Research Project - Phase IV
Appendix A: Example of Letter of Agreement with Course Instructors
January 18, 2000
Ingrid Tirado School of Business Administration
Universidad Metropolitana
Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez
Dear Ingrid:
This letter confirms our agreement and outlines the essential conditions of our research. Please understand
this formality is necessary to clarify expectations, schedule the appropriate courses, request the participation
of the necessary experts, and secure the funds and instruments to carry out the study to its completion.
Thus, we agree:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Your teaching schedule for the second semester (Spring, 2000) includes two sections of Economic
Principles and Problems (ECON 121); one to be taught for the School for Professional Studies (
Programa AHORA) and the other according to the regular schedule of Universidad Metropolitana.
The text for both sections will be the same.
In both course sections, to the extent possible, your teaching content, materials, and methods
will be as nearly identical as time-in-class and your professional judgment for the best interest of
your students will allow. Considering these three dimensions of teaching, it is reasonable to expect
at least an eighty percent or better overlap between the two sections of this course.
Our research team in consultation with the faculty experts will create a final performance task that
is congruent with the central objectives of your course. Your grade for this assessment will not
exceed twenty percent of the student’s final grade.
Our research team will provide an end-of-course survey to assess students’ perceptions of general
course quality.
Our research team will continuously inform and assist you to make this study a respectful and
excellent experience for you and your students. Your queries and feedback are welcome at any
time.
We are delighted you have consented to participate in this study. As one of only four teachers to be involved
in the second semester (Spring) you are critical to a better understanding of learning as it is uniquely
approached in the School for Professional Studies (Programa AHORA) of the Ana G. Méndez University
System.
Please sign at the bottom of this letter to acknowledge your understanding of the above agreements. Keep a
copy for yourself and return the original to Luis Iturralde. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call.
Thank you for your trust and the opportunity to affirm Universidad Metropolitana as an excellent teaching
institution and important contributor to knowledge in adult learning.
Sincerely,
Raymond J. Wlodkowski, Ph.D.
Research Faculty
Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ________________________
c Luis Iturralde-Albert
Appendix B: End-of-Course Evaluation - Part I
Marking Instructions:Make solid marks that fill the response completely. Erase cleanly any marks you wish
to change.
Read each statement and fill in the circle that best describes your activities and feelings.
1. What is your exact age?
2. What is your gender?
1
O
O
O
Male
2
O
O
O
Female
3
O
O
4
O
O
5
O
O
6
O
O
7
O
O
8
O
O
9
O
O
0
O
O
3. This course is...(mark only
one answer)
O
Relevant to my career
goals.
O
Somewhat relevant to
my career goals.
O
Irrelevant to my career
goals.
O
Difficult to judge,
because I'm not that
clear about my career
goals.
4. As a generalization...(mark only one answer)
O I prefer accelerated courses to traditional courses.
O I prefer traditional courses to accelerated courses
O
It depends on the situation and the type of course as to whether I will prefer either a traditional or
accelerated course.
O I don't know much about accelerated courses.
O I don't know much about traditional courses.
5. What is the highest degree you currently
hold? What degree are you seeking now?
What is the highest degree you plan to
seek in the future? (mark only one in each
column that applies)
Degree
Current
Highest
Currently
Seeking
Plan
to
Seek
Bachelor’s
Degree
O
O
O
Master’s
Degree
O
O
O
Doctoral
Degree
O
O
O
6. What were your top two (2) primary reasons for attending
this college? (mark from the list below)
O
Cost
O
Availability of Scholarship or
Financial Aid
O
Admissions
Standards
O
Advice of Parents or Relatives
O
Size
O
To be with Friends
O
Social
Atmosphere
O
Other
O
Location
O
Type of Programs
O
Academic
reputation
O
7a. What is your annual household
income?
O
Less Than
$15,000
O
$61,000–
$75,000
O
$15,000–
$25,999
O
$76,000–
$99,999
O
$26,000–
$40,000
O
$100,000 or
More
O
$41,000–
$60,999
8. If you could start college over, would you
choose to attend this college?
