CSU East Bay Final scheduling research report

  • 214 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
214
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CSU East Bay Scheduling Research A Study on Issues related to Class Scheduling Prepared ByHumaira Andisha ∙ Maurice Brenyah-Addow ∙ Shalmali Godse ∙ Anupama Sundararajan ∙ Vahe Garagulagian Prepared For Martha Wallace, Director - University SchedulingColin Ormsby, Associate Vice President - Planning & Institutional Research Marketing Research MKTG 6401.01 March 21, 2010
  • 2. Table of Contents1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 3 1.1 CLIENT ORGANIZATION ................................................................................. 3 1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM ................................................................................... 3 1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................................................................... 42 RESEARCH METHODS ........................................................................................... 5 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF DATA ................................................................................. 5 2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHOD ........................................................................ 5 2.3 SAMPLING ....................................................................................................... 6 2.4 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS ........................................................................ 63 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 7 3.1 MAJOR FINDINGS – OLINE SURVEY ............................................................. 7 3.2 MAJOR FINDINGS – INTERVIEW ................................................................. 18 3.3 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. 194 RECCOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 20Appendices ................................................................................................................... 21 Appendix A – Online Questionnaire ........................................................................... 21 Appendix B - Cover Letter .......................................................................................... 28 Appendix C - Research Matrix ................................................................................... 29 Appendix D - SPSS Output Tables ............................................................................ 30 2
  • 3. 1 INTRODUCTIONWithin the framework of the MKTG 6401 and under the guidance of Prof. JagdishAgrawal, a research was conducted for the Planning and Scheduling Department ofCSU East Bay. The focus of the study was to identify student issues and preferencesfor class scheduling.The purpose of this report is to provide information about student class schedulepreferences and to present recommendations for the Planning and SchedulingDepartment of CSU East Bay that will result in improved of class scheduling.This report contains details on factors that necessitated the research, the questions thatthe research sought to answer and the questionnaire that was used to conduct thesurvey. A presentation of the analysis of the survey results, our conclusions drawn fromthe analysis and our recommendations based on these conclusions will complete thisreport.1.1 CLIENT ORGANIZATIONCSU East Bays Planning and Scheduling Department is in charge of allocatingclassrooms and coordinating campus facilities and equipment to different academicdepartments on a quarterly basis and serves as a central planning hub for the entirecampus.Their main objective is to schedule classes in a fashion that it does not allow any classoverlaps, maximizes space utilization, applies scheduling policies, meets pedagogicalneeds and foremost enables students to take the classes they need.1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEMCSU East Bay Scheduling Department’s primary objective is to develop a schedule thatmeets the students’ needs most effectively and efficiently subject to budgetary andcapacity constraints.In order to achieve this goal the department’s problems are identified as follows: 3
  • 4. • Concentration of day time classes that meet on T/TH creates capacity problems • MWF classes have unique pedagogical needs. Students taking Math, Sciences and Pre-Nursing GE classes tend to classes on MWF. From the view point of space utilization, these classes conflict with MW classes during certain hours. • If MW classes are allowed to mirror T/TH classes beginning at noon, MW classes may be likely to be successful, reducing the burden on T/Th. • Assess the overall satisfaction of students with class schedulingThis non uniformity in class concentration has led to, among others, challenges inallocating appropriate facilities for certain types of classes that require similar facilitiessuch as labs or larger classrooms, overlapping times for many core courses, last minutecancellation of classes due to under-enrollment for classes offered on certain days, etc.These problems can be effectively addressed if the department could get a clear senseof students preferences and availability for classes on each day of the week and atwhat specific times of each day.1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVESBased on the Research problem, the following objectives were defined from the viewpoint of the research team: Objective 1: Identify students’ challenges and interest in MW classes Objective 2: Identify reasons for the unusual concentration of T/Th classes Objective 3: Understand the need for one hour time off per week for extra - curricular activities Objective 4: Understand peculiar needs of classes for specific group of students (UG vs grad; sophomore, junior, senior, etc; College major options; and other relevant profiles) Objective5: Identify students’ preference for weekend and online (including hybrid classes). 4
  • 5. 2 RESEARCH METHODSThis chapter discusses the approach the research team took to conduct the research,the kind of data collected (primary or secondary), how it was collected, who it wascollected from, and how respondents were selected in order to achieve the resultspresented in this report.2.1 DESCRIPTION OF DATAThe data needed was primarily of an exploratory nature and involved information onstudents’ demographics and their needs and preferences for taking classes on certaindays and times. The team collected this primary data by means of an online survey thatwas conducted on a random sample of CSUEB students. The Research Matrix inAppendix C demonstrates our objectives and the research questions we considered forthe design of our questionnaire.The survey questionnaire was designed to collect data on student demographics suchas gender, academic standing, employment status, major, etc. The data also includedstudents’ preferences for taking classes on different weekdays and different times of theday in terms of what would be ideal, less ideal and manageable for them. Our questionsalso gathered information about core courses, electives, class size preferences andonline/ hybrid classes.The needed data was derived from answers to the survey questions attached inAppendix A.2.2 DATA COLLECTION METHODAfter designing the survey questions in collaboration with the client organization, theresearch team beta tested the survey questions and made necessary adjustments. Thefinal survey questionnaire was downloaded into the online surveyplatform: SurveyGizmo. Then the link to survey was sent to the randomly selectedsample of 2,777 CSUEB students who took the survey online. 5
