DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY 2001
SPRING 2001
UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Page 2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page
INTRODUCTION AND SAMPLE ............................................
3
SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
INTERRUPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FINANCIAL AID
........................................................
5
ADVISING
............................................................
5
COURSES AND FACULTY ................................................
6
GOALS AND PROGRESS ................................................
7
SUPPORT SERVICES
...................................................
8
Importance, Use and Opinion
........................................
8
GENERAL EDUCATION PREPARATION ....................................
10
IMPRESSIONS OF USU
................................................
10
AVAILABILITY
........................................................
11
CONDUCIVENESS OF FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT
......................
11
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
............................................
11
CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES ...............................................
12
INTERACTION
........................................................
12
KINDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED OVER SYSTEM
.............................
13
PERCENT COURSES TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS IN THREE MODES ............
13
DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY 2001
PROCEDURES AND SAMPLING ..........................................
15
SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS
..............................................
16
INTERRUPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
.................................
21
Reasons for Interruption
...........................................
22
FINANCIAL AID
.......................................................
25
Source
........................................................
25
ADVISING
...........................................................
28
My Advisor
.....................................................
30
COURSES AND FACULTY ...............................................
32
GOALS AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
................................
36
SUPPORT SERVICES
..................................................
51
Importance, Use and Opinion
.......................................
51
GENERAL EDUCATION PREPARATION ....................................
61
IMPRESSIONS OF USU
................................................
63
AVAILABILITY
........................................................
65
CONDUCIVENESS OF FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT
......................
67
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
............................................
69
CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES ...............................................
70
INTERACTIONS .......................................................
71
KINDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED OVER SYSTEM
.............................
74
PERCENT COURSES TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS IN THREE MODES ............
75
Page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND SAMPLE
This is the second year that the Distance Education Survey study has been conducted. The
survey was distributed to the same sites as the previous year. The surveys were distributed during the
spring semester of 2001. Six hundred and fortysix surveys were distributed and 287 were completed.
The return rate was 44.4%.
A number of distance education sites were not selected to be a part of the sample. Thus,
selectivity along with a marginal return rate precludes this data from being representative of the
population of distance education and independent study students. However, the sample does appear to
represent the adult learner. Characteristics of the adult learner are considered to be students who are
probably: 25 years of age or older, married with dependents, working half to fulltime, and students who
have probably had interruptions in their college educations. Demographic categories in which the
sample was comparable to the distance education population were citizenship and ethnicity.
Surveys were returned from the following sites in order of frequency:
Site
Number
•
All other sites
91
•
North Central
44
•
Ephriam
34
•
Tooele
32
•
Brigham
31
•
Bluffdale
26
•
St. George
13
•
Logan
9
•
Ogden
5
•
Price
1
•
Uintah Basin
1
SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS
(Comparisons with
Distance Education Survey 2000
in parentheses)
•
73.9% in College of Business and Education (76.2%)
•
50% female (56%)
•
98.9% US citizenship (98.8%)
•
89.3% white, NonHispanic (90.0%)
•
59.8% married (58.3%)
•
67% had 1 or more dependents (58.2%)
•
Four modal age categories: 2125, 2630, 3140, 4150 (two modal age categories: 2125, 3140)
•
81.8% attended USU for 3 years or less (81.6%)
•
56.2% had taken the majority of their USU courses at distance education sites (78.8%)
•
82.4% were employed full or parttime (80.7%)
•
56.7% worked fulltime (61.4%)
•
89.5% planned to continue their educations (89.8%)
•
48.6% were in degree programs related to their work (47.0%)
•
29.6% had gained no practical experience while going to college (34.2%)
Page 4
WHAT STUDENTS TELL THEIR FRIENDS ABOUT USU
85.0% of the respondents told their friends that USU was great or said mostly positive things
about USU (Table i).
Table i.
“
What would you tell your friends about USU?
”
Say What?
Percent
It
’
s great
39.1 (29.7)
Mostly positive things
45.9 (51.7)
Nothing much, positive or negative
13.5 (15.7)
Mostly negative things
1.1 (2.2)
It
’
s not great
0.4 (0.7)
INTERRUPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
•
52.2% interrupted (47.0%)
•
52.6% interrupted more than once (51.3%)
•
59.4% interrupted from 2 years or less (58.0%)
•
26.6% interrupted for greater than 5 years (31.6%)
Over half of the sample interrupted their educations once. The same is true of those who
interrupted their educations for two years or less. Table ii shows that employment demands, finances,
job opportunities, and homemaking responsibilities were the most frequently reported reasons for
students interrupting their educations. The order for the top five items was the same for the year 2000.
Table ii.
Reasons for interrupting higher education.
Reason
Major + Minor (%)
Employment Demands
50.8 (57.5)
Financial
49.2 (51.9)
Job Opportunity
42.5 (44.5)
Homemaking Responsibilities
41.3 (40.5)
Stress
35.0 (31.8)
Church/Mission Service
24.8 (15.8)
Transferred to another school
21.7 (23.4)
Lack of Interest
21.2 (23.0)
Illness
12.5 (7.7)
Academic Standing
8.6 (6.0)
Exchange Program
0.0 (1.2)
Page 5
FINANCIAL AID
Employment was the first source of financial aid for this sample to finance their educations.
Savings and spouse came in a distant second and third. Although in the year 2000 the rank order of
these first two sources of financial aid was the same, the remainder of sources varied somewhat in rank
order from this year
’
s sample. Table iii shows sources of financial aid from highest to lowest.
Table iii.
Major plus minor sources of financial aid in order of frequency.
Source
Major + Minor (%)
Employment
72.2
(73.6)
Savings
46.5 (46.5)
Spouse
42.4 (34.1)
Loans
35.6 (35.4)
Parents
34.3 (29.1)
Scholarship
27.1 (31.0)
Veteran
’
s Benefits
26.4 (4.9)
Grants
13.3 (41.4)
Other Relatives
8.8 (5.6)
Graduate Assistantship
2.0 (1.3)
WorkStudy
1.5
(5.9)
ADVISING
•
61.0% knew they had been assigned an advisor (57.3%)
•
59.3% met with their advisors at least annually (61.8%)
•
40.7% never met with their advisors (38.2%)
•
51.3% didn
’
t know what type of advisor they had (48.9%)
•
36.2% reported the major requirement sheets as their major source of planning (41.6%)
A majority of respondents thought that their advisors
’
gave them correct information, were
positive, and interested in their welfare. Advising items on this and other surveys (e.g.,
Sophomore/Junior Student Survey, Graduating Students Survey) score much lower than other items
students
’
are asked to respond to. There were some similarities between this sample and respondents in
the year 2000. Ordering of the items between years was similar as well (Table iv).
Page 6
Table iv.
Percent strongly agree plus agree in regard to advisement in order of frequency.
Item
Strongly Agree + Agree
(%)
My advisor: Gave me correct information on services/programs
64.3 (61.4)
Interactions with my advisor were positive
63.3 (63.7)
My advisor: Was interested in my welfare
55.9 (51.2)
Overall I was satisfied with my advisor
52.9 (55.7)
Overall I was satisfied with the advising system at USU
51.3 (47.5)
Overall I was satisfied with they advising system in my
college/dept.
51.1 (49.0)
My advisor: Was readily available for consultation
46.5 (45.5)
My advisor: Helped me make academic/career decisions
44.1 (38.8)
COURSES AND FACULTY
These items received high scores in both years. Rank ordering between the years varied as
seen in Table v. The most dramatic change was
“
Overall quality of education
”
which was ranked first in
the year 2000 but dropped to sixth in this year
’
s sample.
“
Challenge of courses in University
Studies/General Education
”
was first in this year
’
s sample but was fifth in the previous year
’
s sample.
However, the ranges both years are comparable.
Table v.
Percent very satisfied plus satisfied responses to items regarding courses and faculty.