O
Definitely Yes
Accelerated
courses
7b. What is the highest level of formal education obtained by
your parents? (mark one in each column)
Mother
Father
O
O
Grammar School or Less
O
O
Some High School
O
O
High School Graduate
O
O
Some College
O
O
College Degree
O
O
Some Graduate School
O
O
Graduate Degree
9. If you could start college
over, would you choose to
graduate with the same
major?
O Probably Yes
O
Definitely Yes
O Uncertain
O
Probably Yes
O Probably No
O
Uncertain
O
O
Probably No
O
Definitely No
Definitely No
10. The current job in which
you are employed is a: (mark
only one)
O
Full time position
O
Part time position
O
Self employed
O
Not employed – at my
choice
O
Not employed –
looking for work
* If employed, please list
position title below:
__________________
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1. The course text was a good resource for achieving the course
objectives.
O
O
O
O
2. Overall, this course was a valuable learning experience.
O
O
O
O
3. The teacher was knowledgeable about the course subject area.
O
O
O
O
4. The teacher was not a skilled instructor.
O
O
O
O
5. I would recommend this course to others.
O
O
O
O
6. The course module and/or syllabus served as an effective learning
guide.
O
O
O
O
7. The teacher did not respect student opinions and ideas.
O
O
O
O
8. I have used information or skills that I have learned in this course.
O
O
O
O
9. Class time was used effectively.
O
O
O
O
10. This course was relevant to my goals.
O
O
O
O
11. This course helped me to be effective at what I value.
O
O
O
O
12. The classroom climate for this course was friendly and respectful.
O
O
O
O
13. Given the way this course was taught, I feel confident about using what
I learned.
O
O
O
O
14. This course challenged me to think.
O
O
O
O
15. This course encouraged critical thinking.
O
O
O
O
16. This course was not well taught.
O
O
O
O
17. The teaching methods in this course helped me to learn.
O
O
O
O
18. The grading standards for this course required college level
performance.
O
O
O
O
19. I felt included in this course.
O
O
O
O
20. This course was meaningful for me.
O
O
O
O
21. The way I have been evaluated in this course, thus far, seems fair.
O
O
O
O
22. The way I have been evaluated in this course, thus far, seems sensitive
to my capabilities.
O
O
O
O
Appendix B: End of Course Evaluation - Part II
These items have been added to provide a better understanding of the relationship between your
experience and the results of this evaluation.
22. Please indicate the number of accelerated courses you have taken._________
1. I have _____ years of work experience.
2. Most of my work has been in the area/s of______________________________
________________________________________________________________________
If I had to offer my main purpose for taking this course, it would be to
____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Appendix C: Final Exams and Performance Tasks
Read each question below carefully and answer each of them in the answer sheets provided. You have 90
minutes to answer the questions.
I.
This is a scheme of the functions of the demand and supply of wheat.
Possible Prices
Amount Demanded
Amount Supplied
A
10
11
24
B
9
13
19
C
8
15
15
D
7
20
12
E
6
26
9
A.
B.
Make a chart with the curves of the demand and supply and the equilibrium situation.
Explain what would happen if any of the five scenarios below were to occur, while the
other elements remain constant:
1.
If there is a $1.00 increase to the equilibrium price determined?
2.
If there is an increase in the income of this product’s consumers?
3.
If the firms that produce this product undergo a technological improvement?
4.
If the company has to increase the hourly wages of its employees?
5.
If there is an increase in the number of consumers of this product?
Assume that you are the chief executive officer of a company that works the following markets:
Perfect Competition, Monopolistic Competition, Oligopoly and Monopoly. Please answer in simple,
complete sentences the questions below for each of these markets:
o How would you visualize the demand situation of the consumers for your product?
o What, if anything, could you do to increase your sales?
o Take into consideration the characteristics of these markets, including the type of product
(homogeneous/heterogeneous) and the barriers to enter the market.
D. Perfect Competition.
E. Monopolistic Competition.
F. Oligopoly.
G. Monopoly.
II.