  • 6. The research team also conducted interviews with some CSUEB staff and faculty to geta sense how current classes are scheduled and the factors that influence the way thingsare currently done in class scheduling.2.3 SAMPLINGOur sample was drawn from a complete list of all current students at CSU East Bay.The optimal sample size was estimated by the Planning and Scheduling Department at2,777 students and was chosen randomly by following the Simple Probability SamplingProcedure. This procedure grants every element in the population an equal chance ofbeing selected; therefore we are confident that the results presented in this report canbe generalized and represent the entire student population of CSU East Bay.2.4 PROFILE OF RESPONDENTSOf the 2,777 randomly selected students that we sent the questionnaire to, 483 studentsresponded. This is a response rate of 17.4%.Table 1 gives the following snapshot of the profile of respondents:In terms of gender, 30% of respondents were male and 70% were female. In terms ofenrollment status, 88% of respondents were full-time students and 12% were part-time.With regard to year in school, there were 66% Freshmen, 4% Sophomores, 25%Juniors, 47% Seniors, 17% were Graduate students, and 1% Other.Since CSUEB offers both daytime and evening classes, we were interested in thedistribution of students in each category. 35% of the respondents took classes duringthe day, 31% in the evening, and 34% both day and evening.With regard to employment, 2% of respondents were employed full-time and 62% wereemployed part-time with 36% not employed.The research team was also interested in knowing if respondents had family obligationsthat impacted their preferences for taking classes on certain days and times. 27% of therespondents had family obligations while 73% did not have family obligations. 6
  • 7. Table 1 Profile of Respondents3 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSThis chapter discusses the significant findings of the analysis and the conclusions thatcan be drawn from them. All tables referred to in this section are in Appendix D of thisreport.3.1 MAJOR FINDINGS – OLINE SURVEY3.1.1 DAYTIME AND EVENING STUDENTS AND SATISFACTION WITH CLASS TIMINGS (See Tables 2 and 3)Satisfaction with current schedule was measured to find out whether or not the statusquo needs improvement.In order to assess day and evening students’ satisfaction with the current classschedule, students were asked to choose from a 5-point range of satisfaction levelsranging from “Very Satisfied” to Very Unsatisfied. The results show that out of the totalsample population of students, 30% are Unsatisfied, 28% are Neutral, 19% are VeryUnsatisfied, 18% are Satisfied and 5% are Very Satisfied (See Figure 1). 7
  • 8. The research indicates that 33% of Daytime students are Unsatisfied, 30% are Neutralor have no opinion, and 17% are Satisfied and for Evening students, 22% are Satisfied,26% are Unsatisfied, and 21% are Neutral or have no opinion. Conclusion: Most students are unsatisfied with the current class schedule.Figure 1 Current Satisfaction with Scheduling3.1.2 SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT SCHEDULE AND CURRENT STUDENT STATUS (See Tables 4 and 5)In order to assess students’ satisfaction with current students’ status, students wereasked to choose from a 5-point range of satisfaction levels ranging from “Very Satisfied”to Very Unsatisfied. The results show that graduate students are 43% satisfied (moresatisfied compared to other student categories) while Freshmen are mostly neutral orunsatisfied. 47% of Sophomores and 36% of are unsatisfied while Seniors are equallydivided among unsatisfied and neutral.Conclusion: Undergraduates are more unsatisfied with current schedule than Graduatestudents 8
  • 9. 3.1.3 REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION (See Tables 6)Students who expressed dissatisfaction with current schedule were given the option toindicate the main reason(s) for their dissatisfaction. The top three reasons studentsgave for their dissatisfaction are: • Limited Class Offering (96% of sample students) • Class Overlaps (63% of sample students) • Inconvenient class times (53% of sample students) Conclusion: Students are interested in a broader selection of classes offered at convenient times.3.1.4 PREFERRED DAYS FOR TAKING CLASSES ON CAMPUS (See Tables 7-18)Currently, there is a notion that students prefer taking classes on campus on Tuesdaysand Thursdays (TTh) over classes offered on Mondays and Wednesdays (MW). Thishas led to over-concentration of day time classes that meet on Tuesday/Thursday. Toverify the extent to which this notion was legitimate, students were asked to select theirpreference for MW or TTh classes. Table 18 Calculation of relative z-score of above proportions and calculation of mean to find ranking M/W T/Th M/W/F Sa Sun Mon/Wed 0 0.1 -0.81 -0.84 -0.95 Tues/Thurs -0.1 0 -0.77 -0.88 -0.92 Mon/Wed/Fri 0.81 0.77 0 -0.5 -0.61 Sat 0.84 0.88 0.5 0 -0.74 Sun 0.95 0.92 0.61 0.74 0 Total 2.5 2.67 -0.47 -1.48 -3.22 Mean 0.5 0.53 -0.09 -0.30 -0.64 Adding -0.64 across row 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.14 1.17 0.55 0.34 0.00 Ranking #2 #1 #3 #4 #5 9
  • 10. Conclusions: T/TH has a ranking of 1.17 followed by MW with a ranking of 1.14. MWFhas a rank of 0.55. Sat has a rank of 0.34 while Sun has a rank of 0.00. As Figure 2demonstrates, the different between T/TH and MW is very small. Therefore we canassume, that students are likely to prefer both week day combinations equally.Figure 2 Student Preferences for Week Days3.1.5 PREFERRED DAYS FOR TAKING CLASSES ON CAMPUS AND STUDENT STATUS (See Tables 19-22)MW Ranking with Student Status51% of Graduate students and 35% Freshmen ranked Monday/Wednesday as the # 1day combination they prefer to take classes on campus while 47% of Sophomores, 41%of Juniors, and 45% of Seniors ranked Monday/Wednesday as the # 2 day combinationfor taking classes on campus.TTh Ranking with Student Status68% of Sophomores, 46% of Juniors, and 44% of Seniors ranked Tuesday/Thursday asthe #1 day combination they prefer to take classes on campus while 47% of Graduatestudents ranked Tuesday/Thursday as the #2 day combination for taking classes oncampus. 10
  • 11. 29% of Freshmen ranked Tuesday/Thursday #1 and about the same percentage rankedTuesday/Thursday # 2.3.1.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT STATUS AND NUMBER OF TIMES STUDENTS ARE WILLING TO COME TO CAMPUS (See Tables 23 and 24)Information about the number of times students are willing to come to camplus can beuseful in deciding whether class scheduled should be designed to have shorter classesover many days or longer classes over fewer days for which category of students. Inexploring the relationship between “Student Status” and “Number of times students thatare willing to come to campus”, the research showed the following:27% of Freshmen are willing to attend classes 3 Days/ Week and 24% of Freshmen arewilling to attend classes 4 Days/ Week.35% of Sophomores are willing to attend classes 2 Days/ Week and 20% ofSphomores are willing to attend classes 3-4 Days/ Week.45% of Juniors are willing to attend classes 2 Days/ Week and 21% of Juniors arewilling to attend classes 3 Days/ Week.48% of Seniors are willing to attend classes 2 Days/ Week and 18% of Seniors arewilling to take classes 3 Days / Week.57% of Graduat students are willing to attend classes 2 Days/ Week and 13% ofGraduates students are willing to attend classes 1 Day / Week.Conclusion: Most students are willing to attend classes 2-3 days a week. 11
  • 12. Figure 3 Student Preferences for coming to Campus3.1.7 PREFERRED DAYS AND TIMES FOR TAKING CORE CLASSES (See Tables 25 – 36 )Preferred Days and Times for taking Core Classes by Student standingTo better address students’ need to take Core classes at convenient times, studentswere asked to choose from a list of time slots they were likely to take core classes ifoffered. The significant results indicated that: • 48% of Freshmen are likely to take core courses on MWF at 9:20-10:30am • 41 % of Freshmen are likely to take core courses on MW at 8:00-10:00am • 27% of Freshmen are likely to take core courses on MWF at 8:00-9:10am • 30% of Freshmen are neutral about taking core courses on MWF at 12:00- 1:10pm • 25% of Freshmen are neutral about taking core courses on MWF at 10:40- 11:50am • 70% of Sophomores are likely to take core courses on MWF at 10:40-11:50 12