Item
Very Satisfied + Satisfied (%)
Challenge of courses in University Studies/General
Education
95.5 (91.9)
Overall quality of University Studies/General Education
93.0 (92.4)
Challenge of courses in the major
92.9 (92.6)
The degree to which the student was treated fairly
92.6 (92.0)
Variety of courses in University Studies/General Education
91.5 (85.5)
Overall quality of education
91.1 (93.5)
Overall quality of the program in the major
90.6 (91.3)
Helpfulness of faculty
88.2 (87.6)
Variety of courses in the major
85.6 (80.0)
Accessibility of faculty
84.8 (83.7)
Page 7
GOALS AND PROGRESS
Table vi contains a list of goals that respondents were to rate. They rated goals for their
importance and the extent of progress that they had made toward each goal. The last column in the
table shows the gaps between the students
’
ratings of importance of the goals and their progress toward
them. A negative gap indicates that expectations were not met in terms of the respondents
’
progress
toward those goals (the difference between progress and importance). A positive gap indicates that their
expectations were exceeded. The table presents the data from the largest negative gap to the largest
positive gap. Numbers in parentheses after the item title indicate the rank order of the items in the
Distance Education Survey 2000
in terms of importance. As well, percentages in parentheses are
students
’
ratings of the same items in the
Distance Education Survey 2000
.
The most important goals of respondents
’
were job related items followed by selfimprovement items
(e.g., time management, problem solving, etc.). These goals were followed by interpersonal/social items
and lastly, items relating to family life. The largest negative gaps between extent of progress and
importance of goals were job related items.
Table vi.
Goals of respondents and their progress toward those goals ranked by size of gap between
extent of progress and importance of the goal.
Item
Importance of
Goal: (Very
Important +
Important (%)
Extent of
Progress
(Very Good
+ Good (%)
Gap
(Progress
Importance
(%)
Informal interactions with professors
(20)
76.8 (73.4)
69.1 (73.9)
7.7 (0.5)
Likelihood for promotion/salary increase
(1)
90.3 (90.4)
82.9 (80.5)
7.4 (9.9)
Obtain professional skills
(3)
98.8 (98.4)
91.5 (91.7)
7.3 (6.7)
Job/career skills
(4)
98.4 (98.4)
92.3 (92.4)
6.1 (6.0)
Staying current with job demands
(2)
94.0 (94.7)
88.2 (87.2)
5.8 (7.5)
Time management
(7)
89.0 (92.4)
83.7 (88.6)
5.3 (3.8)
Level of intellect
(19)
98.4 (95.9)
93.7 (95.5)
4.7 (0.4)
Understanding of the sciences
(12)
82.0 (84.4)
77.5 (81.9)
4.5 (2.5)
Planning and organizational skills
(9)
91.3 (93.7)
87.4 (90.3)
3.9 (3.4)
Problem solving skills
(14)
94.8 (96.6)
91.8 (94.5)
3.0 (2.1)
Leadership skills
(24)
91.7 (90.2)
88.8 (92.5)
2.9 (2.3)
Affiliation with the USU community
(21)
63.4 (60.3)
60.7 (61.0)
2.7 (0.7)
Critical thinking abilities
(10)
96.0 (97.4)
93.5 (94.1)
2.5 (3.3)
Management of personal finances
(11)
82.1 (82.5)
79.7 (79.3)
2.4 (3.2)
Acquire skills for self directed learning
(8)
93.7 (95.0)
91.4 (91.2)
2.3 (3.8)
Verbal skills
(13)
92.1 (92.7)
90.3 (90.5)
1.8 (2.2)
Page 8
Affiliation with a department/program
(5)
81.7 (78.7)
80.5 (73.6)
1.2 (5.1)
General Knowledge
(18)
97.3 (96.7)
96.5 (96.3)
0.8 (0.4)
Self confidence
(6)
89.9 (91.2)
90.0 (86.9)
0.1 (4.3)
Awareness of social issues
(17)
86.5 (89.9)
87.0 (89.1)
0.5 (0.8)
Social interpersonal skills
(23)
90.1 (86.8)
91.2 (88.6)
1.1 (1.8)
Interactions with international/minority
students
(25)
65.6 (63.2)
67.9 (66.1)
2.3 (2.9)
Learn to work well with others
(22)
84.1 (86.4)
88.0 (87.3)
3.9 (0.9)
A personal system of values
(27)
82.6 (85.1)
87.4 (88.7)
4.8 (3.6)
Sensitivity/tolerance to others
(15)
86.4 (91.5)
92.3 (89.7)
5.9 (1.8)
Independence
(26)
88.4 (89.8)
94.5 (93.2)
6.1 (3.4)
Participate in extracurricular activities
(28)
45.6 (46.8)
52.0 (56.2)
6.4 (9.4)
Sensitivity/tolerance to alternative views and
cultures
(16)
85.7 (90.2)
94.0 (89.0)
8.3 (1.2)
Prepare for family life
(29)
60.2 (57.4)
68.6 (68.1)
8.4 (10.7)
Appreciation of the arts
(30)
69.5 (66.0)
83.0 (77.0)
13.5 (11.0)
Find a spouse/partner
(31)
38.9 (36.4)
58.7 (54.2)
19.8 (17.8)
As can be seen from the table there are some differences between years on both ratings of
importance and progress as well as the rank ordering of the items. However, with only several exceptions
almost all gaps that were negative in the 2000 survey were negative in this survey. The converse was
also true (r=.842) . The differences in sample size and ages between years could account for some of
the differences.
SUPPORT SERVICES
Importance, Use and Opinion.
Table vii should be read in the same way as the preceding
table. Students were to rate the importance of support services and their opinion of them. The gaps
between the respondents use and opinion of the services minus the importance of the services is listed in
descending order. Negative gaps indicate that students expectations of the services have not been met.
Positive gaps indicate that students
’
expectations of the services have been met and/or exceeded.
Numbers in parentheses after the item title indicate the rank order of the items in the
Distance Education
Survey 2000
in terms of importance. As well, percentages in parentheses are students ratings of the
same items in the
Distance Education Survey 2000
.
Page 9
Table vii.
Percent of respondents rating importance of support service (Very important + Moderately
Important) and their use and opinion of that service (Very Satisfied + Satisfied). (Opinion is based only
on those who used the service.) The table is ranked by size of gap between importance and opinion.
Item
Importance of
Service: (Very
Important +
Important (%)
Opinion of
Service: (Very
Satisfied +
Satisfied (%)
Gap: (Opinion
Importance of
Service) (%)
Bookstore
(1)
84.7 (89.4)
77.4 (76.0)
7.3 (13.4)
Distance Education Library Services
(2)
79.7 (84.7)
85.6 (83.0)
5.9 (1.7)
Fee & Tuition Payment Services
(3)
79.9 (83.2)
86.8 (85.6)
6.9 (2.4)
Registration & Records Office
(5)
76.1 (78.8)
85.6 (88.5)
9.5 (9.7)
Computer Labs
(7)
66.0 (74.3)
80.6 (87.6)
14.6 (13.3)
Financial Aid Office
(9)
63.0 (68.9)
80.9 (84.4)
17.9 (15.5)
General Registration Office
(6)
67.5 (76.4)
89.0 (87.2)
21.5 (10.8)
Career Services
(4)
60.8 (68.8)
82.8 (76.5)
22.0 (7.7)
Counseling Center
(8)
50.2 (59.8)
77.0 (74.4)
26.8 (14.6)
Merrill Library
(11)
58.1 (60.7)
89.0 (88.8)
30.9 (28.1)
Student Orientation & Registration
(12)
46.2 (56.4)
78.8 (87.2)
32.6 (30.8)
Cashier
’
s Office
(10)
55.2 (62.1)
91.8 (85.5)
36.6 (23.4)
Cazier Science & Technology Library
(13)
42.0 (44.3)
92.6 (82.9)
40.9 (38.6)
USU ID Card Office
(15)
41.8 (43.3)
92.1 (87.1)
50.3 (43.8)
Disability Resource Center
(17)
36.3 (40.4)
87.3 (88.5)
51.0 (48.1)
Touch Tone Registration
(14)
40.0 (44.3)
92.6 (86.1)
52.6 (41.8)
Statesman
(19)
33.8 (31.3)
88.4 (84.2)
54.6 (52.9)
Varsity Athlethics
(18)
30.9 (33.1)
89.8 (83.5)
58.9 (50.4)
Intramural/Club Sports
(16)
28.3 (31.1)
87.7 (78.3)
59.4 (47.2)
KUSU Public Radio
(20)
31.6 (30.6)
94.0 (84.1)
62.4 (53.5)
Respondents seemed satisfied with most of the available services. The Bookstore was the only
service that did not meet the respondents
’
expectations. For distance education students each center
has a small bookstore of its own which coordinates with the USU Bookstore. Most distance education
students probably have more realistic expectations of support services, thus the positive ratings of the
services available to them despite the fact that the scope of some of these services is limited because of
the respondents
’
distance from the campus service or event. Ratings and rankings between years were
similar (r=.975).