HIST 251
Read each question below carefully and answer each of them on the answer sheets provided. Lay the basis
for each of your answers. You have 90 minutes to answer the questions.
1.
A.
2.
What similarity does there exist between slave traders and those who today engage in the
traffic of undocumented aliens?
B. How are they different?
C. Are there any valid reasons to justify either one of these groups?
st
In the 21 century, how could one explain the following statement that was used to justify the
smuggling?
To punish the population for engaging in the crime of smuggling is to afflict the afflicted.
MANA 404
Read each question below carefully and answer each of them on the answer sheets provided. You have 90
minutes to answer the questions.
I.
II.
Compare labor-management practices in the United States with those in Puerto Rico. As part of the
comparison, point out how they are alike and how they differ. Please be specific in your answer.
Based on the following situation, answer the questions posed below:
On January 7, 2000, the Office of the National Labor Relations Board gave its authorization to hold
an election for representation at the company Empacadoras San Juan, Inc. The purpose was to
determine whether Union Local 526 could represent the employees in the collective bargaining
agreement negotiations.
The elections were held on January 26 of that same year, at the company facilities. The voting took
place between 6:15 and 7:45 a.m., for the first shift of employees, and between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m.,
for the second shift. Approximately 15 minutes before the voting began, a group of employees
entered the company with T-shirts, caps and slogans that alluded to the union and the benefit of
being represented by the union. The employees that were exercising their right to vote would linger
near the voting room in support of their fellow workers. Roberto Perez, from management, went by
the front of the voting room, and when he saw the support being given by the group of employees,
told them that if they had already voted, they had to leave the company premises or surroundings.
The employees who had already voted obeyed and left the company facilities.
At the end of the day, the union had obtained representation of the appropriate unit by a margin of
one vote. The company immediately objected the election for violations of the labor relations act on
the grounds that the workers’ conduct on the day of the elections, through various means, showed
that they supported the representation of the unit.
The union alleges that the argument presented by the company is trivial and has the purpose of
engaging in dilatory practices and of opposing to negotiate with the exclusive representative of the
workers, something that constitutes unfair labor practice and negotiation in bad faith.
Please, give the basis for each of your answer to the questions below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What is an appropriate work unit?
Does the workers’ conduct on the day of the election constitute illicit practice?
Discuss whether the representation of the employees to negotiate collectively can be obtained by
one vote.
Discuss the employer’s objection with respect to negotiating in bad faith.
When is the union barred from making manifestations or from calling the employees to the strike
line?
May the employees on the day of the elections for representation make statements in support of
unionization?
Is a collective bargaining agreement signed with an union that has obtained representation by a
margin of one vote valid?
MANA 131
Read the case below carefully and answer the related questions presented at the end of the case. You have
90 minutes to complete this exercise.
This case concerns a company engaged in the sale of specialized software for use in the banking industry.
The support and warranty service offered by the company is done primarily over the telephone. Therefore,
the technicians that take the phone calls are located inside independent terminals. That is so because the
company’s philosophy is individualistic. The employees are considered to be “individual contributors” and
are evaluated based on the number of calls that they process at the end of the week. At the beginning of
very year, each employee is assigned a quota, and they are required to increase the number of phone calls
to be processed compared to the previous year. As an incentive to meet the quota, the employee who
reaches it receives a bonus.
A great number of those who buy this software, which is configured according to the needs of each specific
client, call to report the various problems they encounter. The calls are taken at three different tiers. First, by
technicians without a lot of experience who will answer basic questions. If the problem is too difficult, it is
routed to a second tier. The technicians in tier two have more training and experience and are able to take
more calls. If needed, the call is routed to the third tier, which has programmers that know the system or
software from the bottom up and are able to help the client reprogram it, and thus solve the problem.
Each tier consists of a specialized unit with a manager who is responsible for managing the volume of work
and for the evaluation of the employee’s performance. It is not surprising that some rivalry and mistrust exist
among personnel from the various tiers since each one of them believes that his or her job is essential to
solve the problems that the clients face, and the employee feels that the job performed by the other two tiers
is unnecessary.
