YPARD China Youth Elite Round Table Discussion
Satisfaction Survey Data Analysis
The survey was conducted at the end of program with an objective to receive immediate feedback of
the participants. A total of 24 participants took part in the survey. Participants were asked different
questions covering their response about pattern of the program, content of the program, participants’
performance and overall organization of the program. They ranked their response in a scale of 1 to 9
where 1 score represents poor performance about the indicator and 9 score represents excellent
performance about the indicator in question. Participants also provided their suggestions for future
program.
The data analysis is presented in following graphs and bar diagrams. The average, standard deviation,
maximum score received and minimum score received has been also analyzed for each indicator.
Pattern
23
Number of Respondents
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
0
1
Poor
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Excellent
[Count 9=15(62.50%), Count 7=1(4.17%), Count 8=6(25.00%), Count 6=1(4.17%), Count 5=1(4.17%)]
62.50 % (15) participants mentioned that they found the pattern of the program most excellent and
choose 9 score in the Scale. 25.00 % (8) participants choose 8 score, which is one point less than the
most excellent score.
The pattern of the program was quite innovative. Participants were first divided into different groups
like Y, P, A, R, D. Each group has several members and the group has a 1 to 4 numerical symbol. Those
1
participants who were relatively young were put in Y group. Those participants who were professionals
were put in P group. The academicians and researchers were put in A group. Resource Persons and
trainers were put into R group and Development professionals were put in D group. This group was used
to introduce with each other. While introducing they stood in two lines facing each other and one line of
participants moved step by step so that each one has chance to introduce themselves with another
participant.
After the introduction session, each participants again regrouped in their respective groups like Y, P, A,
R, D and made symbols representing the letters Y, P, A, R, D by the gesture of their body. After this
session, the participants were grouped by numbers from 1 to 4 so that each group has all kind of
participants from Y, P, A, R and D to carry out the further program.
For the pattern of the program, the average of the response from the satisfaction survey was 8.38 with
standard deviation 1.06. The maximum point obtained was 9 and minimum point obtained was 5.
Content
9
Excellent
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Poor
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Number of Participants
[Count 9=13(54.17%), Count 8=4(16.67%), Count 7=3(12.50%), Count 6=1(4.17%), Count 5=2(8.33%),
Count 3=1(4.17%)]
On the content of the program, 54.17 % (13) participants gave 9 score suggesting that the program was
most excellent in a scale of 1 to 9. It should be also noted that 4.17 % (1) participant choose that the
program was below average by giving 3 points in the scale. 8.33 % (2) participants have chosen it to be
average by giving score 5. About the content the program, participants were asked to vote for top four
challenges that Chinese young professional face during international communications. The top four
challenges were identified to be lack of confidence, funds and support, knowledge gap, etc. In the latter
half of the program participants discussed about how to overcome these challenges. The average
2
obtained by this indicator “content” is 7.88 with a standard deviation of 1.65. The maximum score
obtained was 9 while the minimum score obtained was 3.
Participants Performance
9
Excellent 8
7
6
5
4
8
9
8
6 6
3
9 9
7
9
9
8
9
9 9
9
7
9
9 9
9
8
7
4
2
Poor
8
1
0
1
2 3
4
5 6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Number of Participants
[Count 9=13(54.17%), Count 8=5(20.83%), Count 7=3(12.50%), Count 6=2(8.33%), Count 4=1(4.17%)]
In this program, participants were also very busy by not only casting votes but giving different opinions
about the challenges faced by Young Chinese professionals. 54.17% (13) participants mentioned that
participants’ performance was most excellent. 20.83% (5) participants gave 8 score to the performance
of the participants, which is one score below most excellent. 4.17% (1) participants gave score 4 in a
scale of 1 to 9, indicating the performance of participants was below average. 8.33 % (2) participants
choose that the performance was just above the average giving score 6.
The average obtained by the indicator “Participants Performance” is 8.08 with a standard deviation of
1.32. The maximum point obtained was 9 while the minimum point obtained was 4.
3
Organization
9
Excellent 8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Poor 1
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Number of Respondents
[Count 9=13(54.17%), Count 8=8(33.33%), Count 7=2(8.33%), Count 6=1(4.17%)]
Participants were also called to evaluate the organization of the Program. 54.17 % (13) participants
mentioned that the organization was most excellent giving a score of 9. 33.33 % (8) participants choose
to give score 8. 4.17 % (1) participant choose that it is above average by giving score 6 in a scale of 1 to
9. The score given by participants suggest that the program was well organized.
The average obtained by content indicator is 8.38 with a standard deviation of 0.82. The maximum point
obtained was 9 while the minimum point obtained was 6.
Table 1. Comparison of the score received.
Pattern
Content
Participant Performance
Organization
Average
8.38
7.88
8.08
8.38
St. deviation
1.06
1.65
1.32
0.82
Max
Min
9
9
5
3
9
9
4
6
The maximum average (8.38) was received by two indicators “Pattern” and “Organization” while the
minimum average (7.88) was received by “Content”. The maximum point (9) was received by all
indicators while the minimum score (3) was received “content”.
Major Suggestions given by the Participants
Participants also provided some suggestions for the future activities of YPARD. The major suggestions
are given in the following box.
4
Box 1. Major suggestions given by the Participants
1. Excellent Job. May be there should be more time for another similar program.
2. More Brain storming meeting, like this one, will help YPARD china to grow.
3. Please conduct this type of program more frequently.
4. A little bit problems with people to people exchanges. Not sufficient enough to discuss seriously.
5. Convey the results of the discussion also to the people attending it.
7. Invite more young people to participate.
8. Invite more stakeholders also.
9. Practical content has made participants more active.
10. I think our topic is not so obvious. May be it’s my problem in language but our topic did not focus
on Agriculture.
11. Could be divided into international and Chinese groups, in order to communicate more efficiently.
12. Organize similar activity in local universities.
13. Vote directly by raising hands rather than paste papers, which can save time.
14. Objectives of the discussion should be more specific.
5