Page 10
GENERAL EDUCATION PREPARATION
Respondents rated how well the University Studies Program prepared them in general education
(Table viii). Ratings were high in both years.
Table viii.
Percent respondents rating their preparation in the cognitive areas of general education as
very well or well.
Area
Very Well + Well
Communication
94.2 (96.8)
Numeracy
87.3 (91.2)
Computer Literacy
89.1 (90.1)
Humanities and Art
90.9 (90.0)
Social Science
93.1 (91.5)
Life Science
89.4 (90.6)
Physical Science
91.2 (89.8)
IMPRESSIONS OF USU
Table ix shows how respondents rated their impressions of various aspects of the university. The
current samples
’
ratings of all items were lower than the ratings from the previous year.
Impressions of
undergraduate programs showed the most variation between years (almost 22%). In both years research
activities and public relations were ranked last. Research activities are probably not as readily available
for distance education students to participate in.
Table ix.
Percent of respondents rating their impressions of USU in a number of areas as very good or
good.
Item
Very Good + Good
(%)
Undergraduate programs
65.6 (87.5)
Major department
76.7 (85.8)
Teaching ability of faculty
79.0 (84.5)
Personal interest of faculty in students
69.2 (75.7)
Quality of students
74.4 (78.2)
Research activities
58.7 (69.6)
Public relations
53.1 (68.2)
Page 11
AVAILABILITY
Table x lists the availability of particular resources that enhance distance education programs
and offerings.
Respondents ranked library and other learning resources ahead of multimedia materials.
Availability ratings are similar in both years.
Table x.
Availability of various resources to expedite distance education.
Item
Always Available + Usually Available (%)
Course materials
86.2 (85.3)
Technical assistance
78.4 (75.6)
Multimedia materials
68.8 (67.4)
Library and other learning resources
71.6 (67.4)
Instructor (other than class)
64.8 (66.0)
CONDUCIVENESS OF FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT
Table xi shows the ratings of the conduciveness of the learning environments for the distance
education students.
Facility environment for
“
taking exams
”
was the highest ranked item. With the
exception of
“
communicating with instructor during class
”
, this year
’
s respondents rated all other items a
little lower than the previous year
’
s respondents.
Table xi.
Conduciveness of facilities and environment for pedagogy.
Item
Best + Pleasant (%)
Conduciveness of facilities for:
Communicating with instructor during class
53.5 (54.9)
Communicating with instructor after class
39.8 (46.1)
Viewing videotapes and other multimedia materials
39.8 (42.3)
Conduciveness of environment for:
Paying attention to the instructor
49.8 (57.3)
Taking exams
55.4 (64.3)
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
Table xii shows how respondents rated the importance and reliability of the technology used in
their classes. Ratings were similar in both years with the exception of the item asking about technology
being essential to the course. Respondents rated this item lower in the year 2000.
Page 12
Table xii.
Percent respondents rating the use of technology in the classroom with a strongly agree or
agree.
Item
Strongly Agree + Agree (%)
The technology used enhanced my learning.
74.7 (75.4)
The technology used was essential to the course (it could not
have been offered otherwise).
81.2 (76.9)
The technology used was reliable.
76.1 (75.1)
The technology actually got in the way of learning.
22.8 (22.4)
CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
The median number of exams taken, and papers/projects written was between 2 and 3 (Table
xiii). There is some variance between the measures of central tendency for this year
’
s respondents.
However, in the year 2000 there was complete agreement on the two measures of central tendency
within each question. The mode likewise varied between 1 and 4 in the year 2001, while in 2000 it was
between 1 and 3.
Table xiii.
Modal and median frequencies of test taking, papers written, and projects completed.
Item
Mode
Median
About how many
exams
did you take per course?
4 (3)
3 (3)
About how many
major papers
did you write per course?
2 (2)
2 (2)
About how many
minor papers
did you write per course
2 (2)
3 (2)
About how many
projects
did you do per course?
1 (1)
2 (1)
INTERACTION
90.5% of the respondents rated the importance of classroom interactions as essential, very
important, and important. Approximately the same percentage of respondents felt the same way in the
year 2000. Modal frequencies were the same in both years (Table xiv).
Page 13
Table xiv.
Modal frequencies of interactions in the classroom estimated by respondents.
Type of Interaction
Interactions
0
At least once
>2
14
510
Interactions with:
Instructors
x (x)
The students at your location
x (x)
The students at other locations
x (x)
About how many times did you study
with other students?
x (x)
How many times did the instructors
encourage students to comment, ask
questions, or otherwise interact?
x (x)
How often did you ask questions
(either to instructors or other class
members)?
x (x)
KINDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED OVER SYSTEM
The kinds of questions asked most frequently were questions about subject matter (Table xv).
Table xv.
Modal frequencies of kinds of questions asked in the classroom.
Item
About
Social
Life
About
Exams
About
Assignments
About
Conduct
of the
Class
About
Subject
Matter
Generally the kinds of questions
asked over the system were:
x (x)
Generally the kinds of questions
asked at the local sites were:
x (x)
PERCENT COURSES TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS IN THREE MODES
The distance education nature of this sample becomes obvious from the measures of central
tendency in Table xvi. The respondents
’
smallest percentages of courses were taken in the facetoface
mode. Although some respondents had taken courses on line the mode and median were zero. Most
courses were taken by satellite delivery.
Page 14
Table xvi.
Modal and median percentages of course transmission modes experienced by respondents.
Transmission Mode
Mode (%)
Median (%)
Facetoface
0 (0)
20 (25)
Satellite delivery
100 (100)
98 (70)
On line
0 (0)
0 (0)
Page 15
DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY
SPRING 2001
PROCEDURES AND SAMPLING
Printed surveys were delivered to the Director of Independent and Distance Education for
distribution to students enrolled in distance education during the Spring Semester, 2001. As reported by
the Director surveys were distributed to selected distance education sites. Table 1 shows the number of
surveys sent to the centers and then distributed to students at each site. A number of distance education
sites were not represented in the survey. As such, the representative nature of the sample is
questionable. University data indicated that there were 10,123 students enrolled in distance education
programs for spring semester, 2001. It should be noted that this number represents any person who has
enrolled in any course or workshop offered at a distance education site; that is, anyone taking more than
0 credit hours. Thus, the population does not represent students truly enrolled for the purpose of getting
a certificate, associate, bachelors, or masters degree through distance education programs at Utah State
University. Sites are listed in alphabetical order. The population to which the surveys were delivered (N =
1067 was10.5% of the entire population of distance education and independent study students. The
actual number of surveys distributed to students at the distance education sites was 646. There were
287 surveys returned, a return rate of 44.4%. No attempt was made to gather a sample of the entire
population. To determine whether the sample in this survey represents the population of distance
education and independent study students comparisons of demographic data of the sample are made
throughout where population data are available.
Table 1.
Distribution and return of surveys from selected distance education sites.
Site
# Surveys Sent to
Center
# Surveys Distributed
to Students
# Surveys Completed
by Students
Bluffdale
29
29
26
Brigham
40
40
31
Ephriam
85
85
34
Logan
158
50
9
North Central
67
52
44
Ogden
83
40
5
Price
120
80
1
Salt Lake City
70
0
0
St. George
131
20
13
Tooele
60
45
32
Uintah Basin
30
30
1
All other sites
Gunnison
194
100
75
70
21
Total
1067
646
287
Page 16
SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS
A small plurality of respondents (14.8%) reported a Psychology bachelor
’
s degree as their major.
Slightly fewer reported a degree program outside the offerings of the distance education program at USU
(see Other in the table below). 43.2 percent , of the respondents were majors in the College of
Education. The College of Business was also well represented accounting for 1/3 of the sample
’
s
respondents.