The managers have a territorial mindset and this does not allow for good coordination between the groups.
Sometimes the second tier managers say that their tier is too busy, and this is very hard to verify since each
technician is “hidden” inside a separate cubby-hole. This situation results in service held up for one day and
sometimes even weeks while those tiers get their workload up to date. In the meantime, the frustrated
clients have possibly called in again only to find that they had to start anew the entire process with the firsttier technician.
In general, clients never contact the same technicians twice, unless they can remember who waited on them
the first time. In addition, the poor coordination that exists between the three tiers makes the situation worse,
since the technicians at tier one never find out to whom the client is referred, and sometimes they do not
even know if the client they are referring at the moment had been waited on. The clients often seem upset
because they have been transferred from one tier to another without their problem being solved. Clients are
not only transferred from one service area to another, but occasionally the phone call is interrupted. Client
satisfaction level was mediocre. While there was no other competition, this situation did not affect the
company; but when at the beginning of the year another firm introduced a new, excellent product, similar to
what they were offering, this meant problems for this company.
To confront and correct the situation, the service unit general manager hires a business consultant who
studies the situation and recommends that the unit be reorganized in work teams comprised of the three
tiers of technicians. A client would be referred to a team, and that team would be collectively responsible for
solving the client’s problem. Each team would have a coordinator responsible for channeling the client
through the resource in each team. Everyone agreed: the change would solve the whole problem.
The new system was explained at a meeting in which the entire company attended. Big organizational
diagrams and charts showing the team layout decorated the walls. The company policy handbooks were
rewritten and the team coordinators, some of which had been managers of the various tiers and others who
had been programmers in the past, went through a rigorous training that lasted two days. The date that the
new system was to be put in effect was announced, and each team met with the general manager, who
stressed the importance of the change and his own personal commitment to make it work.
When the new system was finally implemented, there were problems, as it always happens when changes
take place, but no one worried too much. A little more than two months have gone by and it is evident that
the new system is not only not working, but it only exists in theory.
The old system remains latent in the minds of the employees who continue with the practice of transferring
clients from one place to another without a coordination system and, in the process, lose all contact with the
client. The coordinators continue the relationship that they had with the persons in their previous technical
tier, and their tendency is to continue to do things with their former staff instead of doing it with their new
team as an entity.
Please answer the questions below on the answer sheets provided. Make reference in your answers to the
elements presented in the case above. You must support your argument with evidence in the form of data,
references or theoretical sources, and offer your interpretation of the case itself.
1.
2.
How does the communication flow in terms of the service offered by this company?
How does individualism affect the development of communication in this company?
3.
4.
5.
Do you believe that the way in which the changes between the three different tiers were
communicated and the feedback obtained was effective? Why?
Was the organization change managed appropriately? Why?
If you had been the consultant, what would have been your work plan to deal with the situation
presented in this case?
Appendix D: Dimensions of Performance and Criteria Applied to Student
Responses
Introduction to Economics (ECON 121)
OBJECTIVES
1.
2.
Describe and explain how demand, supply, and market equilibrium are determined.
Define the main characteristics of the different types of markets (perfect competition, monopoly,
oligopoly, and monopolistic competition).
PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS
1.
2.
CRITICAL THINKING
1. Excellent
1. Response reveals a specific knowledge base, the application of which
demonstrates understanding of economic principles.
2. Logical reasoning is evident.
3. Compares and evaluates individual aspects of different markets.
2. Very Good
1. Response reveals a general rather than specific knowledge base, the application
of which demonstrates some understanding of economic principles.
2. Logical reasoning is evident.
3. Compares and evaluates individual aspects of different markets, but with a few
errors.
3. Satisfactory
1. Response reveals a general rather than specific knowledge base, the application
of which demonstrates some understanding of economic principles.
2. Logical reasoning is evident but sometimes inconsistent.
3. Does not adequately understand individual aspects of different markets.
4. Not Acceptable
1. Response reveals a poor knowledge base, the application of which demonstrates
no understanding of economic principles.
