency Table ===>Question 1 cross Question 12
20.00::19.07 18.00::18.16 8.00::8.17 3.00::2.72 20.00::20.88 69.00
1.00::1.93 2.00::1.84 1.00::0.83 0.00::0.28 3.00::2.12 7.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 1.26
Contingency Table ===>Question 2 cross Question 10
26.00::26.84 11.00::10.57 9.00::8.13 9.00::8.13 6.00::7.32 61.00
7.00::6.16 2.00::2.43 1.00::1.87 1.00::1.87 3.00::1.68 14.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 2.50
Contingency Table ===>Question 2 cross Question 11
17.00::17.08 19.00::18.71 17.00::16.27 8.00::8.95 61.00
4.00::3.92 4.00::4.29 3.00::3.73 3.00::2.05 14.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 0.74
Contingency Table ===>Question 2 cross Question 12
18.00::17.13 18.00::16.32 5.00::7.34 2.00::2.45 19.00::18.76 62.00
3.00::3.87 2.00::3.68 4.00::1.66 1.00::0.55 4.00::4.24 14.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 5.70
Contingency Table ===>Question 3 cross Question 10
21.00::24.20 8.00::9.53 10.00::7.33 8.00::7.33 8.00::6.60 55.00
12.00::8.80 5.00::3.47 0.00::2.67 2.00::2.67 1.00::2.40 20.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 7.49
Contingency Table ===>Question 3 cross Question 11
20.00::15.40 14.00::16.87 14.00::14.67 7.00::8.07 55.00
1.00::5.60 9.00::6.13 6.00::5.33 4.00::2.93 20.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 7.62
Contingency Table ===>Question 3 cross Question 12
19.00::15.47 15.00::14.74 4.00::6.63 1.00::2.21 17.00::16.95 56.00
2.00::5.53 5.00::5.26 5.00::2.37 2.00::0.79 6.00::6.05 20.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 9.56
Contingency Table ===>Question 4 cross Question 10
21.00::23.32 8.00::9.19 8.00::7.07 8.00::7.07 8.00::6.36 53.00
12.00::9.68 5.00::3.81 2.00::2.93 2.00::2.93 1.00::2.64 22.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 3.59
Contingency Table ===>Question 4 cross Question 11
19.00::14.84 17.00::16.25 11.00::14.13 6.00::7.77 53.00
2.00::6.16 6.00::6.75 9.00::5.87 5.00::3.23 22.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 7.84
Contingency Table ===>Question 4 cross Question 12
18.00::14.92 15.00::14.21 4.00::6.39 3.00::2.13 14.00::16.34 54.00
3.00::6.08 5.00::5.79 5.00::2.61 0.00::0.87 9.00::6.66 22.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 7.83
Contingency Table ===>Question 5 cross Question 10
27.00::29.04 11.00::11.44 10.00::8.80 10.00::8.80 8.00::7.92 66.00
6.00::3.96 2.00::1.56 0.00::1.20 0.00::1.20 1.00::1.08 9.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 4.07
Contingency Table ===>Question 5 cross Question 11
20.00::18.48 20.00::20.24 19.00::17.60 7.00::9.68 66.00
1.00::2.52 3.00::2.76 1.00::2.40 4.00::1.32 9.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 8.18
Contingency Table ===>Question 5 cross Question 12
20.00::18.51 19.00::17.63 5.00::7.93 3.00::2.64 20.00::20.28 67.00
1.00::2.49 1.00::2.37 4.00::1.07 0.00::0.36 3.00::2.72 9.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 11.50
Contingency Table ===>Question 6 cross Question 10
25.00::24.64 8.00::9.71 7.00::7.47 9.00::7.47 7.00::6.72 56.00
8.00::8.36 5.00::3.29 3.00::2.53 1.00::2.53 2.00::2.28 19.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 2.61
Contingency Table ===>Question 6 cross Question 11
17.00::15.68 16.00::17.17 16.00::14.93 7.00::8.21 56.00
4.00::5.32 7.00::5.83 4.00::5.07 4.00::2.79 19.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 1.76
Contingency Table ===>Question 6 cross Question 12
15.00::15.75 15.00::15.00 5.00::6.75 2.00::2.25 20.00::17.25 57.00
6.00::5.25 5.00::5.00 4.00::2.25 1.00::0.75 3.00::5.75 19.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 3.82
Contingency Table ===>Question 7 cross Question 10
29.00::28.60 11.00::11.27 10.00::8.67 8.00::8.67 7.00::7.80 65.00
4.00::4.40 2.00::1.73 0.00::1.33 2.00::1.33 2.00::1.20 10.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 2.63