Table 2.
Bachelor
’
s & Master
’
s degree of respondents.
Degree Programs
Frequency
Valid Percent
Accounting
19
7.4
Health, Physical Ed & Recreation (MEd)
1
.4
Human Environments (MSS)
11
4.3
Liberal Arts and Sciences
3
1.2
Psychology (BS)
38
14.8
School Counseling (MS)
12
4.7
Rehabilitation (MS)
1
.4
Secondary Education (MEd)
11
4.3
Special Education (MEd)
9
3.5
Other
37
14.4
Agribusiness
2
.8
Business Administration (MBA)
36
14.0
BIS (MS)
30
11.7
Computer Science
8
3.1
Elementary Education (MEd)
34
13.2
Instructional Technology (MS)
5
1.9
Biology
0
0
Environmental Studies
0
0
Sub Total
257
100.0
Missing
30
Total
287
A larger plurality of respondents reported having enrolled in certificate or associate degree
programs in science (23%). 21.6 percent reported having enrolled in programs not offered in the
distance education program at USU (see Other in the table below). Over 1/3 of the respondents reported
declaring majors in the College of Education in both years.
Table 3.
Certificate & associate degree programs of respondents.
Certificate/Associate Degree
Frequency
Valid Percent
Arts
5
6.8
Reading
4
5.4
Science
17
23.0
School Library Media
2
2.7
Secondary Education Gifted and Talented
1
1.4
Special Education Mild, Moderate
3
4.1
Horticulture Ornamental
1
1.4
Other
16
21.6
Computer Aided Drafting
1
1.4
Office Systems Support
2
2.7
Page 17
Administrative/Supervision for Education
(ASC)
12
16.2
Child Development
2
2.7
Early Childhood Education
4
5.4
Elementary Education Gifted and
Talented
3
4.1
English as a Second Language (ESL)
1
1.4
Sub Total
74
100.0
Missing
213
Total
287
Gender of the respondents was equal at 50% for both males and females. This was not similar
to the respondents of this same survey in the year 2000. Distance education data showed 58.7% female
enrollment and 41.3% male enrollment. (Distance Education population data were provided by
Computer Services). University data for the year 2000 indicates that in regular programs at the university
there were 52% females and 48% males (
Utah State University Fact Book, 19992000
).
Table 4.
Gender of respondents.
Gender
Frequency
Valid Percent
Female
143
50.0
Male
143
50.0
Sub Total
286
100.0
Missing
1
Total
287
The sample was constituted overwhelmingly by American citizens in both years and compares
well with university population data. (
Utah State University Fact Book, 19992000
).
Table 5.
Citizenship status of respondents.
Citizenship
Frequency
Valid Percent
US
281
98.9
International
3
1.1
Sub Total
284
100.0
Missing
3
Total
287
Eightynine percent of the respondents were of white, non Hispanic origin. This is comparable to
the USU student population which is 88.6% white (
Utah State University, Fact Book, 19992000
) and to
the distance education population at 87.8%. The sample was over represented in the American
Indian/Alaskan Native minority category, 2.5% versus 0.8% for the USU population as a whole. The
Hispanic sample was also over represented 3.6% versus 1.8% in the USU population.
Page 18
Table 6.
Ethnicity of respondents.
Ethnicity
Frequency
Valid Percent
American Indian/Alaskan Native
7
2.5
Hispanic
10
3.6
Asian or Pacific Islander
3
1.1
White, NonHispanic
250
89.3
Other, unspecified
10
3.6
Sub Total
280
100.0
Missing
7
Total
287
The marital status of the sample was not representative of the distance education population as
a whole. Single students were under represented in the sample, 29.4% compared to 51% in the distance
education population. Married students were over represented, 59.8% compared to 29.1% in the
distance education population (Distance Education population data were provided by Computer
Services). The Logan, Salt Lake, and Roosevelt sites are included in the population data. The Logan
site is made up of more traditional, i.e., single, students. There were only 9 respondents at the Logan
site in the sample.
Table 7.
Marital status of respondents.
Marital Status
Frequency
Valid Percent
Single
84
29.4
Married
171
59.8
Divorced
26
9.1
Separated
5
1.7
Sub Total
286
100.0
Missing
1
Total
287
Nearly 67% of the respondents reported having one or more dependents. This would be
considered typical of the adult learner who would probably have already established a family.
Table 8.
Number of dependents.
Number of Dependents
Frequency
Valid Percent
Zero
96
33.8
1
60
21.1
2
50
17.6
3
31
10.9
4
21
7.4
5+
26
9.2
Sub Total
284
100.0
Missing
3
Total
287
The population was more traditional in nature, a plurality being 1820 years of age. Ninety
percent of this year
’
s sample were between ages 21 and 50 years, only 57% of the distance education
population were. (Distance Education population data were provided by Computer Services). This
sample is more representative of the adult learner than the distance education population as a whole.
Page 19
Table 9.
Age of respondents.
Age (yrs.)
Frequency
Valid Percent
Population Percent
<= 17
0
0.0
2.0
18 20
15
5.3
32.8
21 25
67
23.5
19.8
26 30
64
22.5
13.3
31 40
64
22.5
13.2
41 50
58
20.4
11.6
51 60
14
4.9
5.8
60+
3
1.1
1.5
Sub Total
285
100.0
100.0
Missing
2
Total
287
Sixtynine percent of the sample attended USU 2 years or less.
Table 10.
Length of attendance at USU.
Length (yrs)
Frequency
Valid Percent
Less than 1
72
25.3
1
47
16.5
2
78
27.4
3
36
12.6
4
20
7.0
5
16
5.6
6+
16
5.6
Sub Total
285
100.0
Missing
2
Total
287
31.1% of respondents had taken their classes at
“
other
”
sites, while 30.4% had taken theirs at
another college or university.
Table 11.
Site where majority of classes were taken.
Site
Frequency
Valid Percent
Other
87
31.1
Another college/university
85
30.4
Logan Campus
38
13.6
Bluffdale
24
8.6
Tooele
24
8.6
Brigham City
16
5.7
Salt Lake City
4
1.4
Price
1
.4
Uintah Basin
1
.4
Sub Total
280
100.0
Missing
7
Total
287
Page 20
A majority of respondents (58.1%) reported being employed fulltime. This is indicative of their
status as adult learners. 82.4% were employed full or parttime.
Table 12.
Employment status.
Employment Status
Frequency
Valid Percent
Employed fulltime
165
58.1
Employed parttime
69
24.3
Unemployed
50
17.6
Sub Total
284
100.0
Missing
3
Total
287
A majority (56.7%) of respondents worked fulltime while attending school. Over 80% of the
sample worked half to fulltime.
Table 13.
Amount of time worked while attending university.
Time Worked
Frequency
Valid Percent
None
31
11.0
1/4 Time
25
8.9
1/2Time
43
15.2
3/4 Time
23
8.2
Fulltime
160
56.7
Sub Total
282
100.0
Missing
5
Total
287
A majority (66.3%) of respondents planned to continue their educations as graduate students.
Another 17.9% planned to continue their educations to obtain an additional bachelor
’
s degree.
Table 14.
Educational plans of respondents.
Education Plans
Frequency
Valid Percent
Continue my education as a graduate student
189
66.3
Continue my education with an additional degree (BS or
equivalent)
51
17.9
Continue my education as an employee in company
sponsored programs
15
5.3
Not continue my education
30
10.5
Sub Total
285
100.0
Missing
2
Total
287
Page 21
Almost half (48.6%) of the respondents reported working in a job related to their degree.
Table 15.
Relationship of job to university study.
Job Relationship
Frequency
Valid Percent
related to your degree?
134
48.6
unrelated to your degree?
95
34.4
not employed?
47
17.0
Sub Total
276
100.0
Missing
11
Total
287
A plurality of respondents (30.0%) indicated that their employment had been their careerrelated
practical experience during college. This could readily be expected of the adult learner.
Table 16.
Practical experience related to career while at university.
Practical Experience
Frequency
Valid Percent
Practicum/internship
58
20.9
Volunteer experience
37
13.4
Employment
83
30.0
Workstudy
17
6.1
None
82
29.6
Sub Total
277
100.0
Missing
10
Total
287
85.0% of the respondents would tell their friends that USU was great or would say mostly
positive things about USU.