2. Logical reasoning is mostly inconsistent.
3. Does not understand individual aspects of different markets.
WRITING SKILLS
1. Excellent
1. Shows substantial depth, fullness, and complexity of thought.
2. Demonstrates clear, focused, unified, and coherent organization.
3. Is fully developed and detailed.
4. Evidences superior control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition (may have
a few minor flaws).
5. The answer is a cohesive whole.
2. Very Good
1. Shows some depth and complexity of thought.
2. Is effectively organized.
3. Is well developed, with supporting detail.
4. Demonstrates control of diction, syntactic variety, and transitions (may have a
few flaws).
5. Shows clarity of thought, but may lack complexity.
6. The answer is somewhat fragmented.
3. Satisfactory
1. Is organized.
2. Is adequately developed, with some detail.
4.
3. Demonstrates competent writing (may have some serious flaws).
4. May distort or neglect parts of the question.
5. May be simplistic or stereotyped in thought.
6. Responds to the question point by point.
Not acceptable
1. May have generalizations without supporting detail or detail without
generalizations.
2. May be undeveloped.
3. May show patterns of flaws in language, syntax or mechanics.
4. Is so incompletely developed as to suggest or demonstrate incompetence.
5. Is wholly incompetent mechanically.
6. Does not address all aspects of the question and is completely fragmented.
History of Puerto Rico I (HIST 251)
OBJECTIVES:
1.
2.
Will apply the acquired knowledge (until 1868) in search of solutions to the political, economic,
cultural and social problems that are present in Puerto Rico.
Will recognize that as an individual he or she is the product of an historical process.
PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS
1.
2.
CRITICAL THINKING
1. Excellent
1. Student offers a good argument that is logical and coherent, with an exact set of
chronological events.
2. Very Good
1. Student offers a good argument that is logical and coherent, but with an inexact
set of chronological events.
3. Satisfactory
1. Student offers a fair argument that is logical and coherent, with an inexact set of
chronological events.
4. Not Acceptable
1. Student offers a poor argument that is illogical and incoherent, with an inexact
set of chronological events.
WRITING SKILLS
1. Excellent
1. Shows substantial depth, fullness, and complexity of thought.
2. Demonstrates clear, focused, unified, and coherent organization.
3. Is fully developed and detailed.
4. Evidences superior control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition (may have
a few minor flaws).
5. The answer is a cohesive whole.
2. Very Good
1. Shows some depth and complexity of thought.
2. Is effectively organized.
3. Is well developed, with supporting detail.
4. Demonstrates control of diction, syntactic variety, and transitions (may have a
few flaws).
5. Shows clarity of thought, but may lack complexity.
6. The answer is somewhat fragmented.
3. Satisfactory
1. Is organized.
2. Is adequately developed, with some detail.
3. Demonstrates competent writing (may have some serious flaws).
4. May distort or neglect parts of the question.
5. May be simplistic or stereotyped in thought.
6. Responds to the question point by point.
4. Not acceptable
1.
3.
May have generalizations without supporting detail or detail without
generalizations.
2. May be undeveloped.
3. May show patterns of flaws in language, syntax or mechanics.
4. Is so incompletely developed as to suggest or demonstrate incompetence.
5. Is wholly incompetent mechanically.
6. Does not address all aspects of the question and is completely fragmented.
KNOWLEDGE BASE
1. Excellent
1. In the discourse, student refers to three or more correct historical facts.
2. Very Good
1. The student refers to two correct historical facts.
3. Satisfactory
1. The student refers to one correct historical fact.
4. Not acceptable
1. The student does not refer to a correct historical fact.
Human Relations In Business (MANA 131)
OBJECTIVES
1.
2.
Will know the importance of communication and how it could affect, positively or negatively, the
interpersonal relations in an organization.
Will describe the concept of “management of change” and how it can be achieved through
teamwork.
PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS
1.
2.