  • 13. • 68% of Sophomores are likely to take core courses on MWF at 12:00-1:10 • 35% of Sophomores are neutral about taking core courses on MW at 8:00-10:00 • 32% of Sophomores are neutral about taking core courses on MWF at 8:00-9:10 • 30% of Sophomores are neutral about taking core courses on TTh at 8:00-10:00 • 43% of all Undergrads are likely to take core courses on TTh at 8:00-10The following are the days and times in order of preference, that students are likely totake Core classes during the week. Day Time 38% TTH 8:00-10:00 37% MWF 10:40-11:50 36% MWF 12:00-1:10 33% MW 8:00-10:00 28% MWF 9:20-10:30 18% MWF 8:00-9:103.1.8 PREFERRED DAYS AND TIMES FOR TAKING OTHER (ELECTIVES) CLASSES (See Tables 37 - 48) Following are “Preferred Days and Times students are open to take Other classes (Electives) “per Student standing: • 25% of Freshmen are likely to take elective courses on MWF at 8-10:00am • 63% of Sophomores are likely to take elective courses on MWF at 10:40-11:50 • 60% of Sophomores are likely to take elective courses on MWF at 12:20-1:10 • 50% of Sophomores are likely to take elective courses on MWF at 9:20-10:30 • 30% of Sophomores are likely to take elective courses on TTh at 8-10 • 20% of Sophomores are neutral abot taking courses on MWF at 12-1:10 13
  • 14. • 40% of Juniors are likely to take elective courses on MW at 8-10 • 28% of Juniors are likely to take elective courses on TTh at 8-10 The following are the days and times in order of preference, that students are likely to take elective classes during the week. Day Time 36% TTH 8-10 34% MWF 12-1:10 33% MWF 10:40-11:50 31% MW 8-10 28% MWF 9:20-10:30 16% MWF 8-103.1.9 PREFERENCE FOR TAKING CORE CLASSES ON SATURDAYS AT WHAT TIMES (See Tables 49 - 53 )The research explored the prospect of offering core classes on Saturdays in order toloosen up tight weekday schedules and address problems such as class overlaps. Theresearch indicates that 52% of students are “Not Interested” or “Not interested at all”,16% are “Neutral” and 31% “Interested’ or “Very Interested”.However, 52% of evening students are interested in taking core classes on Saturdays,in addition to 18% of daytime students. In general, 45% of both day and eveningstudents are interested in taking core classes on Saturdays.In addition to that, 57% of students prefer to come between 9am -12:30pm onSaturdays and 41% prefer to come between 10am-1:30pm on Saturdays for taking coreclasses. 14
  • 15. 3.1.10 PREFERENCE FOR TAKING CORE CLASSES ON SUNDAYS AND TIMES (See Tables 54 – 55)The research explored the prospect of offering core classes on Sundays in order toloosen up tight weekday schedules and address problems such as class overlaps.Theresearch indicates that 71% of students are not interested in taking core classes onSunday classes.3.1.11 PREFERENCE FOR ONLINE AND HYBRID COURSESFigure 4 demonstrates the overall student preferences for online and hybrid courses.The below sections will discuss this in more detail. Figure 4 Preference for Online and Hybrid courses3.1.12 PREFERENCE FOR ONLINE COURSES AND EMPLOYMENT (See Tables 56 - 57)As online courses become more and more mainstream, they offer distant learningoptions and opportunities to ease pressure classroom facilities. The research showedthat 44% of employed students are “Very Interested” in taking Online Courses. These“Very Interested” employed students included 50% of all part-time workers and 40% ofall full-time workers. 15
  • 16. Also, 25% of employed students are “Interested” in taking Online Courses while 23%are “Not Interested”27% of the “Not Interested” students are not employed. 20% of the “Not Interested”students are employed full time and 20% of the “Not Interested” students are employedpart time.Conclusion: 44% of employed students are “Very Interested” and 25% of employedstudents are “Interested” in taking online courses.3.1.13 ONLINE COURSES AND STUDENT STATUS (See Tables 58 – 59)In order to understand which category of students is more interested in online courses,the following statistics were calculated. The research showed that 44% of all studentsare interested in online courses. 53% of Undergraduates and 39% of Graduatestudents are “Very Interested” in Online Courses while 45% of Freshmen are “NotInterested” and 23% of Freshmen are “Not Interested at all”Conclusion: Most undergraduates are interested in taking online courses.3.1.14 ONLINE COURSES AND FAMILY OBLIGATIONS (See Tables 60 – 61)Hypothesizing that family obligations was correlated to interesting online courses, therelationship between the two values were explored. The research showed that 44% ofall students are “Very Interested” in online courses and 60% of the “Very Interested”students have family obligations while 40% of the “Very Interested” students have nofamily obligations.Conclusion: Most students with family obligations are interested in taking onlinecourses.3.1.15 HYBRID COURSES AND NUMBER OF TIMES STUDETNTS ARE WILLING TO COME TO CAMPUS (See Tables 62 – 63)Hybrid courses would also offer students and faculty more options to complete coursesas well as loosen the demand for physical classroom facilities and improve scheduling 16
  • 17. of classes. The research indicated that 34% of students interested in Hybrid courses arewilling to come to campus 1-2 days per week.3.1.16 HYBRID AND GENDER (See Tables 64 – 65)The gender of students interested in hybrid courses might be useful for planning classesfor certain majors like nursing that is likely to have a high female enrolment.The research indicated that 59% of students are “Very Interested” or “Interested” and63% of these are Females.20% of total student population are either “Not Interested” or ”Not Interested” at all (ofthis, 27% are males and 17% are females).3.1.17 HYBRID/FAMILY OBLIGATIONS (See Table 66 -67)Just like online classes, it was hypothesized that students with family obligations wouldbe interested in hybrid courses since it offered them the flexibility of distance learning.The research results indicated that almost 65% of students with family obligations areinterested. 20% were not sure.3.1.18 EXTRA CURRICULA ACTIVITIES AND DAYS AND TIMES (See Tables 68 – 69)The research indicated that 45% of all students had no preference or no opinion on aday and times in the week for extra-curricula activities. Of the remaining 55% ofstudents, 17% prefer Wednesdays and 16% prefer Fridays from 12:00-3:00 on bothdays.3.1.19 FAMILY OBLIGATIONS/EMPLOYMENT (See Tables 70– 72)In analyzing relationship between Family Obligations and Employment he researchindicated that the relationship is “Not Significant” since p> 0.05. 17
  • 18. 3.1.20 INTERVIEW WITH FACULTYInterviews with faculty indicated that students have expressed interest to take courseson Tuesdays/Thursdays over all other weekdays in the past. Hence the currentscheduling pattern.3.2 MAJOR FINDINGS – INTERVIEWCertain classes are offered on certain particular days for one particular departmentbecause past surveys have indicated that students preferred core courses to be offeredon Tuesday/Thursday. This allowed them to work on MWF and TTh after 4pm. • Classes offered on MWF (mostly electives) are shorter in time. • It is worth noting that the TTh demand has lessened a bit due to online options.In terms of factors normally considered in preparing class schedules, it was indicatedthat since all students have to take the core courses the department pays attention tohow often core courses are offered. They try to spread the core courses throughout theyear instead of concentrating them on any one particular quarter while electives on theother hand are offered one per quarterAs to whether the department simply uses the schedule for previous academic year forsubsequent years, it was indicated that If enough students enroll, every course isoffered every year and the pattern is repeated. If not enough students are enrolled, thenit might be different. The department prepares the schedule for the whole academicyear and makes it available online so students can plan ahead. The department tries tomake it as easy possible and convenient as possible for students so they can completecourses as efficiently as possible. They also try to maintain some consistency sostudents can count on it. 18