Table 17.
“
What would you tell your friends about USU?
”
Say what?
Frequency
Valid Percent
It's great
110
39.1
Mostly positive things
129
45.9
Nothing much, positive or negative
38
13.5
Mostly negative things
3
1.1
It's not great
1
.4
Sub Total
281
100.0
Missing
6
Total
287
INTERRUPTIONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
A little over half of the respondents (52.2%) reported an interruption in their educations other
than summers.
Page 22
Table 18.
Interruptions in education of respondents(other than summers)
.
Interruptions
Frequency
Valid Percent
Yes
141
52.2
No
129
47.8
Sub Total
270
100.0
Missing
17
Total
287
Just over half of the respondents (52.6%) who had reported interruptions in their educations, had
interrupted them more than once.
Table 19.
Number of interruptions.
Number of Interruptions
Frequency
Valid Percent
Once
65
47.4
More than once
72
52.6
Sub Total
137
100.0
Missing
150
Total
287
Of those who had interrupted their educations, a majority (59.5%) had interrupted their
educations 2 years or less. However, 26.6% had interrupted their educations 5 or more years. Longer
periods of interruption would be expected of an adult learner sample.
Table 20.
Longest interruption.
Length of Interruptions
Frequency
Valid Percent
Less than a year
34
23.8
1 2
51
35.7
3 4
20
14.0
5+
38
26.6
Sub Total
143
100.0
Missing
144
Total
287
Reasons for Interruption
Respondents who had interrupted their educations indicated reasons for the interruptions.
Reasons were ranked as major, minor, or not a reason.
Just less than half of those respondents (49.2%) who had interrupted their educations indicated
finances as a major or minor reason.
Page 23
Table 21.
Financial.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
34
27.4
27.4
Minor Reason
27
21.8
49.2
Not a Reason
63
50.8
100.0
Sub Total
124
100.0
Missing
163
Total
287
41.3% of the respondents who had interrupted their educations ranked homemaking
responsibilities as a major or minor reason. Since the sample reflected an adult learner status this result
would not be unexpected. Remember, nearly 67.0% of the sample had one or more dependents.
Table 22.
Homemaking responsibilities.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
39
32.2
32.2
Minor Reason
11
9.1
41.3
Not a Reason
71
58.7
100.0
Sub Total
121
100.0
Missing
166
Total
287
Over a third of the respondents (35.0%) indicated stress as a major or minor reason for
interrupting their educations. However, a majority of respondents (65.0%) indicated it was not a reason
for interrupting their educations.
Table 23.
Stress.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
16
13.0
13.0
Minor Reason
27
22.0
35.0
Not a Reason
80
65.0
100.0
Sub Total
123
100.0
Missing
164
Total
287
Very few of the respondents (8.6%) cited academic standing as a major or minor reason for
interrupting their educations. 91.4% of the respondents indicated it was not a reason.
Table 24.
Academic standing.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
3
2.6
2.6
Minor Reason
7
6.0
8.6
Not a Reason
106
91.4
100.0
Sub Total
116
100.0
Missing
171
Total
287
Page 24
Interruption for church/mission service was not a reason for 75.2% of the respondents. This is in
keeping with the adult learner nature of the sample. The converse is true of students on campus at USU
where the more traditional student attends.
Table 25.
Church/mission service.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
27
23.1
23.1
Minor Reason
2
1.7
24.8
Not a Reason
88
75.2
100.0
Sub Total
117
100.0
Missing
170
Total
287
Job opportunity was a major or minor reason for interruptions for 42.5% of the respondents.
Table 26.
Job opportunity.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
36
30.0
30.0
Minor Reason
15
12.5
42.5
Not a Reason
69
57.5
100.0
Sub Total
120
100.0
Missing
167
Total
287
For the majority of respondents (87.5%) illness was not a reason for interrupting their educations.
Table 27.
Illness.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
11
9.2
9.2
Minor Reason
4
3.3
12.5
Not a Reason
105
87.5
100.0
Sub Total
120
100.0
Missing
167
Total
287
For 21.2% of the respondents lack of interest was a major or minor reason for interrupting their
educations. For the majority (78.8%) it was not a reason.
Table 28.
Lack of interest.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
3
2.5
2.5
Minor Reason
22
18.6
21.2
Not a Reason
93
78.8
100.0
Sub Total
118
100.0
Missing
169
Total
287
Page 25
21.7% of the respondents cited transferring to another school as a major or minor reason for
interrupting their educations. For 78.3% of the respondents this was not a reason.
Table 29.
Transferred to another school.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
13
10.8
10.8
Minor Reason
13
10.8
21.7
Not a Reason
94
78.3
100.0
Sub Total
120
100.0
Missing
167
Total
287
No respondents interrupted their educations to participate in an exchange program.
Table 30.
Exchange program.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
0
0.0
0.0
Minor Reason
0
0.0
0.0
Not a Reason
116
100.0
100.0
Sub Total
116
Missing
171
Total
287
A very slim majority of the respondents (50.8%) cited employment demands as a major or minor
reason for interrupting their educations.
Table 31.
Employment demands.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Reason
44
33.8
33.8
Minor Reason
22
16.9
50.8
Not a Reason
64
49.2
100.0
Sub Total
130
100.0
Missing
157
Total
287
FINANCIAL AID
Respondents were asked to rate their sources of financial aid while attending USU. Each table
represents a possible source. They were to indicate whether the source was major, minor, or not a
source of financial aid. Percentages represent the sub total of the sample who responded to having
received financial aid of some kind while attending USU.
34.3% of the respondents cited parents as a major or minor source of financial aid. However,
65.7% stated parents were not a source of financial aid.
Page 26
Table 32.
Parents.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
31
14.6
14.6
Minor Source
42
19.7
34.3
Not a Source
140
65.7
100.0
Sub Total
213
100.0
Missing
74
Total
287
42.4% of the respondents cited their spouse as a source of financial aid while attending school.
The majority (57.6%) indicated that their spouse was not a source of financial aid. More women than
expected cited their spouses as a major or minor source of financial aid, and more men than women
cited their spouses as not a source of financial aid (X
2
= 40.36, df = 2, p < .001).
Table 33.
Spouse.
Reason
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
37
17.1
17.1
Minor Source
55
25.3
42.4
Not a Source
125
57.6
100.0
Sub Total
217
100.0
Missing
70
Total
287
An overwhelming majority of respondents (91.2%) indicated that other relatives were not a
source of financial aid.
Table 34.
Other relatives.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
5
2.5
2.5
Minor Source
13
6.4
8.8
Not a Source
186
91.2
100.0
Sub Total
204
100.0
Missing
83
Total
287
46.5% of the respondents indicated that their savings were a major or minor source of their
financial aid. However, a very small majority ( 53.5%) indicated that savings were not a source of
financial aid for their educations.
Table 35.
Savings.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
50
23.3
23.3
Minor Source
50
23.3
46.5
Not a Source
115
53.5
100.0
Sub Total
215
100.0
Missing
72
Total
287
Page 27
A majority of respondents (72.2%) indicated that employment was a major or minor source of
financial aid for their educations.
Table 36.
Employment (not workstudy).
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
112
49.3
49.3
Minor Source
52
22.9
72.2
Not a Source
63
27.8
100.0
Sub Total
227
100.0
Missing
60
Total
287
Almost all respondents (98.5%) indicated that workstudy was not a source of financial aid for
their educations.
Table 37.
WorkStudy.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
2
1.0
1.0
Minor Source
1
.5
1.5
Not a Source
199
98.5
100.0
Sub Total
202
100.0
Missing
85
Total
287
Almost all respondents (98.0%) indicated that a graduate assistantship was not a source of
financial aid for their educations.
Table 38.
Graduate assistantship.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
3
1.5
1.5
Minor Source
1
.5
2.0
Not a Source
200
98.0
100.0
Sub Total
204
100.0
Missing
83
Total
287
The majority of respondents (72.9%) reported that scholarships were not a source of financial aid
for their educations. However, 27.1% cited scholarships as a major or minor source of financial aid.
Table 39.