CRITICAL THINKING
1. Excellent
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem rather than
just the "symptoms" of the given case or situation; student discourse integrates
the rational and scientific perspective with the intuitive and experiential
perspective as a means to further insight, understanding, or solution.
2. Very Good
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem but does
not fully integrate the rational and scientific perspective with the intuitive and
experiential perspective as a means to further insight, understanding, or solution.
3. Satisfactory
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem but there is
no integration of the rational and scientific perspective with the intuitive and
experiential perspective as a means to further insight, understanding, or solution.
4. Not Acceptable
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of only symptoms based on
personal experience or intuition.
WRITING SKILLS
1. Excellent
1. Shows substantial depth, fullness, and complexity of thought.
2. Demonstrates clear, focused, unified, and coherent organization.
3. Is fully developed and detailed.
4. Evidences superior control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition (may have
a few minor flaws).
5. The answer is a cohesive whole.
2. Very Good
1. Shows some depth and complexity of thought.
2. Is effectively organized.
3. Is well developed, with supporting detail.
4. Demonstrates control of diction, syntactic variety, and transitions (may have a
few flaws).
5. Shows clarity of thought, but may lack complexity.
6. The answer is somewhat fragmented.
Satisfactory
1. Is organized.
2. Is adequately developed, with some detail.
3. Demonstrates competent writing (may have some serious flaws).
4. May distort or neglect parts of the question.
5. May be simplistic or stereotyped in thought.
6. Responds to the question point by point.
4. Not acceptable
1. May have generalizations without supporting detail or detail with generalizations.
2. May be undeveloped.
3. May show patterns of flaws in language, syntax or mechanics.
4. Is so incompletely developed as to suggest or demonstrate incompetence.
5. Is wholly incompetent mechanically.
6. Does not address all aspects of the question and is completely fragmented.
KNOWLEDGE BASE
1. Excellent
1. In the discourse, student refers to multiple correct sources, at least one source is
theory.
2. Very Good
1. The student refers to one correct source that is theory.
3. Satisfactory
1. The student refers to one correct source that is practice but not theory.
4. Not acceptable
1. The student does not refer to a correct source that is practice or theory.
3.
3.
Labor Relations (MANA 404)
OBJECTIVES
1.
2.
To compare US and PR labor relations.
To analyze the collective bargaining process.
PERFORMANCE DIMENSIONS
1.
2.
CRITICAL THINKING
1. Excellent
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem rather than
just the "symptoms" of the given case or situation; student discourse integrates
the rational perspective with the intuitive and experiential perspective as a means
to further insight, understanding, or solution.
2. Very Good
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem but does
not fully integrate the rational perspective with the intuitive and experiential
perspective as a means to further insight, understanding, or solution.
3. Satisfactory
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of a significant problem but there is
no integration of the rational perspective with the intuitive and experiential
perspective as a means to further insight, understanding, or solution.
4. Not Acceptable
1. Student discourse renders an understanding of only symptoms based on
personal experience or intuition.
WRITING SKILLS
1. Excellent
1. Shows substantial depth, fullness, and complexity of thought.
2. Demonstrates clear, focused, unified, and coherent organization.
3. Is fully developed and detailed.
4. Evidences superior control of diction, syntactic variety, and transition (may have
a few minor flaws).
5. The answer is a cohesive whole.
2.
3.
4.
Very Good
1. Shows some depth and complexity of thought.
2. Is effectively organized.
3. Is well developed, with supporting detail.
4. Demonstrates control of diction, syntactic variety, and transitions (may have a
few flaws).
5. Shows clarity of thought, but may lack complexity.
6. The answer is somewhat fragmented.
3. Satisfactory
1. Is organized.
2. Is adequately developed, with some detail.
3. Demonstrates competent writing (may have some serious flaws).
4. May distort or neglect parts of the question.
5. May be simplistic or stereotyped in thought.
6. Responds to the question point by point.
4. Not Acceptable
1. May have generalizations without supporting detail or detail without
generalizations.