  • 19. 3.3 CONCLUSIONSThe following are our conclusions based on the major findings:3.3.1 STUDENT SATISFACTIONThe study of our sample population revealed that students are dissatisfied with classscheduling. The level of dissatisfaction among undergraduate students is high.Graduate students are however more satisfied with their class schedules thanundergraduate students. The top three reasons listed for dissatisfaction are: • 96% of the sampled population listed limited class offerings as the top reason for dissatisfaction. • 63% of sampled population listed class overlaps as the second top reason for dissatisfaction. • 53% of sampled population listed inconvenient class timings as the top third reason for dissatisfaction.3.3.2 PREFERRED DAYS AND TIME TO TAKE CORE AND OTHER CLASSESThere is no significant difference between student’s preference for classes offered onTuesdays/Thursdays and classes offered on Mondays/Wednesdays. • Most students, both graduates and undergraduates, prefer coming to campus two days a week or lesser. • Students are more likely to take core courses on Tuesdays/Thursdays between 8am -10am or on Mondays/Wednesdays/Fridays between the time slots of 10am -1.10pm. • Students are likely to take non core courses on Tuesdays/Thursdays between 8am-10am and Mondays/Wednesdays/Fridays between the time slot of 10am - 11:50am.3.3.3 STUDENT PREFERENCE FOR TAKING CORE CLASSES ON SATURDAYStudents are about evenly split on taking core courses on Saturdays. Of thoseinterested, 57% prefer taking the course on Saturday between the time slot of 9am-12:30pm. Most students are not interested in taking core courses on Sundays. 19
  • 20. 3.3.4 STUDENT PREFERNCE FOR TAKING ONLINE AND HYBRID CLASSES69% of the entire sampled student population is interested in taking online classes. Thedemand is also very high for hybrid classes (63%). It is not surprisingly that about 70%of either full-time or part-time employed students indicated an interest in takingonline/hybrid classes. 63% students that are interested in Hybrid courses are Females.This may be useful for planning courses for certain majors, like nursing, for examplethat is likely to have high female enrollment.3.3.5 PREFERRED DAY AND TIME FOR EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIESOf the 55% students who expressed opinions about extra-curricular activities, 17%preferred Wednesdays and 16% preferred Fridays between the time slot of 12pm-3pmon both days.4 RECCOMMENDATIONSBased on our findings we recommend the following scheduling approaches:4.1.1 For Undergraduates • Offer more Monday/Wednesday/Friday classes for freshman and sophomores. • Offer Monday/Wednesday and online classes for juniors. • Offer more Tuesday/Thursday and online classes for seniors. • Offer Saturday classes for seniors. • Offer online classes for junior and seniors.4.1.2 Graduate Students • Offer core classes on Saturday between 9.30am-1.00pm. • Do not offer online classes.4.1.3 Day and time for extracurricular activities Offer extracurricular activities either on Wednesdays or Fridays between 12pm – 3pm. 20
  • 21. AppendicesAppendix A – Online QuestionnaireOnline Questionnaire p. 1 21
  • 22. Online Questionnaire - Version 1: p. 1 p. 2 22
  • 23. Online Questionnaire p. 3 23
  • 24. Online Questionnaire p. 4 24
  • 25. Online Questionnaire p. 5 25
  • 26. Online Questionnaire p. 6 26
  • 27. Online Questionnaire p. 7 27
  • 28. Appendix B - Cover LetterDear Student:I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to complete a survey regarding classscheduling at Cal State East Bay.Please follow the link below and take 3 - 5 minutes to complete this online survey. Thesurvey will ask you questions regarding your current classroom schedule and how youfeel about alternative class schedules. Your responses will be very useful and help usmake better use of our classroom facilities.All your responses will be kept completely confidential. Any information gathered inthrough this survey will be reported in the aggregate and will only be used by theUniversity.http://s-fip38-244656.sgizmo.com/i/50279e00000p62488Thank you for your assistance in this important survey. If you have any furtherquestions please contact the University Scheduling Office atacademic_scheduling@csueastbay.edu.Sincerely,Martha Lucero WallaceDirector, University Scheduling 28
  • 29. Appendix C - Research Matrix Research Data Needed Research Questions Source Objective (secondary or primary) 1.1 Do students find it attractive/ unattractive to take classes on MW? And Why? 1.2 Does the schedules presented by the1. Identify students’ University allow them to take classes challenges and on MW (they may not find required Primary Survey interest in MW courses on MW, fewer classes are classes offered which get full very quickly, etc.)? 1.3 Are they interested in more MW classes?2. Why are classes 2.2 Is it because of habit that unusually departments are scheduling classes that Primary Interview concentrated on way without thinking about M/W T/Th?3. Understand the 3.1 If students would be interested in need for one hour having one hour time off for club time off per week Primary Ssurvey activities and what day/time would for extra -curricular be ideal for them? activities.4. Understand 4.1 UG vs grad; sophomore, junior, peculiar needs of senior. Primary Survey classes for specific 4.2 College major options group of students 4.3 Other relevant profiles5. Identify students’ 5.1 Will students be willing to attend preference for classes on weekend or online? Primary Survey weekend and 5.2 other relevant profiles online classes 29
  • 30. Appendix D - SPSS Output TablesSATISFACTION WITH CLASS TIMINGSTable 2. Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 20.899a 8 .007Likelihood Ratio 19.488 8 .012Linear-by-Linear Association .012 1 .914N of Valid Cases 434a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 6.09.Table 3 Crosstab Class timings Mostly during day In the time evening Both TotalSatisfaction- Very Unsatisfied Count 29 21 34 84scheduling % within Class 18.0% 18.3% 21.5% 19.4% timings Unsatisfied Count 53 30 46 129 % within Class 32.9% 26.1% 29.1% 29.7% timings neutral Count 48 24 48 120 % within Class 29.8% 20.9% 30.4% 27.6% timings Satisfied Count 28 26 24 78 % within Class 17.4% 22.6% 15.2% 18.0% timings Very satisfied Count 3 14 6 23 % within Class 1.9% 12.2% 3.8% 5.3% timingsTotal Count 161 115 158 434 % within Class 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% timings 30
  • 31. SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT SCHEDULE / CURRENT STUDENT STANDINGTable 4 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 41.019a 20 .004Likelihood Ratio 38.425 20 .008Linear-by-Linear Association 7.582 1 .006N of Valid Cases 435a. 10 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .05.Table 5 Crosstab Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to another Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate school TotalSatisfaction- Very Count 4 2 24 45 9 0 84 scheduling Unsatisfied % 14.3% 10.5% 23.1% 21.5% 12.2% .0% 19.3% within Current unit status Unsatisfied Count 8 9 37 60 14 1 129 % 28.6% 47.4% 35.6% 28.7% 18.9% 100.0% 29.7% within Current unit status Neutral Count 10 6 26 60 19 0 121 % 35.7% 31.6% 25.0% 28.7% 25.7% .0% 27.8% within Current unit status Satisfied Count 6 2 15 35 20 0 78 % 21.4% 10.5% 14.4% 16.7% 27.0% .0% 17.9% within Current unit status Very Count 0 0 2 9 12 0 23 satisfied % .0% .0% 1.9% 4.3% 16.2% .0% 5.3% within Current unit statusTotal Count 28 19 104 209 74 1 435 31
  • 32. Crosstab Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to another Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate school TotalSatisfaction- Very Count 4 2 24 45 9 0 84 scheduling Unsatisfied % 14.3% 10.5% 23.1% 21.5% 12.2% .0% 19.3% within Current unit status Unsatisfied Count 8 9 37 60 14 1 129 % 28.6% 47.4% 35.6% 28.7% 18.9% 100.0% 29.7% within Current unit status Neutral Count 10 6 26 60 19 0 121 % 35.7% 31.6% 25.0% 28.7% 25.7% .0% 27.8% within Current unit status Satisfied Count 6 2 15 35 20 0 78 % 21.4% 10.5% 14.4% 16.7% 27.0% .0% 17.9% within Current unit status Very Count 0 0 2 9 12 0 23 satisfied % .0% .0% 1.9% 4.3% 16.2% .0% 5.3% within Current unit statusTotal Count 28 19 104 209 74 1 435 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% within Current unit status 32
  • 33. REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTIONTable 6 $lll Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent Cases$llla Limited class offerings 231 30.9% 95.9% 2 151 20.2% 62.7% 3 44 5.9% 18.3% 4 135 18.1% 56.0% 5 79 10.6% 32.8% 6 11 1.5% 4.6% 7 94 12.6% 39.0% 8 2 .3% .8%Total 747 100.0% 310.0%a. GroupTable 7 MW s c hedule preferred * T T h s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount TTh schedule preferred #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rank TotalMW schedule preferred #1 rank 0 128 5 1 1 135 #2 rank 151 0 13 0 1 165 #3 rank 10 14 0 5 4 33 #4 rank 3 1 5 0 26 35 # 5 rank 2 0 3 23 0 28Total 166 143 26 29 32 396Table 8 MW s c hedule preferred * MW F s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount MWF schedule preferred #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rank TotalMW schedule preferred #1 rank 0 6 96 13 19 134 #2 rank 8 0 118 15 21 162 #3 rank 13 4 0 7 8 32 #4 rank 7 7 14 0 6 34 # 5 rank 1 6 17 4 0 28Total 29 23 245 39 54 390 33