Scholarship.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
33
15.7
15.7
Minor Source
24
11.4
27.1
Not a Source
153
72.9
100.0
Sub Total
210
100.0
Missing
77
Total
287
Page 28
Over one third of the respondents (35.6%) cited loans as a major or minor source of financial aid
for their educations. However, the majority of respondents (64.4%) indicated loans were not a source of
financial aid.
Table 40.
Loans.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
59
26.6
26.6
Minor Source
20
9.0
35.6
Not a Source
143
64.4
100.0
Total
222
100.0
Missing
65
Total
287
13.3% of the respondents cited grants as a major or minor source of financial aid for their
educations. However, for the majority (86.7%) grants were not a source.
Table 41.
Grants.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
25
11.9
11.9
Minor Source
3
1.4
13.3
Not a Source
182
86.7
100.0
Sub Total
210
100.0
Missing
77
Total
287
A little over a quarter of the respondents (26.4%) cited veteran
’
s benefits as a major or minor
source of financial aid for their educations. This is much higher than oncampus samples, again
reflecting the nature of this sample as adult learners.
Table 42.
Veteran
’
s benefits.
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Major Source
46
20.9
20.9
Minor Source
12
5.5
26.4
Not a Source
162
73.6
100.0
Sub Total
220
100.0
Missing
67
Total
287
ADVISING
A majority of respondents (61.0%) were assigned an advisor by their college or department.
However, 14.8% did not know if they had an advisor.
Page 29
Table 43.
“
Were you assigned an advisor by your college/department?
”
Assigned Advisor
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Yes
169
61.0
61.0
No
67
24.2
85.2
Don't know
41
14.8
100.0
Sub Total
277
100.0
Missing
10
Total
287
A majority of respondents (59.3%) met with their advisors once or more a year. 40.7% reported
never meeting with their advisors. More distance education students than on campus students never see
their advisors.
Table 44.
“
How often did you meet with your advisor?
”
Met With Advisor
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Weekly
5
1.8
1.8
Monthly
9
3.3
5.1
Each Quarter/Semester
75
27.5
32.6
Once a Year
73
26.7
59.3
Never
111
40.7
100.0
Sub Total
273
100.0
Missing
14
Total
287
A little over half of the respondents (51.3%) did not know what type of an advisor they had. A
plurality of those students who knew (23.8%) indicated their advisor was a faculty member.
Table 45.
Was your advisor a:
Type of Advisor
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Continuing Ed Administrator
24
9.1
9.1
Faculty member
63
23.8
32.8
Fulltime advisor
42
15.8
48.7
Don't know
136
51.3
100.0
Sub Total
265
100.0
Missing
22
Total
287
A plurality of respondents (36.2%) reported that their major source for academic planning was
the major requirement sheets. The next reported source was their advisors (20.3%).
Page 30
Table 46.
“
What was the major source of planning in your academic program?
”
Source
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Advisor
55
20.3
20.3
Other faculty
13
4.8
25.1
Catalog
48
17.7
42.8
Major requirement sheets
98
36.2
79.0
Other students
24
8.9
87.8
Other
33
12.2
100.0
Sub Total
271
100.0
Missing
16
Total
287
Students
’
asked if their advisor did the following:
A majority of respondents (64.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that their advisor gave them correct
information on services and programs. About one quarter (26.4%) were neutral. 60 respondents or so
did not answer the following items addressing advisor satisfaction. It is assumed that these may have
been respondents who did not know who their advisor was and some who had possibly never seen their
advisor.
Table 47.
Gave me correct information on services/programs.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
72
31.7
31.7
Agree
74
32.6
64.3
Neutral
60
26.4
90.7
Disagree
10
4.4
95.2
Strongly Disagree
11
4.8
100.0
Sub Total
227
100.0
Missing
60
Total
287
A majority of respondents (55.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that their advisor was interested in
their welfare. 30.0% were neutral.
Table 48.
Was interested in my welfare.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
57
25.1
25.1
Agree
70
30.8
55.9
Neutral
68
30.0
85.9
Disagree
14
6.2
92.1
Strongly Disagree
18
7.9
100.0
Sub Total
227
100.0
Missing
60
Total
287
Less than half of the respondents (46.5%) agreed or strongly agreed that their advisors were
readily available for consultation. 32.5% were neutral and 20.0% of the respondents disagreed or
Page 31
strongly disagreed about the availability of their advisors.
Table 49.
Was readily available for consultation.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
40
17.5
17.5
Agree
66
28.9
46.5
Neutral
74
32.5
78.9
Disagree
26
11.4
90.4
Strongly Disagree
22
9.6
100.0
Sub Total
228
100.0
Missing
59
Total
287
Less than half of the respondents (44.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that their advisors helped
them make academic career decisions. 36% were neutral.
Table 50.
Helped me make academic/career decisions.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
39
17.6
17.6
Agree
59
26.6
44.1
Neutral
80
36.0
80.2
Disagree
24
10.8
91.0
Strongly Disagree
20
9.0
100.0
Sub Total
222
100.0
Missing
65
Total
287
A majority of respondents (63.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that their interactions with their
advisors were positive. 27.0% of the respondents were neutral.
Table 51.
Interactions with my advisor were positive.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
75
33.2
33.2
Agree
68
30.1
63.3
Neutral
61
27.0
90.3
Disagree
8
3.5
93.8
Strongly Disagree
14
6.2
100.0
Sub Total
226
100.0
Missing
61
Total
287
Barely over half of the respondents (51.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied
with the advising system at USU. 27.9% of the respondents were neutral and 20.8% disagreed or
strongly disagreed.
Page 32
Table 52.
Overall I was satisfied with the advising system at USU.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
53
23.5
23.5
Agree
63
27.9
51.3
Neutral
63
27.9
79.2
Disagree
25
11.1
90.3
Strongly Disagree
22
9.7
100.0
Sub Total
226
100.0
Missing
61
Total
287
Just over half of the respondents (51.1%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with
the advising system in their colleges or departments. Nearly one third (31.7%) were neutral and 17.2%
disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement.
Table 53.
Overall I was satisfied with the advising system in my college/department.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
56
24.7
24.7
Agree
60
26.4
51.1
Neutral
72
31.7
82.8
Disagree
19
8.4
91.2
Strongly Disagree
20
8.8
100.0
Sub Total
227
100.0
Missing
60
Total
287
A little over half of the respondents (52.9%) agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied
with their advisor. 32.9% of the respondents were neutral.
Table 54.
Overall I was satisfied with my advisor.
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
56
24.9
24.9
Agree
63
28.0
52.9
Neutral
74
32.9
85.8
Disagree
14
6.2
92.0
Strongly Disagree
18
8.0
100.0
Sub Total
225
100.0
Missing
62
Total
287
COURSES AND FACULTY
A very large majority of the respondents (91.1%) reported that they were satisfied or very
satisfied with the overall quality of their educations at USU.
Page 33
Table 55.
Overall quality of education.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
100
36.9
36.9
Satisfied
147
54.2
91.1
Dissatisfied
16
5.9
97.0
Very Dissatisfied
8
3.0
100.0
Sub Total
271
100.0
Missing
16
Total
287
Even more respondents (93.0%) stated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall
quality of the University Studies/General Education programs at USU.
Table 56.
Overall quality of University Studies/General Education.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
80
31.1
31.1
Satisfied
159
61.9
93.0
Dissatisfied
13
5.1
98.1
Very Dissatisfied
5
1.9
100.0
Sub Total
257
100.0
Missing
30
Total
287
90.6% of the respondents reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the overall
quality of the program in their majors.
Table 57.
Overall quality of the program in the major.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
84
31.5
31.5
Satisfied
158
59.2
90.6
Dissatisfied
16
6.0
96.6
Very Dissatisfied
9
3.4
100.0
Sub Total
267
100.0
Missing
20
Total
287
A few less respondents, but still a majority (85.6%), were satisfied or very satisfied with the
variety of courses in their majors.
Page 34
Table 58.
Variety of courses in the major.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
57
21.1
21.1
Satisfied
174
64.4
85.6
Dissatisfied
27
10.0
95.6
Very Dissatisfied
12
4.4
100.0
Sub Total
270
100.0
Missing
17
Total
287
More respondents (91.5%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the variety of courses in
University Studies/General Education.