Contingency Table ===>Question 7 cross Question 11
17.00::18.20 20.00::19.93 18.00::17.33 10.00::9.53 65.00
4.00::2.80 3.00::3.07 2.00::2.67 1.00::1.47 10.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 0.96
Contingency Table ===>Question 7 cross Question 12
19.00::18.24 19.00::17.37 8.00::7.82 1.00::2.61 19.00::19.97 66.00
2.00::2.76 1.00::2.63 1.00::1.18 2.00::0.39 4.00::3.03 10.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 9.32
Contingency Table ===>Question 8 cross Question 10
26.00::25.08 11.00::9.88 7.00::7.60 7.00::7.60 6.00::6.84 57.00
7.00::7.92 2.00::3.12 3.00::2.40 3.00::2.40 3.00::2.16 18.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 1.49
Contingency Table ===>Question 8 cross Question 11
16.00::15.96 19.00::17.48 13.00::15.20 9.00::8.36 57.00
5.00::5.04 4.00::5.52 7.00::4.80 2.00::2.64 18.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 2.08
Contingency Table ===>Question 8 cross Question 12
17.00::16.03 17.00::15.26 6.00::6.87 3.00::2.29 15.00::17.55 58.00
4.00::4.97 3.00::4.74 3.00::2.13 0.00::0.71 8.00::5.45 18.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 4.05
Contingency Table ===>Question 9 cross Question 10
25.00::24.20 9.00::9.53 7.00::7.33 6.00::7.33 8.00::6.60 55.00
8.00::8.80 4.00::3.47 3.00::2.67 4.00::2.67 1.00::2.40 20.00
33.00::33.00 13.00::13.00 10.00::10.00 10.00::10.00 9.00::9.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 2.29
Contingency Table ===>Question 9 cross Question 11
16.00::15.40 19.00::16.87 12.00::14.67 8.00::8.07 55.00
5.00::5.60 4.00::6.13 8.00::5.33 3.00::2.93 20.00
21.00::21.00 23.00::23.00 20.00::20.00 11.00::11.00 75.00::75.00
Chi-Sq: 2.92
Contingency Table ===>Question 9 cross Question 12
17.00::15.47 17.00::14.74 5.00::6.63 2.00::2.21 15.00::16.95 56.00
4.00::5.53 3.00::5.26 4.00::2.37 1.00::0.79 8.00::6.05 20.00
21.00::21.00 20.00::20.00 9.00::9.00 3.00::3.00 23.00::23.00 76.00::76.00
Chi-Sq: 4.34
Chi Square Statistics for Question 10 X Questions [1..9] Degrees of Freedom ([10] X [1..9]): 4 Null Hypothesis: Question 10 and Question i=[1..9] are independent.
| Question | Chi Square | Alpha[0.05] | Null Hypothesis |
|---|
| 1 | 4.31 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 2 | 2.50 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 3 | 7.49 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 4 | 3.59 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 5 | 4.07 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 6 | 2.61 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 7 | 2.63 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 8 | 1.49 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 9 | 2.29 | 9.49 | Accepted |
Chi Square Statistics for Question 11 X Questions [1..9] Degrees of Freedom ([11] X [1..9]): 3 Null Hypothesis: Question 11 and Question i=[1..9] are independent.
| Question | Chi Square | Alpha[0.05] | Null Hypothesis |
|---|
| 1 | 1.44 | 7.81 | Accepted | | 2 |
0.74 | 7.81 | Accepted | | 3 | 7.62 | 7.81 | Accepted | | 4 | 7.84 | 7.81 | Rejected | | 5 | 8.18 | 7.81 | Rejected | | 6 | 1.76 | 7.81 | Accepted | | 7 | 0.96 | 7.81 | Accepted | | 8 | 2.08 | 7.81 | Accepted | | 9 | 2.92 | 7.81 | Accepted
� |
Chi Square Statistics for Question 12 X Questions [1..9] Degrees of Freedom ([12] X [1..9]): 4 Null Hypothesis: Question 12 and Question i=[1..9] are independent.
| Question | Chi Square | Alpha[0.05] | Null Hypothesis |
|---|
| 1 | 1.26 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 2 | 5.70 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 3 | 9.56 | 9.49 | Rejected | | 4 | 7.83 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 5 | 11.50 | 9.49 | Rejected | | 6 | 3.82 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 7 | 9.32 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 8 | 4.05 | 9.49 | Accepted | | 9 | 4.34 | 9.49 | Accepted |
|