  • 34. Table 9 MW s c hedule preferred * S aturday s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount Saturday schedule preferred Total #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rankMW schedule preferred #1 rank 0 3 21 95 7 126 #2 rank 5 0 22 113 19 159 #3 rank 7 6 0 15 3 31 #4 rank 5 16 10 0 3 34 # 5 rank 5 13 6 0 0 24Total 22 38 59 223 32 374Table 10 MW s c hedule preferred * S unday s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount Sunday schedule preferred Total #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rankMW schedule preferred #1 rank 0 0 8 16 107 131 #2 rank 1 0 6 31 124 162 #3 rank 2 7 0 2 18 29 #4 rank 19 8 2 0 0 29 # 5 rank 17 5 1 0 0 23Total 39 20 17 49 249 374Table 11 T T h s c hedule preferred * MW F s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount MWF schedule preferred #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rank TotalTTh schedule preferred #1 rank 0 4 119 18 27 168 #2 rank 15 0 95 11 21 142 #3 rank 8 5 0 9 5 27 #4 rank 2 6 16 0 4 28 # 5 rank 9 7 15 6 0 37Total 34 22 245 44 57 402Table 12 T T h s c hedule preferred * S aturday s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount 34
  • 35. Saturday schedule preferred #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rank TotalTTh schedule preferred #1 rank 0 6 24 109 20 159 #2 rank 2 0 20 102 9 133 #3 rank 10 2 0 10 2 24 #4 rank 5 14 5 0 1 25 # 5 rank 3 17 10 2 0 32Total 20 39 59 223 32 373Table 13 T T h s c hedule preferred * S unday s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount Sunday schedule preferred #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rank TotalTTh schedule preferred #1 rank 0 3 7 30 119 159 #2 rank 1 0 6 17 112 136 #3 rank 2 4 0 2 17 25 #4 rank 17 6 2 0 1 26 # 5 rank 27 7 2 0 0 36Total 47 20 17 49 249 382T able 14 MW F s c hedule preferred * S aturday s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulationCount Saturday schedule preferred #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rank TotalMWF schedule preferred #1 rank 0 3 4 17 5 29 #2 rank 1 0 11 6 2 20 #3 rank 4 25 0 184 24 237 #4 rank 9 7 20 0 1 37 # 5 rank 9 4 25 14 0 52Total 23 39 60 221 32 375 35
  • 36. Table 15 MW F s c hedule preferred * S unday s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulation Count Sunday schedule preferred #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rank Total MWF schedule preferred #1 rank 0 6 2 1 19 28 #2 rank 11 0 0 0 8 19 #3 rank 27 3 0 22 188 240 #4 rank 4 6 1 0 32 43 #5 2 6 15 27 0 50 rank Total 44 21 18 50 247 380 Table 16 S aturday s c hedule preferred * S unday s c hedule preferred C ros s tabulation Count Sunday schedule preferred Total #1 rank #2 rank #3 rank #4 rank # 5 rankSaturday #1 rank 0 12 0 2 5 19schedule #2 rank 27 0 4 1 4 36preferred #3 rank 10 6 0 24 18 58 #4 rank 2 1 12 0 206 221 # 5 rank 1 1 0 24 0 26Total 40 20 16 51 233 360Table 17 Proportions Mon/Wed/Fr Mon/Wed Tues/Thur i Sat SunMon/Wed 0.00 0.54 0.21 0.20 0.17Tues/Thur 0.46 0.00 0.22 0.19 0.18Mon/Wed/Fri 0.79 0.78 0.00 0.31 0.27Sat 0.69 0.81 0.69 0.00 0.23Sun 0.83 0.82 0.73 0.77 0.00 36
  • 37. Table 18Calculation of relative z-score of above proportions andcalculation of mean to find ranking M/W T/Th M/W/F Sa SunMon/Wed 0 0.1 -0.81 -0.84 -0.95Tues/Thurs -0.1 0 -0.77 -0.88 -0.92Mon/Wed/Fri 0.81 0.77 0 -0.5 -0.61Sat 0.84 0.88 0.5 0 -0.74Sun 0.95 0.92 0.61 0.74 0Total 2.5 2.67 -0.47 -1.48 -3.22Mean 0.5 0.53 -0.09 -0.30 -0.64Adding -0.64across row 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 1.14 1.17 0.55 0.34 0.00Ranking #2 #1 #3 #4 #5PREFERRED DAYS FOR TAKING CLASSES ON CAMPUSPreference for Monday/WednesdayTable 19 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 44.997a 24 .006Likelihood Ratio 40.472 24 .019Linear-by-Linear Association 5.152 1 .023N of Valid Cases 425a. 16 cells (45.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .08. 37
  • 38. Table 20 Preference for Monday/Wednesday MW schedule preferred * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to Not another Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Grad. sure school TotalMW #1 Count 9 5 35 65 37 0 1 152schedule rank % within 34.6% 29.4% 32.7% 32.5% 51.4% .0% 100.0% 35.8%preferred Current unit status #2 Count 5 8 44 90 22 2 0 171 rank % within 19.2% 47.1% 41.1% 45.0% 30.6% 100.0% .0% 40.2% Current unit status #3 Count 8 1 11 10 4 0 0 34 rank % within 30.8% 5.9% 10.3% 5.0% 5.6% .0% .0% 8.0% Current unit status #4 Count 1 0 7 21 6 0 0 35 rank % within 3.8% .0% 6.5% 10.5% 8.3% .0% .0% 8.2% Current unit status #5 Count 3 3 10 14 3 0 0 33 rank % within 11.5% 17.6% 9.3% 7.0% 4.2% .0% .0% 7.8% Current unit statusTotal Count 26 17 107 200 72 2 1 425 % within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0 100.0% 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % % unit statusTable 21 Preference for Tuesday/Thursday Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 42.371a 24 .012Likelihood Ratio 34.751 24 .072Linear-by-Linear Association .001 1 .979N of Valid Cases 427a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .06. 38
  • 39. Table 22 Preference for Tuesday/Thursday TTh schedule preferred * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to Not another Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalTTh #1 Count 7 11 48 91 23 2 0 182schedule rank % 29.2% 68.8% 46.2% 44.0% 31.5% 100.0% .0% 42.6%preferred within Current unit status #2 Count 7 4 37 65 34 0 0 147 rank % 29.2% 25.0% 35.6% 31.4% 46.6% .0% .0% 34.4% within Current unit status #3 Count 3 0 4 12 7 0 1 27 rank % 12.5% .0% 3.8% 5.8% 9.6% .0% 100.0% 6.3% within Current unit status #4 Count 4 1 8 12 4 0 0 29 rank % 16.7% 6.3% 7.7% 5.8% 5.5% .0% .0% 6.8% within Current unit status #5 Count 3 0 7 27 5 0 0 42 rank % 12.5% .0% 6.7% 13.0% 6.8% .0% .0% 9.8% within Current unit statusTotal Count 24 16 104 207 73 2 1 427 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% within Current unit status 39
  • 40. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT STATUS AND NUMBER OF TIMES STUDENTS AREWILLING TO COME TO CAMPUSTable 23 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 61.708a 30 .001Likelihood Ratio 55.035 30 .004Linear-by-Linear Association 21.370 1 .000N of Valid Cases 475a. 22 cells (52.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .04.Table 24 Days per week on campus * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalDays per 1 day/ Count 0 1 4 17 11 1 0 34week on week % within .0% 5.0% 3.3% 7.7% 13.4% 50.0% .0% 7.2%campus Current unit status 2 days/ Count 5 7 51 105 47 1 0 216 week % within 17.2% 35.0% 42.5% 47.5% 57.3% 50.0% .0% 45.5% Current unit status 3 days Count 8 4 25 40 10 0 1 88 /week % within 27.6% 20.0% 20.8% 18.1% 12.2% .0% 100.0% 18.5% Current unit status 4 days/ Count 7 4 18 29 4 0 0 62 week % within 24.1% 20.0% 15.0% 13.1% 4.9% .0% .0% 13.1% Current unit status 5 Count 6 1 4 9 1 0 0 21 days/w % within 20.7% 5.0% 3.3% 4.1% 1.2% .0% .0% 4.4% eek Current unit status As Count 3 3 18 21 9 0 0 54 often % within 10.3% 15.0% 15.0% 9.5% 11.0% .0% .0% 11.4% as Current require unit d statusTotal Count 29 20 120 221 82 2 1 475 40
  • 41. Days per week on campus * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalDays per 1 day/ Count 0 1 4 17 11 1 0 34week on week % within .0% 5.0% 3.3% 7.7% 13.4% 50.0% .0% 7.2%campus Current unit status 2 days/ Count 5 7 51 105 47 1 0 216 week % within 17.2% 35.0% 42.5% 47.5% 57.3% 50.0% .0% 45.5% Current unit status 3 days Count 8 4 25 40 10 0 1 88 /week % within 27.6% 20.0% 20.8% 18.1% 12.2% .0% 100.0% 18.5% Current unit status 4 days/ Count 7 4 18 29 4 0 0 62 week % within 24.1% 20.0% 15.0% 13.1% 4.9% .0% .0% 13.1% Current unit status 5 Count 6 1 4 9 1 0 0 21 days/w % within 20.7% 5.0% 3.3% 4.1% 1.2% .0% .0% 4.4% eek Current unit status As Count 3 3 18 21 9 0 0 54 often % within 10.3% 15.0% 15.0% 9.5% 11.0% .0% .0% 11.4% as Current require unit d statusTotal Count 29 20 120 221 82 2 1 475 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusPREFERRED DAYS AND TIMES FOR TAKING CORE CLASSESCORE CLASS OFFERED ON M/WTable 25 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 53.702a 24 .000Likelihood Ratio 58.100 24 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 15.386 1 .000N of Valid Cases 458 41