Table 59.
Variety of courses in University Studies/General Education.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
60
24.2
24.2
Satisfied
167
67.3
91.5
Dissatisfied
14
5.6
97.2
Very Dissatisfied
7
2.8
100.0
Sub Total
248
100.0
Missing
39
Total
287
A large majority of respondents (92.9%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the challenge of
courses in their majors.
Table 60.
Challenge of courses in the major.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
90
33.7
33.7
Satisfied
158
59.2
92.9
Dissatisfied
12
4.5
97.4
Very Dissatisfied
7
2.6
100.0
Sub Total
267
100.0
Missing
20
Total
287
Even more respondents (95.5%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the challenge of courses in
University Studies/General Education.
Page 35
Table 61.
Challenge of courses in University Studies/General Education.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
71
28.7
28.7
Satisfied
165
66.8
95.5
Dissatisfied
4
1.6
97.2
Very Dissatisfied
7
2.8
100.0
Sub Total
247
100.0
Missing
40
Total
287
84.9% of the respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the accessibility of faculty,
some 6% to 10% or so lower than earlier items.
Table 62.
Accessibility of faculty.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
64
23.7
23.7
Satisfied
165
61.1
84.8
Dissatisfied
34
12.6
97.4
Very Dissatisfied
7
2.6
100.0
Sub Total
270
100.0
Missing
17
Total
287
A few more respondents (88.2%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the helpfulness of faculty.
Table 63.
Helpfulness of faculty.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
82
30.3
30.3
Satisfied
157
57.9
88.2
Dissatisfied
24
8.9
97.0
Very Dissatisfied
8
3.0
100.0
Sub Total
271
100.0
Missing
16
Total
287
92.6% of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the degree to which they were
treated fairly while at USU.
Table 64.
The degree to which you were treated fairly.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
98
36.2
36.2
Satisfied
153
56.5
92.6
Dissatisfied
13
4.8
97.4
Very Dissatisfied
7
2.6
100.0
Sub Total
271
100.0
Page 36
Missing
16
Total
287
GOALS AND PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS
Students were asked to indicate the importance of a variety of goals in their college educations.
Students were then asked to indicate the extent to which their education at USU contributed to their
progress toward those goals. Tables are presented in pairs; first, Importance of Goal, and second Extent
of Progress toward that goal.
The majority of respondents (97.3%) indicated that general knowledge was a very important or
moderately important goal. Almost equal numbers of respondents (96.5%) reported their extent of
progress toward this goal was good or very good.
Table 65.
Importance of Goal:
General knowledge.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
174
67.4
67.4
Moderately Important
77
29.8
97.3
Not Important
7
2.7
100.0
Sub Total
258
100.0
Missing
29
Total
287
Table 66.
Extent of Progress: General knowledge.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
88
34.0
34.0
Good
162
62.5
96.5
Poor
6
2.3
98.8
Very Poor
3
1.2
100.0
Sub Total
259
100.0
Missing
28
Total
287
Almost a third fewer respondents (69.5%) rated appreciation of the arts as moderately important
or very important. However, more respondents (83.0%) reported having made good or very good
progress toward meeting that goal.
Table 67.
Importance of Goal: Appreciation of the arts.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
55
21.5
21.5
Moderately Important
123
48.0
69.5
Not Important
78
30.5
100.0
Sub Total
256
100.0
Missing
31
Total
287
Page 37
Table 68.
Extent of Progress: Appreciation of the arts.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
38
15.4
15.4
Good
167
67.6
83.0
Poor
26
10.5
93.5
Very Poor
16
6.5
100.0
Sub Total
247
100.0
Missing
40
Total
287
90.1% of the respondents ranked social interpersonal skills as moderately important or very
important. 91.2% rated their progress toward this goal as good or very good.
Table 69.
Importance of Goal: Social interpersonal skills.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
113
44.7
44.7
Moderately Important
115
45.5
90.1
Not Important
25
9.9
100.0
Sub Total
253
100.0
Missing
34
Total
287
Table 70.
Extent of Progress: Social interpersonal skills.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
59
23.5
23.5
Good
170
67.7
91.2
Poor
15
6.0
97.2
Very Poor
7
2.8
100.0
Sub Total
251
100.0
Missing
36
Total
287
A few less respondents (88.4%) rated the goal of independence as very important or moderately
important. However, more respondents (94.5%) reported their progress toward this goal as good or very
good.
Table 71.
Importance of Goal: Independence.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
123
47.7
47.7
Moderately Important
105
40.7
88.4
Not Important
30
11.6
100.0
Sub Total
258
100.0
Missing
29
Total
287
Page 38
Table 72.
Extent of Progress: Independence.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
78
30.8
30.8
Good
161
63.6
94.5
Poor
10
4.0
98.4
Very Poor
4
1.6
100.0
Sub Total
253
100.0
Missing
34
Total
287
A large majority of respondents (89.9%) rated selfconfidence as a very important or moderately
important goal. About the same number of respondents (90.0%) reported good or very good progress
toward this goal.
Table 73.
Importance of Goal: Self confidence.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
150
58.1
58.1
Moderately Important
82
31.8
89.9
Not Important
26
10.1
100.0
Sub Total
258
100.0
Missing
29
Total
287
Table 74.
Extent of Progress: Self confidence.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
59
23.6
23.6
Good
166
66.4
90.0
Poor
17
6.8
96.8
Very Poor
8
3.2
100.0
Sub Total
250
100.0
Missing
37
Total
287
91.7% of the respondents reported that development of leadership skills was a very important or
a moderately important goal. A few less respondents (88.8%) reported that their progress toward this
goal was good or very good.
Table 75.
Importance of Goal: Leadership skills.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
135
53.1
53.1
Moderately Important
98
38.6
91.7
Not Important
21
8.3
100.0
Total
254
100.0
Missing
33
Total
287
Page 39
Table 76.
Extent of Progress: Leadership skills.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
68
27.1
27.1
Good
155
61.8
88.8
Poor
20
8.0
96.8
Very Poor
8
3.2
100.0
Sub Total
251
100.0
Missing
36
Total
287
A few less respondents (85.7%) reported that the importance of the development of sensitivity
and tolerance to alternative views and cultures was moderately important or very important. However,
more respondents (94.0%) reported that their progress toward this goal was good or very good.
Table 77.
Importance of Goal: Sensitivity/tolerance to alternative views and cultures.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
107
42.5
42.5
Moderately Important
109
43.3
85.7
Not Important
36
14.3
100.0
Sub Total
252
100.0
Missing
35
Total
287
Table 78.
Extent of Progress: Sensitivity/tolerance to alternative views and cultures.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
76
30.5
30.5
Good
158
63.5
94.0
Poor
9
3.6
97.6
Very Poor
6
2.4
100.0
Sub Total
249
100.0
Missing
38
Total
287
86.4% of the respondents felt that the development of sensitivity and tolerance to others was a
very important or moderately important goal. More respondents (92.3%) felt that they had made good or
very good progress toward that goal.
Table 79.
Importance of Goal: Sensitivity/tolerance to others.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
121
48.4
48.4
Moderately Important
95
38.0
86.4
Not Important
34
13.6
100.0
Sub Total
250
100.0
Missing
37
Total
287
Page 40
Table 80.
Extent of Progress: Sensitivity/tolerance to others.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
75
30.4
30.4
Good
153
61.9
92.3
Poor
13
5.3
97.6
Very Poor
6
2.4
100.0
Sub Total
247
100.0
Missing
40
Total
287
Almost all of the respondents (98.4%) rated the development of their level of intellect as very
important or moderately important. A few less respondents (93.7%) rated their progress in the
development of their level of intellect as good or very good.
Table 81.
Importance of Goal: Level of intellect.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
168
65.9
65.9
Moderately Important
83
32.5
98.4
Not Important
4
1.6
100.0
Sub Total
255
100.0
Missing
32
Total
287
Table 82.
Extent of Progress: Level of intellect.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
76
30.2
30.2
Good
160
63.5
93.7
Poor
13
5.2
98.8
Very Poor
3
1.2
100.0
Sub Total
252
100.0
Missing
35
Total
287
Fewer respondents (81.7%) felt that an affiliation with their department or college was
moderately important or very important. Approximately the same proportion of respondents (80.5%) felt
they had made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 83.
