November 2005 Review Period: July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2005 Table of Contents

Download 1.98 Mb.

Page	22/44
Date	14.08.2017
Size	1.98 Mb.
	#32054

1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 44

Graph 7 Graph 8

Graph 9 Graph 10

Graph 11 Graph 12

Graph 13 Graph 14

Table 3

		University		Department
		N	%	N	%
Gender	Female	455	74.2	149	87.1
Gender	Male	158	25.8	22	12.9

Graph 15

Appendix D5d

Academic Program Review

Department Of Social Work

Graduate Student Survey

University Comparisons Report

March 2005
Department N = 36 (response rate = 65.5 percent)

University (20 departments) N = 1543 (response rate = 57.5 percent)
Table 1

		University		Department		University		Department
		N	%	N	%	Mean*	SD	Mean*	SD
Faculty members in the department are interested in the academic development of graduate majors.	Strongly disagree	42	2.8	0	.0	4.11	1.009	4.32	.912
	2	78	5.2	3	8.8
	3	207	13.7	1	2.9
	4	525	34.8	12	35.3
	Strongly agree	658	43.6	18	52.9
The graduate program of study is academically challenging.	Strongly disagree	46	3.0	2	5.7	4.02	1.025	3.63	1.140
	2	98	6.4	4	11.4
	3	219	14.3	7	20.0
	4	584	38.2	14	40.0
	Strongly agree	580	38.0	8	22.9
Faculty in the department are appropriately prepared for their courses.	Strongly disagree	32	2.1	2	5.7	4.15	.922	4.03	1.043
	2	61	4.0	1	2.9
	3	175	11.5	3	8.6
	4	633	41.4	17	48.6
	Strongly agree	627	41.0	12	34.3
I feel the graduate program is preparing me for my professional career and/or further study.	Strongly disagree	38	2.5	2	5.9	4.05	1.000	3.97	1.167
	2	84	5.5	2	5.9
	3	238	15.7	5	14.7
	4	551	36.4	11	32.4
	Strongly agree	603	39.8	14	41.2
There is open communication between faculty and graduate students about student concerns.	Strongly disagree	75	5.0	4	11.1	3.82	1.164	3.78	1.245
	2	153	10.2	1	2.8
	3	263	17.6	5	13.9
	4	480	32.2	15	41.7
	Strongly agree	522	35.0	11	30.6
Class size is suitable for effective learning.	Strongly disagree	50	3.3	3	8.3	4.18	1.051	4.28	1.162
	2	88	5.8	0	.0
	3	169	11.1	2	5.6
	4	457	29.9	10	27.8
	Strongly agree	765	50.0	21	58.3

*Mean range: 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree
Graph 1 Graph 2

Graph 3 Graph 4

Graph 5 Graph 6

Table 2

		University		Department		University		Department
		N	%	N	%	Mean*	SD	Mean*	SD
Academic advisement available in the department	Poor	99	6.9	1	3.4	3.54	1.175	3.59	.983
	2	170	11.9	2	6.9
	3	365	25.6	10	34.5
	4	453	31.7	11	37.9
	Excellent	341	23.9	5	17.2
Career advisement available in the department	Poor	129	11.3	2	8.3	3.15	1.200	3.33	1.129
	2	204	17.9	4	16.7
	3	335	29.3	4	16.7
	4	316	27.7	12	50.0
	Excellent	158	13.8	2	8.3
Availability of faculty to students outside the classroom	Poor	31	2.1	0	.0	3.93	.983	4.20	.677
	2	103	6.9	0	.0
	3	280	18.9	5	14.3
	4	601	40.5	18	51.4
	Excellent	468	31.6	12	34.3
Effectiveness of teaching methods used by faculty	Poor	16	1.0	0	.0	3.95	.846	4.11	.530
	2	71	4.6	0	.0
	3	280	18.3	3	8.6
	4	773	50.5	25	71.4
	Excellent	390	25.5	7	20.0
Procedures used to evaluate student performance	Poor	22	1.5	0	.0	3.91	.860	3.94	.591
	2	67	4.5	0	.0
	3	290	19.5	7	20.0
	4	753	50.6	23	65.7
	Excellent	356	23.9	5	14.3
Frequency of graduate course offerings	Poor	98	6.7	2	6.1	3.35	1.096	3.09	1.100
	2	212	14.5	7	21.2
	3	438	29.9	15	45.5
	4	510	34.8	4	12.1
	Excellent	206	14.1	5	15.2
Variety of graduate course offerings	Poor	66	4.5	1	3.0	3.52	1.058	3.09	.914
	2	180	12.2	8	24.2
	3	414	28.1	12	36.4
	4	552	37.4	11	33.3
	Excellent	263	17.8	1	3.0
Clarity of degree requirements	Poor	48	3.2	0	.0	3.93	1.046	4.47	.560
	2	111	7.3	0	.0
	3	268	17.7	1	2.8
	4	568	37.5	17	47.2
	Excellent	521	34.4	18	50.0

Graph 7 Graph 8

Graph 9 Graph 10

Graph 11 Graph 12

Graph 13 Graph 14

Table 3

		University		Department
		N	%	N	%
Gender	Female	939	68.7	29	85.3
Gender	Male	427	31.3	5	14.7

Graph 15

Appendix D5e

Academic Program Review

Department Of Social Work

Graduate Alumni Survey

University Comparisons Report

March 2005
Department N = 30 (response rate = 36.1 percent)