  • 42. Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 53.702a 24 .000Likelihood Ratio 58.100 24 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 15.386 1 .000N of Valid Cases 458a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .12.Table 26 Core classes- M/W 8-10 am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to Fresh Not another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalCore Very Count 8 5 41 90 53 2 1 200classes Unlikely % 29.6% 25.0% 36.6% 41.5% 67.1% 100.0% 100.0% 43.7%- M/W within8-10 Currentam unit status Unlikely Count 3 3 11 29 10 0 0 56 % 11.1% 15.0% 9.8% 13.4% 12.7% .0% .0% 12.2% within Current unit status Neutral Count 5 7 20 21 2 0 0 55 % 18.5% 35.0% 17.9% 9.7% 2.5% .0% .0% 12.0% within Current unit status Likely Count 6 4 21 33 12 0 0 76 % 22.2% 20.0% 18.8% 15.2% 15.2% .0% .0% 16.6% within Current unit status Very Count 5 1 19 44 2 0 0 71 Likely % 18.5% 5.0% 17.0% 20.3% 2.5% .0% .0% 15.5% within Current unit statusTotal Count 27 20 112 217 79 2 1 458 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% within Current unit status 42
  • 43. Table 27 CORE CLASS OFFERED ON T/TH Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 54.102a 24 .000Likelihood Ratio 56.663 24 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 16.953 1 .000N of Valid Cases 460a. 17 cells (48.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .10.Table 28 Core classes- Tu/Th 8-10 am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalCore Very Count 8 4 36 79 52 2 1 182classes Unlikely % 28.6% 20.0% 32.4% 36.1% 65.8% 100.0% 100.0% 39.6%- Tu/Th within8-10 Currentam unit status Unlikely Count 2 2 9 27 8 0 0 48 % 7.1% 10.0% 8.1% 12.3% 10.1% .0% .0% 10.4% within Current unit status Neutral Count 6 6 16 24 3 0 0 55 % 21.4% 30.0% 14.4% 11.0% 3.8% .0% .0% 12.0% within Current unit status Likely Count 7 4 25 32 12 0 0 80 % 25.0% 20.0% 22.5% 14.6% 15.2% .0% .0% 17.4% within Current unit status Very Count 5 4 25 57 4 0 0 95 Likely % 17.9% 20.0% 22.5% 26.0% 5.1% .0% .0% 20.7% within Current unit statusTotal Count 28 20 111 219 79 2 1 460 43
  • 44. Core classes- Tu/Th 8-10 am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalCore Very Count 8 4 36 79 52 2 1 182classes Unlikely % 28.6% 20.0% 32.4% 36.1% 65.8% 100.0% 100.0% 39.6%- Tu/Th within8-10 Currentam unit status Unlikely Count 2 2 9 27 8 0 0 48 % 7.1% 10.0% 8.1% 12.3% 10.1% .0% .0% 10.4% within Current unit status Neutral Count 6 6 16 24 3 0 0 55 % 21.4% 30.0% 14.4% 11.0% 3.8% .0% .0% 12.0% within Current unit status Likely Count 7 4 25 32 12 0 0 80 % 25.0% 20.0% 22.5% 14.6% 15.2% .0% .0% 17.4% within Current unit status Very Count 5 4 25 57 4 0 0 95 Likely % 17.9% 20.0% 22.5% 26.0% 5.1% .0% .0% 20.7% within Current unit statusTotal Count 28 20 111 219 79 2 1 460 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% within Current unit statusCORE CLASS OFFERED ON M/W/F 8-9:10Table 29 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 50.696a 24 .001Likelihood Ratio 55.135 24 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 15.874 1 .000N of Valid Cases 442a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .08. 44
  • 45. Table 30 Core classes- M/W/F 8-9:10am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalCore Very Count 10 3 55 109 57 2 1 237classes Unlikely % within 34.5% 15.8% 50.9% 52.7% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0% 53.6%- M/W/F Current8- unit9:10am status Unlikely Count 4 7 18 35 6 0 0 70 % within 13.8% 36.8% 16.7% 16.9% 7.9% .0% .0% 15.8% Current unit status Neutral Count 7 6 13 27 3 0 0 56 % within 24.1% 31.6% 12.0% 13.0% 3.9% .0% .0% 12.7% Current unit status Likely Count 5 3 8 18 9 0 0 43 % within 17.2% 15.8% 7.4% 8.7% 11.8% .0% .0% 9.7% Current unit status Very Count 3 0 14 18 1 0 0 36 Likely % within 10.3% .0% 13.0% 8.7% 1.3% .0% .0% 8.1% Current unit statusTotal Count 29 19 108 207 76 2 1 442 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusTable 31 CORE CLASS OFFERED ON M/W/F 9:20-10:30 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 67.087a 24 .000Likelihood Ratio 65.147 24 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 22.672 1 .000N of Valid Cases 452a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .13. 45
  • 46. Table 32 Core classes- M/W/F 9:20-10:30am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalCore Very Count 5 1 45 84 50 1 0 186classes- Unlikely % within 18.5% 5.3% 39.8% 39.1% 66.7% 50.0% .0% 41.2%M/W/F Current9:20- unit10:30a statusm Unlikely Count 4 6 15 36 11 1 0 73 % within 14.8% 31.6% 13.3% 16.7% 14.7% 50.0% .0% 16.2% Current unit status Neutral Count 5 3 16 40 4 0 0 68 % within 18.5% 15.8% 14.2% 18.6% 5.3% .0% .0% 15.0% Current unit status Likely Count 9 8 16 28 7 0 0 68 % within 33.3% 42.1% 14.2% 13.0% 9.3% .0% .0% 15.0% Current unit status Very Count 4 1 21 27 3 0 1 57 Likely % within 14.8% 5.3% 18.6% 12.6% 4.0% .0% 100.0% 12.6% Current unit statusTotal Count 27 19 113 215 75 2 1 452 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusCORE CLASS OFFERED ON M/W/F 10:40-11:20Table 33 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 41.668a 24 .014Likelihood Ratio 42.438 24 .012Linear-by-Linear Association 17.054 1 .000N of Valid Cases 453a. 16 cells (45.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .12. 46
  • 47. Table 34 Core classes- M/W/F 10:40-11:50am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalCore Very Count 6 1 45 81 44 1 0 178classes- Unlikely % within 21.4% 5.0% 40.2% 38.0% 57.1% 50.0% .0% 39.3%M/W/F Current10:40- unit11:50am status Unlikely Count 2 3 12 28 10 1 0 56 % within 7.1% 15.0% 10.7% 13.1% 13.0% 50.0% .0% 12.4% Current unit status Neutral Count 7 2 12 28 6 0 0 55 % within 25.0% 10.0% 10.7% 13.1% 7.8% .0% .0% 12.1% Current unit status Likely Count 6 8 22 36 10 0 1 83 % within 21.4% 40.0% 19.6% 16.9% 13.0% .0% 100.0% 18.3% Current unit status Very Count 7 6 21 40 7 0 0 81 Likely % within 25.0% 30.0% 18.8% 18.8% 9.1% .0% .0% 17.9% Current unit statusTotal Count 28 20 112 213 77 2 1 453 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusTable 35 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 39.236a 24 .026Likelihood Ratio 39.890 24 .022Linear-by-Linear Association 11.373 1 .001N of Valid Cases 452a. 17 cells (48.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .12. 47
  • 48. Table 36 Core classes- M/W/ F 12:00-1:10pm * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalCore Very Count 6 1 44 81 44 1 0 177classes- Unlikely % within 22.2% 5.3% 39.3% 37.9% 57.1% 50.0% .0% 39.2%M/W/ F Current12:00- unit1:10pm status Unlikely Count 3 2 12 35 7 0 0 59 % within 11.1% 10.5% 10.7% 16.4% 9.1% .0% .0% 13.1% Current unit status Neutral Count 7 3 16 23 5 0 0 54 % within 25.9% 15.8% 14.3% 10.7% 6.5% .0% .0% 11.9% Current unit status Likely Count 6 8 20 40 13 1 1 89 % within 22.2% 42.1% 17.9% 18.7% 16.9% 50.0% 100.0% 19.7% Current unit status Very Count 5 5 20 35 8 0 0 73 Likely % within 18.5% 26.3% 17.9% 16.4% 10.4% .0% .0% 16.2% Current unit statusTotal Count 27 19 112 214 77 2 1 452 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusTable 37 OTHER (ELECTIVES): M/W Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 40.135a 24 .021Likelihood Ratio 45.009 24 .006Linear-by-Linear Association 10.929 1 .001N of Valid Cases 456a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .12. 48
  • 49. Table 38 Other classes- M/W 8-10 am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to Fresh Not another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalOther Very Count 9 7 38 93 50 2 1 200classes Unlikely % within 32.1% 35.0% 34.5% 42.7% 64.9% 100.0% 100.0% 43.9%- M/W Current8-10 unitam status Unlikely Count 5 4 15 28 11 0 0 63 % within 17.9% 20.0% 13.6% 12.8% 14.3% .0% .0% 13.8% Current unit status Neutral Count 6 4 13 23 7 0 0 53 % within 21.4% 20.0% 11.8% 10.6% 9.1% .0% .0% 11.6% Current unit status Likely Count 4 4 22 27 7 0 0 64 % within 14.3% 20.0% 20.0% 12.4% 9.1% .0% .0% 14.0% Current unit status Very Count 4 1 22 47 2 0 0 76 Likely % within 14.3% 5.0% 20.0% 21.6% 2.6% .0% .0% 16.7% Current unit statusTotal Count 28 20 110 218 77 2 1 456 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusOTHER (ELECIVES) - TTHTable 39 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 47.328a 24 .003Likelihood Ratio 50.603 24 .001Linear-by-Linear Association 17.575 1 .000N of Valid Cases 458a. 17 cells (48.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .12. 49