2. May be undeveloped.
3. May show patterns of flaws in language, syntax or mechanics.
4. Is so incompletely developed as to suggest or demonstrate incompetence.
5. Is wholly incompetent mechanically.
6. Does not address all aspects of the question and is completely fragmented.
KNOWLEDGE BASE (Labor Relations)
1. Excellent
1. In the discourse, student refers to three or more correct practices.
2. Very Good
1. The student refers to two correct practices.
3. Satisfactory
1. The student refers to one correct practice.
4. Not Acceptable
1. The student does not refer to a correct practice.
KNOWLEDGE BASE (Collective Bargaining)
1. Excellent
1. In the discourse, student refers to three or more correct and necessary elements.
2. Very Good
1. The student refers to two correct and necessary elements.
3. Satisfactory
1. The student refers to one correct and necessary element.
4. Not Acceptable
1. The student does not refer to a correct and necessary element.
Appendix E: Comparison of Students in Traditional Courses and Accelerated
Courses (Questionnaire Part I and II)
Variables
Students in:
Signif.
Traditional Courses
Non-traditional Courses
Average Age
21.5
33.1
Base
70
71
63.4%
62.0%
.000
Gender
Female
.862
Base
71
71
Less Than $15,000
40.6%
18.3%
$15,000 through $25,999
33.3%
40.8%
$26,000 through $40,999
11.6%
18.3%
$41,000 or Higher
14.4%
22.5%
Base
69
71
Not Completed High School
12.5%
7%
High School
22.2%
29.6%
Technical Degree
11.1%
16.9%
Associate Degree
6.9%
14.1%
Bachelor's Degree
36.1%
18.3%
Master or Doctorate
11.1%
14.1%
Base
72
71
High School
64.8%
19.7%
Technical Degree
1.4%
14.1%
Associate Degree
28.2%
62.0%
Bachelor's Degree
5.6%
4.2%
Base
71
71
Bachelor's Degree
32.4%
18.1%
Master's Degree
47.9%
69.4%
Doctorate
19.7%
12.5%
Base
71
72
Annual Family Income
.033
Parent's Highest Degree
.116
Student's Highest Degree
.000
Student's Academic Goal
.032
Two reasons to select this college 1
Location
54.9%
45.1%
Accelerated Courses
0
81.7%
Programs Available
47.9%
31.0%
Financial Aid
18.3%
8.5%
Atmosphere
14.1%
5.6%
Academic Reputation
11.3%
5.6%
Admission Standards
9.9%
4.2%
Advice of Parents/Relatives
11.3%
2.8%
Other
2.8%
2.8%
Base
71
71
Definitely/Probably Yes
72.2%
88.9%
Uncertain
13.9%
9.7%
Definitely/Probably No
13.9%
1.4%
Base
72
72
Definitely/Probably Yes
88.9%
83.3%
Uncertain
4.2%
9.7%
Definitely/Probably No
7.0%
7.0%
Base
72
72
Full-time Job
24.3%
87.5%
Part-time Job
32.9%
4.2%
Self-Employed
1.4%
1.4%
Not Employed-At My Choice
24.3%
2.8%
Unemployed-Looking For a Job
17.1%
4.2%
*
Choose this College Again?
.011
Choose Same Major Again?
.419
Employment Status
.000
Base
70
72
Managerial
4.0%
10.6%
Professional
12.0%
23.4%
Sales
36.0%
10.6%
Clerical
32.0%
42.6%
Service
16.0%
10.6%
Production
0
2.1%
Base
25
47
Average Years of Work Experience
4.3
12.2
Base
64
72
Prefer Accelerated Courses
0
87.5%
Prefer Traditional Courses
46.8%
0
Depends on the Situation
25.8%
12.5%
I don't know about accelerated courses
27.4%
0
I don't know about traditional courses
0
0
Base
62
72
Relevant
69.4%
70.8%
Somewhat Relevant
23.6%
22.2%
Irrelevant
6.9%
6.9%
I'm not clear about my professional goals
0
0
Base
72
72
45.6%
76.1%
Position (Among Employed Respondents)
*
.000
Preference for Accelerated or Traditional Courses
.000
In relation to professional goals, this course was:
.980
Main purpose for taking this course 1
It's a requisite/part of the curriculum
*
To have a better understanding/knowledge
of the subject being taught in this course
48.5%
31.0%
Helps in my work/professional development
7.4%
19.7%
Personal Interest
10.3%
7.0%
Base
68
71
1
Multiple responses, percents based on respondents.