University (19 departments) N = 862 (response rate = 47.1 percent)
Table 1

		University		Department		University		Department
		N	%	N	%	Mean*	SD	Mean*	SD
Faculty members in the department were interested in the academic development of graduate majors.	Strongly disagree	23	2.7	1	3.3	4.20	1.003	4.37	.964
	2	41	4.8	1	3.3
	3	100	11.7	1	3.3
	4	269	31.5	10	33.3
	Strongly agree	422	49.4	17	56.7
The graduate program of study was academically challenging.	Strongly disagree	28	3.3	1	3.3	3.94	1.069	3.93	1.112
	2	70	8.1	2	6.7
	3	139	16.2	7	23.3
	4	310	36.0	8	26.7
	Strongly agree	313	36.4	12	40.0
Faculty in the department were appropriately prepared for their courses.	Strongly disagree	29	3.4	1	3.4	4.23	.993	4.38	.862
	2	32	3.7	0	.0
	3	78	9.1	1	3.4
	4	297	34.5	12	41.4
	Strongly agree	424	49.3	15	51.7
I feel the graduate program prepared me for my professional career and/or further study.	Strongly disagree	35	4.1	1	3.3	4.02	1.103	3.87	1.224
	2	60	7.0	4	13.3
	3	121	14.2	6	20.0
	4	276	32.4	6	20.0
	Strongly agree	361	42.3	13	43.3
There was open communication between faculty and graduate students about student concerns.	Strongly disagree	46	5.4	1	3.3	3.96	1.186	4.07	1.081
	2	77	9.0	2	6.7
	3	108	12.7	4	13.3
	4	254	29.8	10	33.3
	Strongly agree	366	43.0	13	43.3
Class size was suitable for effective learning.	Strongly disagree	27	3.2	1	3.3	4.39	.955	4.60	.814
	2	22	2.6	0	.0
	3	59	6.9	0	.0
	4	226	26.4	8	26.7
	Strongly agree	521	60.9	21	70.0

*Mean range: 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree

Graph 1 Graph 2

Graph 3 Graph 4

Graph 5 Graph 6

Table 2

		University		Department		University		Department
		N	%	N	%	Mean*	SD	Mean*	SD
Academic advisement available in the department	Poor	65	7.9	0	.0	3.59	1.233	3.83	1.037
	2	99	12.1	3	10.3
	3	171	20.9	9	31.0
	4	255	31.2	7	24.1
	Excellent	228	27.9	10	34.5
Career advisement available in the department	Poor	89	12.6	2	6.7	3.18	1.286	3.43	1.278
	2	137	19.5	7	23.3
	3	164	23.3	4	13.3
	4	188	26.7	10	33.3
	Excellent	126	17.9	7	23.3
Availability of faculty to students outside the classroom	Poor	18	2.1	0	.0	4.01	.983	4.43	.626
	2	53	6.2	0	.0
	3	139	16.3	2	6.7
	4	332	38.9	13	43.3
	Excellent	311	36.5	15	50.0
Effectiveness of teaching methods used by faculty	Poor	8	.9	0	.0	4.08	.851	4.10	.803
	2	30	3.5	0	.0
	3	141	16.4	8	26.7
	4	387	44.9	11	36.7
	Excellent	295	34.3	11	36.7
Procedures used to evaluate student performance	Poor	9	1.1	0	.0	4.04	.856	4.13	.776
	2	37	4.3	0	.0
	3	128	15.0	7	23.3
	4	410	48.2	12	40.0
	Excellent	267	31.4	11	36.7
Frequency of graduate course offerings	Poor	34	4.2	1	3.4	3.65	1.064	3.93	1.132
	2	82	10.1	2	6.9
	3	202	24.9	7	24.1
	4	311	38.4	7	24.1
	Excellent	181	22.3	12	41.4
Variety of graduate course offerings	Poor	25	3.0	1	3.4	3.65	1.033	3.52	1.090
	2	90	10.9	4	13.8
	3	210	25.5	9	31.0
	4	317	38.6	9	31.0
	Excellent	180	21.9	6	20.7
Clarity of degree requirements	Poor	18	2.1	0	.0	4.20	.947	4.50	.630
	2	40	4.7	0	.0
	3	89	10.4	2	6.7
	4	320	37.3	11	36.7
	Excellent	392	45.6	17	56.7

*Mean range: 1=poor to 5=excellent

Graph 7 Graph 8

Graph 9 Graph 10

Graph 11 Graph 12

Graph 13 Graph 14

Table 3

		University		Department
		N	%	N	%
Gender	Female	588	80.7	26	86.7
Gender	Male	141	19.3	4	13.3

Graph 15

Appendix D6

Undergraduate and Graduate Advisement Procedures
All policies on academic and career advising are outlined in detail within the School of Social Work Student Handbook which is given to all entering students at orientation.

Directory: files -> 2017
2017 -> Richard Overy. Why The Allies Won
2017 -> Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
2017 -> To all attendees
2017 -> Final Research Paper: The Falklands War
2017 -> Temporary Autonomous Zones: Anarchist Gatherings, 1988-2017
2017 -> Master msk anatomy Structure List Back
2017 -> City of Colorado Springs
2017 -> Board of Student Advisers Harvard Law School
2017 -> AmeriCorps Project Conserve Member Application 2017-2018 Application Deadline: May 31, 2017

Download 1.98 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 44