  • 50. Table 40 Other classes- Tu/Th 8-10 am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalOther Very Count 6 6 37 83 49 2 1 184classes- Unlikely % within 21.4% 30.0% 33.0% 38.1% 63.6% 100.0% 100.0% 40.2%Tu/Th Current 8-10 am unit status Unlikely Count 4 2 12 27 9 0 0 54 % within 14.3% 10.0% 10.7% 12.4% 11.7% .0% .0% 11.8% Current unit status Neutral Count 7 4 12 26 8 0 0 57 % within 25.0% 20.0% 10.7% 11.9% 10.4% .0% .0% 12.4% Current unit status Likely Count 7 6 20 31 8 0 0 72 % within 25.0% 30.0% 17.9% 14.2% 10.4% .0% .0% 15.7% Current unit status Very Count 4 2 31 51 3 0 0 91 Likely % within 14.3% 10.0% 27.7% 23.4% 3.9% .0% .0% 19.9% Current unit statusTotal Count 28 20 112 218 77 2 1 458 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusM/W/F 8-9:10Tale 41 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 39.444a 24 .025Likelihood Ratio 40.229 24 .020Linear-by-Linear Association 15.537 1 .000N of Valid Cases 444a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .08. 50
  • 51. Table 42 Other classes- M/W/F 8-9:10am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalOther Very Count 11 7 53 116 54 2 1 244classes- Unlikely % within 39.3% 36.8% 48.6% 55.2% 72.0% 100.0% 100.0% 55.0%M/W/F 8- Current9:10am unit status Unlikely Count 2 3 20 36 7 0 0 68 % within 7.1% 15.8% 18.3% 17.1% 9.3% .0% .0% 15.3% Current unit status Neutral Count 8 7 13 27 7 0 0 62 % within 28.6% 36.8% 11.9% 12.9% 9.3% .0% .0% 14.0% Current unit status Likely Count 4 2 8 16 6 0 0 36 % within 14.3% 10.5% 7.3% 7.6% 8.0% .0% .0% 8.1% Current unit status Very Count 3 0 15 15 1 0 0 34 Likely % within 10.7% .0% 13.8% 7.1% 1.3% .0% .0% 7.7% Current unit statusTotal Count 28 19 109 210 75 2 1 444 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusTable 43 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 64.598a 24 .000Likelihood Ratio 58.339 24 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 24.420 1 .000N of Valid Cases 445a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .10. 51
  • 52. Table 44 Other classes- M/W/F 9:20-10:30am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalOther Very Count 4 2 42 87 43 1 0 179classes- Unlikely % within 14.8% 10.0% 37.8% 41.0% 59.7% 50.0% .0% 40.2%M/W/F Current9:20- unit10:30am status Unlikely Count 3 2 13 42 10 1 0 71 % within 11.1% 10.0% 11.7% 19.8% 13.9% 50.0% .0% 16.0% Current unit status Neutral Count 10 6 15 31 9 0 0 71 % within 37.0% 30.0% 13.5% 14.6% 12.5% .0% .0% 16.0% Current unit status Likely Count 7 9 22 35 7 0 0 80 % within 25.9% 45.0% 19.8% 16.5% 9.7% .0% .0% 18.0% Current unit status Very Count 3 1 19 17 3 0 1 44 Likely % within 11.1% 5.0% 17.1% 8.0% 4.2% .0% 100.0% 9.9% Current unit statusTotal Count 27 20 111 212 72 2 1 445 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusTable 45 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 53.354a 24 .001Likelihood Ratio 53.019 24 .001Linear-by-Linear Association 22.715 1 .000N of Valid Cases 449a. 18 cells (51.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .14. 52
  • 53. Table 46 Other classes- M/W/F 10:40-11:50am * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalOther Very Count 5 1 42 79 45 1 0 173classes- Unlikely % within 18.5% 5.3% 37.8% 37.1% 59.2% 50.0% .0% 38.5%M/W/F Current10:40- unit11:50am status Unlikely Count 1 2 14 36 8 1 0 62 % within 3.7% 10.5% 12.6% 16.9% 10.5% 50.0% .0% 13.8% Current unit status Neutral Count 7 4 11 35 8 0 0 65 % within 25.9% 21.1% 9.9% 16.4% 10.5% .0% .0% 14.5% Current unit status Likely Count 9 8 21 35 9 0 0 82 % within 33.3% 42.1% 18.9% 16.4% 11.8% .0% .0% 18.3% Current unit status Very Count 5 4 23 28 6 0 1 67 Likely % within 18.5% 21.1% 20.7% 13.1% 7.9% .0% 100.0% 14.9% Current unit statusTotal Count 27 19 111 213 76 2 1 449 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusTable 47 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 41.892a 24 .013Likelihood Ratio 40.855 24 .017Linear-by-Linear Association 16.377 1 .000N of Valid Cases 449a. 17 cells (48.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .13. 53
  • 54. Table 48 Other classes- M/W/ F 12:00-1:10pm * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisite s to transfer Fresh Not to another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalOther Very Count 5 2 39 84 44 1 0 175classes- Unlikely % within 18.5% 10.0% 35.5% 39.4% 57.9% 50.0% .0% 39.0%M/W/ F Current12:00- unit1:10pm status Unlikely Count 2 2 16 31 6 0 0 57 % within 7.4% 10.0% 14.5% 14.6% 7.9% .0% .0% 12.7% Current unit status Neutral Count 5 4 17 33 6 0 0 65 % within 18.5% 20.0% 15.5% 15.5% 7.9% .0% .0% 14.5% Current unit status Likely Count 10 8 18 37 13 1 0 87 % within 37.0% 40.0% 16.4% 17.4% 17.1% 50.0% .0% 19.4% Current unit status Very Count 5 4 20 28 7 0 1 65 Likely % within 18.5% 20.0% 18.2% 13.1% 9.2% .0% 100.0% 14.5% Current unit statusTotal Count 27 20 110 213 76 2 1 449 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusPREFERENCE FOR TAKING CORE CLASSES ON SATURDAYS AND TIMESPREFERRED CLASS TIMINGSTable 49 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 48.240a 8 .000Likelihood Ratio 48.829 8 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 4.127 1 .042N of Valid Cases 477 54
  • 55. Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 48.240a 8 .000Likelihood Ratio 48.829 8 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 4.127 1 .042N of Valid Cases 477a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 16.53.Table 50 Core class preference on Saturday * Class timings Crosstabulation Class timings Mostly during In the day time evening Both TotalCore class preference on Not interested Count 73 33 64 170Saturday at all % within Class 43.2% 22.6% 39.5% 35.6% timings Not interested Count 38 17 25 80 % within Class 22.5% 11.6% 15.4% 16.8% timings Not sure Count 28 21 29 78 % within Class 16.6% 14.4% 17.9% 16.4% timings Interested Count 23 46 26 95 % within Class 13.6% 31.5% 16.0% 19.9% timings Very Interested Count 7 29 18 54 % within Class 4.1% 19.9% 11.1% 11.3% timingsTotal Count 169 146 162 477 % within Class 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% timingsTable 51 SAT CLASS WITH CURRENT UNIT STATUS Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value Df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 147.157a 12 .000Likelihood Ratio 149.483 12 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 36.071 1 .000N of Valid Cases 482a. 6 cells (28.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .31. 55
  • 56. Table 52 Class timings * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to Fresh Not another man Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate sure school TotalClass Mostly Count 24 15 54 73 4 0 0 170timings during % within 82.8% 75.0% 44.6% 32.3% 4.8% .0% .0% 35.3% day Current time unit status In the Count 1 0 31 52 63 1 0 148 evening % within 3.4% .0% 25.6% 23.0% 75.9% 50.0% .0% 30.7% Current unit status Both Count 4 5 36 101 16 1 1 164 % within 13.8% 25.0% 29.8% 44.7% 19.3% 50.0% 100.0% 34.0% Current unit statusTotal Count 29 20 121 226 83 2 1 482 % within 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current % unit statusTIMINGS FOR SAT CLASSTable 53 $NEWSATCORE Frequencies Responses Percent of N Percent CasesNEWSATCOREa 8AM TO 11:30AM 48 17.9% 32.0% 2 86 32.1% 57.3% 3 61 22.8% 40.7% 4 36 13.4% 24.0% 5 37 13.8% 24.7%Total 268 100.0% 178.7%a. Group 56
  • 57. PREFERENCE FOR TAKING CORE CLASSES ON SUNDAYS AND TIMESTable 54 SUNDAY CORE Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 23.796a 8 .002Likelihood Ratio 24.407 8 .002Linear-by-Linear Association 3.040 1 .081N of Valid Cases 477a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 10.17.Table 55 Core class preference on Sunday * Class timings Crosstabulation Class timings Mostly during day In the time evening Both TotalCore class preference on Not interested Count 109 74 95 278Sunday at all % within Class 64.5% 50.3% 59.0% 58.3% timings Not interested Count 27 13 21 61 % within Class 16.0% 8.8% 13.0% 12.8% timings Not sure Count 17 20 21 58 % within Class 10.1% 13.6% 13.0% 12.2% timings Interested Count 12 23 12 47 % within Class 7.1% 15.6% 7.5% 9.9% timings Very Interested Count 4 17 12 33 % within Class 2.4% 11.6% 7.5% 6.9% timingsTotal Count 169 147 161 477 % within Class 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% timingsPREFERENCE FOR ONLINE COURSES:Table 56 WITH EMPLOYMENT Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 18.266a 8 .019Likelihood Ratio 19.241 8 .014Linear-by-Linear Association 10.702 1 .001N of Valid Cases 477 57