* Not computed.
Appendix F: Comparison of Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes in Traditional and
Accelerated Courses*
Questions
Base
Strongly Agree %
Agree %
Disagree %
Strongly Disagree %
1
Traditional
72
63.9
34.7
1.4
0.0
Non-traditional
72
69.4
29.2
1.4
0.0
Traditional
72
44.4
41.7
9.7
4.2
Non-traditional
72
56.9
37.5
5.6
0.0
Traditional
72
94.4
4.2
1.4
0.0
Non-traditional
70
87.1
12.9
0.0
0.0
Traditional
72
0.0
1.4
8.3
90.3
Non-traditional
72
0.0
4.2
8.3
87.5
Traditional
69
58.0
37.7
2.9
1.4
Non-traditional
72
66.7
29.2
0.0
4.2
Traditional
72
63.9
29.2
5.6
1.4
Non-traditional
69
44.9
50.7
2.9
1.4
Traditional
72
0.0
4.2
9.7
86.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Non-traditional
72
2.8
4.2
6.9
86.1
Traditional
72
41.7
54.2
.2
0.0
Non-traditional
72
50.0
43.1
5.6
1.4
Traditional
72
65.3
33.3
1.4
0.0
Non-traditional
72
68.1
23.6
6.9
1.4
Traditional
70
34.3
55.7
8.6
1.4
Non-traditional
71
54.9
38.0
4.2
2.8
Traditional
72
47.2
50.0
2.8
0.0
Non-traditional
70
64.3
32.9
2.9
0.0
Traditional
72
76.4
20.8
2.8
0.0
Non-traditional
72
88.9
11.1
0.0
0.0
Traditional
72
65.3
33.3
1.4
0.0
Non-traditional
72
76.4
22.2
1.4
0.0
Traditional
72
61.1
34.7
4.2
0.0
Non-traditional
72
77.8
19.4
1.4
1.4
Traditional
70
58.6
37.1
2.9
1.4
Non-traditional
72
75.0
20.8
2.8
1.4
Traditional
72
0.0
0.0
16.7
83.3
Non-traditional
71
0.0
5.6
11.3
83.1
Traditional
72
56.9
38.9
4.2
0.0
Non-traditional
71
64.8
28.2
4.2
2.8
18
19
20
21
22
Traditional
72
45.8
51.4
2.8
0.0
Non-traditional
72
62.5
31.9
2.8
2.8
Traditional
71
36.3
39.4
2.8
1.4
Non-traditional
71
70.4
26.8
1.4
1.4
Traditional
72
43.1
47.2
9.7
0.0
Non-traditional
72
63.9
34.7
1.4
0.0
Traditional
72
61.1
37.5
1.4
0.0
Non-traditional
72
65.3
34.7
0.0
0.0
Traditional
72
45.8
52.8
1.4
0.0
Non-traditional
72
62.5
34.7
2.8
0.0
* Cronbach's alpha=.92
Note: All Chi-square tests are non-significant at 95%, except item #20. But all have more than 20 percent
cells with expected count less than five.
Comparison of Distribution of Students’ Perceptions and Attitudes in Traditional
and Accelerated Courses Across All Items (22 items) and Motivation Related Items
(9 items)
Student Populations
Base
Strongly Agree %
Agree %
Disagree %
Strongly Disagree %
Total Traditional
22 Items
61.1%
34.9%
3.5%
0.5%
Non-traditional
22 Items
69.4%
26.7%
2.8%
1%
Motiv. Traditional
9 Items
56.7%
38.4%
4.5%
0.3%
Non-traditional
9 Items
69.6%
26.9%
2.5%
1%