  • 58. Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 18.266a 8 .019Likelihood Ratio 19.241 8 .014Linear-by-Linear Association 10.702 1 .001N of Valid Cases 477a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .84.Table 57 Online for major * Employment status Crosstabulation Employment status Not Employed Full Employed part Employed time time TotalOnline for Not interested Count 30 0 33 63major at all % within Employment 17.3% .0% 11.2% 13.2% status Not interested Count 18 2 25 45 % within Employment 10.4% 20.0% 8.5% 9.4% status Not sure Count 21 1 18 40 % within Employment 12.1% 10.0% 6.1% 8.4% status Interested Count 46 3 70 119 % within Employment 26.6% 30.0% 23.8% 24.9% status Very Interested Count 58 4 148 210 % within Employment 33.5% 40.0% 50.3% 44.0% statusTotal Count 173 10 294 477 % within Employment 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% statusTable 58 ONLINE/WITH CURRENT UNITS Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 52.220a 24 .001Likelihood Ratio 45.394 24 .005Linear-by-Linear Association 6.793 1 .009N of Valid Cases 479a. 17 cells (48.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .09. 58
  • 59. Table 59 Online for major * Current unit status Crosstabulation Current unit status taking prerequisites to transfer to Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Not sure another school TotalOnline Not Count 9 2 18 21 13 0 0 63for interested % within 31.0% 10.5% 14.9% 9.3% 15.9% .0% .0% 13.2%major at all Current unit status Not Count 4 2 9 23 6 1 0 45 interested % within 13.8% 10.5% 7.4% 10.2% 7.3% 50.0% .0% 9.4% Current unit status Not sure Count 3 4 16 8 10 0 1 42 % within 10.3% 21.1% 13.2% 3.6% 12.2% .0% 100.0% 8.8% Current unit status Interested Count 7 4 34 53 21 0 0 119 % within 24.1% 21.1% 28.1% 23.6% 25.6% .0% .0% 24.8% Current unit status Very Count 6 7 44 120 32 1 0 210 Interested % within 20.7% 36.8% 36.4% 53.3% 39.0% 50.0% .0% 43.8% Current unit statusTotal Count 29 19 121 225 82 2 1 479 % within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Current unit status Table 60 Online/FAMILY OBLIGATIONS Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided) Pearson Chi-Square 12.450a 4 .014 Likelihood Ratio 12.809 4 .012 Linear-by-Linear Association 2.805 1 .094 N of Valid Cases 470 a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10.72. 59
  • 60. Table 61 Online for major * Family obligations Crosstabulation Family obligations No Yes TotalOnline for major Not interested at all Count 47 16 63 % within Family obligations 13.7% 12.7% 13.4% Not interested Count 35 9 44 % within Family obligations 10.2% 7.1% 9.4% Not sure Count 29 11 40 % within Family obligations 8.4% 8.7% 8.5% Interested Count 98 20 118 % within Family obligations 28.5% 15.9% 25.1% Very Interested Count 135 70 205 % within Family obligations 39.2% 55.6% 43.6%Total Count 344 126 470 % within Family obligations 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%HYBRIDTable 62 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 48.886a 20 .000Likelihood Ratio 51.812 20 .000Linear-by-Linear Association 21.294 1 .000N of Valid Cases 454a. 7 cells (23.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is 1.53. 60
  • 61. Table 63 Hybrid for major * Days per week on campus Crosstabulation Days per week on campus As often 1 2 3 4 5 as day/week days/week days/week days/week days/week required TotalHybrid Not Count 2 15 15 11 3 9 55for interested % within 6.3% 7.4% 17.6% 18.3% 14.3% 17.0% 12.1%major at all Days per week on campus Not Count 2 14 5 3 2 7 33 interested % within 6.3% 6.9% 5.9% 5.0% 9.5% 13.2% 7.3% Days per week on campus Not sure Count 7 35 15 16 9 14 96 % within 21.9% 17.2% 17.6% 26.7% 42.9% 26.4% 21.1% Days per week on campus Interested Count 5 53 23 23 1 12 117 % within 15.6% 26.1% 27.1% 38.3% 4.8% 22.6% 25.8% Days per week on campus Very Count 16 86 27 7 6 11 153 Interested % within 50.0% 42.4% 31.8% 11.7% 28.6% 20.8% 33.7% Days per week on campusTotal Count 32 203 85 60 21 53 454 % within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Days per week on campusTable 64 HYBRID/GENDER Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 18.350a 8 .019Likelihood Ratio 16.964 8 .030Linear-by-Linear Association 6.632 1 .010N of Valid Cases 457a. 5 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is .14. 61
  • 62. Table 65 Hybrid for major * Gender Crosstabulation Gender Male Female Other TotalHybrid for major Not interested at all Count 21 37 0 58 % within Gender 15.8% 11.5% .0% 12.7% Not interested Count 15 18 0 33 % within Gender 11.3% 5.6% .0% 7.2% Not sure Count 28 66 2 96 % within Gender 21.1% 20.5% 100.0% 21.0% Interested Count 37 81 0 118 % within Gender 27.8% 25.2% .0% 25.8% Very Interested Count 32 120 0 152 % within Gender 24.1% 37.3% .0% 33.3%Total Count 133 322 2 457 % within Gender 100.0 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %HYBRID/FAMILY OBLIGATIONSTable 66 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square 10.919a 4 .027Likelihood Ratio 10.870 4 .028Linear-by-Linear Association 5.181 1 .023N of Valid Cases 451a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expectedcount is 8.63. 62
  • 63. Table 67 Hybrid for major * Family obligations Crosstabulation Family obligations No Yes TotalHybrid for major Not interested at all Count 44 13 57 % within Family obligations 13.2% 11.0% 12.6% Not interested Count 28 5 33 % within Family obligations 8.4% 4.2% 7.3% Not sure Count 72 23 95 % within Family obligations 21.6% 19.5% 21.1% Interested Count 92 24 116 % within Family obligations 27.6% 20.3% 25.7% Very Interested Count 97 53 150 % within Family obligations 29.1% 44.9% 33.3%Total Count 333 118 451 % within Family obligations 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIESTable 68 Extra curricular activity- Day Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent PercentValid Monday 31 6.4 6.4 6.4 Tuesday 41 8.5 8.5 14.9 Wednesday 81 16.8 16.8 31.7 Thursday 39 8.1 8.1 39.8 Friday 75 15.5 15.5 55.3 No opinion 216 44.7 44.7 100.0 Total 483 100.0 100.0Table 69 Extra curricular activity- Time Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent PercentValid Before noon 40 8.3 8.3 8.3 Between noon to 3 pm 113 23.4 23.5 31.9 Between 3 pm to 6 pm 78 16.1 16.3 48.1 Between 6 pm to 9 pm 74 15.3 15.4 63.5 No opinion 175 36.2 36.5 100.0 Total 480 99.4 100.0Missing System 3 .6Total 483 100.0 63
  • 64. Table 70 Extra curricular activity- Time * Extra curricular activity- Day Crosstabulation Extra curricular activity- Day No Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday opinion TotalExtra Before Count 10 3 8 4 9 6 40curricular noon % within 32.3% 7.3% 9.9% 10.3% 12.0% 2.8% 8.3%activity- ExtraTime curricular activity- Day Between Count 10 18 34 14 23 14 113 noon to 3 % within 32.3% 43.9% 42.0% 35.9% 30.7% 6.6% 23.5% pm Extra curricular activity- Day Between 3 Count 5 10 22 10 19 12 78 pm to 6 % within 16.1% 24.4% 27.2% 25.6% 25.3% 5.6% 16.3% pm Extra curricular activity- Day Between 6 Count 3 7 13 10 21 20 74 pm to 9 % within 9.7% 17.1% 16.0% 25.6% 28.0% 9.4% 15.4% pm Extra curricular activity- Day No opinion Count 3 3 4 1 3 161 175 % within 9.7% 7.3% 4.9% 2.6% 4.0% 75.6% 36.5% Extra curricular activity- DayTotal Count 31 41 81 39 75 213 480 % within 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Extra curricular activity- DayFAMILY OBLIGATIONS/EMPLOYMENTTable 71 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2- Value df sided)Pearson Chi-Square .196a 2 .906Likelihood Ratio .188 2 .910Linear-by-Linear Association .001 1 .981N of Valid Cases 473a. 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimumexpected count is 2.42. 64
  • 65. Table 72 Employment status * Family obligations Crosstabulation Family obligations No Yes TotalEmployment status Not Employed Count 126 46 172 % within Family obligations 36.4% 36.2% 36.4% Employed Full time Count 6 3 9 % within Family obligations 1.7% 2.4% 1.9% Employed part time Count 214 78 292 % within Family obligations 61.8% 61.4% 61.7%Total Count 346 127 473 % within Family obligations 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65