Importance of Goal: Affiliation with a department/program.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
79
30.7
30.7
Moderately Important
131
51.0
81.7
Not Important
47
18.3
100.0
Sub Total
257
100.0
Missing
30
Total
287
Page 41
Table 84.
Extent of Progress: Affiliation with a department/program.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
34
13.5
13.5
Good
168
66.9
80.5
Poor
33
13.1
93.6
Very Poor
16
6.4
100.0
Sub Total
251
100.0
Missing
36
Total
287
Over half of the respondents (65.6%) rated interactions with international and minority students
as moderately important or very important. A very few more respondents (67.9%) reported good or very
good progress toward the goal.
Table 85.
Importance of Goal: Interactions with international/minority students.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
52
20.3
20.3
Moderately Important
116
45.3
65.6
Not Important
88
34.4
100.0
Total
256
100.0
Missing
31
Total
287
Table 86.
Extent of Progress: Interactions with international/minority students.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
28
11.5
11.5
Good
137
56.4
67.9
Poor
54
22.2
90.1
Very Poor
24
9.9
100.0
Sub Total
243
100.0
Missing
44
Total
287
About three quarters of the respondents (76.8%) cited informal interactions with professors as a
moderately important or very important goal. Fewer respondents (69.1%) reported they had made good
or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 87.
Importance of Goal: Informal interactions with professors.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
54
21.6
21.6
Moderately Important
138
55.2
76.8
Not Important
58
23.2
100.0
Sub Total
250
100.0
Missing
37
Total
287
Page 42
Table 88.
Extent of Progress: Informal interactions with professors.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
38
15.3
15.3
Good
134
53.8
69.1
Poor
51
20.5
89.6
Very Poor
26
10.4
100.0
Sub Total
249
100.0
Missing
38
Total
287
Fewer respondents (63.4%) reported that affiliation with the USU community was a moderately
important or very important goal. Fewer respondents (60.7%) reported that they had made good or very
good progress toward this goal. However, 39.3% of the respondents reported that they had made poor or
very poor progress toward this goal.
Table 89.
Importance of Goal: Affiliation with the USU community.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
40
15.7
15.7
Moderately Important
121
47.6
63.4
Not Important
93
36.6
100.0
Sub Total
254
100.0
Missing
33
Total
287
Table 90.
Extent of Progress: Affiliation with the USU community.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
18
7.4
7.4
Good
130
53.3
60.7
Poor
64
26.2
86.9
Very Poor
32
13.1
100.0
Sub Total
244
100.0
Missing
43
Total
287
A very large majority (92.1%) of the respondents reported that the development of verbal skills
was very important or moderately important. Again, a very large majority (90.3%) reported that they had
made good or very good progress toward the development of these skills.
Table 91.
Importance of Goal: Verbal skills.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
136
53.8
53.8
Moderately Important
97
38.3
92.1
Not Important
20
7.9
100.0
Sub Total
253
100.0
Missing
34
Total
287
Page 43
Table 92.
Extent of Progress: Verbal skills.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
56
22.7
22.7
Good
167
67.6
90.3
Poor
18
7.3
97.6
Very Poor
6
2.4
100.0
Sub Total
247
100.0
Missing
40
Total
287
89.0% of the respondents felt that working on their time management skills was very important
or moderately important. A few less (83.7%) felt that they had made good or very good progress toward
this goal.
Table 93.
Importance of Goal: Time management.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
142
55.7
55.7
Moderately Important
85
33.3
89.0
Not Important
28
11.0
100.0
Sub Total
255
100.0
Missing
32
Total
287
Table 94.
Extent of Progress: Time management.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
56
22.9
22.9
Good
149
60.8
83.7
Poor
32
13.1
96.7
Very Poor
8
3.3
100.0
Sub Total
245
100.0
Missing
42
Total
287
91.3% of the respondents reported that the development of planning and organizational skills
was very important or moderately important. Less respondents (87.4%) reported they had made good or
very good progress toward this goal.
Table 95.
Importance of Goal: Planning and organizational skills.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
146
57.7
57.7
Moderately Important
85
33.6
91.3
Not Important
22
8.7
100.0
Sub Total
253
100.0
Missing
34
Total
287
Page 44
Table 96.
Extent of Progress: Planning and organizational skills.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
61
24.7
24.7
Good
155
62.8
87.4
Poor
24
9.7
97.2
Very Poor
7
2.8
100.0
Sub Total
247
100.0
Missing
40
Total
287
All most all respondents (98.4%) indicated that the development of job/career skills was very
important or moderately important. Fewer, but still many respondents (92.3%) indicated that they had
made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 97.
Importance of Goal: Job/Career skills.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
217
85.4
85.4
Moderately Important
33
13.0
98.4
Not Important
4
1.6
100.0
Sub Total
254
100.0
Missing
33
Total
287
Table 98.
Extent of Progress:
Job/Career skills.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
76
30.6
30.6
Good
153
61.7
92.3
Poor
15
6.0
98.4
Very Poor
4
1.6
100.0
Sub Total
248
100.0
Missing
39
Total
287
Fewer respondents (82.1%) indicated that management of their personal finances was a very
important or moderately important goal. Slightly fewer respondents (79.7%) indicated that they had
made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 99.
Importance of Goal: Management of personal finances.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
132
52.4
52.4
Moderately Important
75
29.8
82.1
Not Important
45
17.9
100.0
Sub Total
252
100.0
Missing
35
Total
287
Page 45
Table 100.
Extent of Progress: Management of personal finances.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
47
19.8
19.8
Good
142
59.9
79.7
Poor
37
15.6
95.4
Very Poor
11
4.6
100.0
Sub Total
237
100.0
Missing
50
Total
287
82.6% of the respondents reported that a personal system of values was very important or
moderately important. A few more respondents (87.4%) reported that they had made good or very good
progress toward this goal.
Table 101.
Importance of Goal: Personal system of values.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
121
47.8
47.8
Moderately Important
88
34.8
82.6
Not Important
44
17.4
100.0
Sub Total
253
100.0
Missing
34
Total
287
Table 102.
Extent of Progress: Personal system of values.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
59
24.7
24.7
Good
150
62.8
87.4
Poor
21
8.8
96.2
Very Poor
9
3.8
100.0
Sub Total
239
100.0
Missing
48
Total
287
A majority of respondents (86.5%) reported that the development of awareness of social issues
was moderately important or very important. About the same proportion of respondents (87.0%)
reported that they had made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 103.
Importance of Goal: Awareness of social issues.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
103
41.0
41.0
Moderately Important
114
45.4
86.5
Not Important
34
13.5
100.0
Sub Total
251
100.0
Missing
36
Total
287
Page 46
Table 104.
Extent of Progress: Awareness of social issues.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
58
23.6
23.6
Good
156
63.4
87.0
Poor
25
10.2
97.2
Very Poor
7
2.8
100.0
Sub Total
246
100.0
Missing
41
Total
287
Nearly all respondents (96.0%) reported that the development of critical thinking abilities was a
very important or moderately important goal. Nearly as many respondents (93.5%) reported that they
had made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 105.
Importance of Goal: Critical thinking abilities.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
162
64.3
64.3
Moderately Important
80
31.7
96.0
Not Important
10
4.0
100.0
Sub Total
252
100.0
Missing
35
Total
287
Table 106.
Extent of Progress: Critical thinking abilities.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
72
29.1
29.1
Good
159
64.4
93.5
Poor
14
5.7
99.2
Very Poor
2
.8
100.0
Sub Total
247
100.0
Missing
40
Total
287
A majority of the respondents (82.0%) reported that having an understanding of the sciences was
moderately important or very important. Fewer respondents (77.5%) reported that they had made good
or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 107.
Importance of Goal: Understanding
of the sciences.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
81
32.4
32.4
Moderately Important
124
49.6
82.0
Not Important
45
18.0
100.0
Sub Total
250
100.0
Missing
37
Total
287
Page 47
Table 108.
Extent of Progress: Understanding of the sciences.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
40
16.7
16.7
Good
146
60.8
77.5
Poor
45
18.8
96.3
Very Poor
9
3.8
100.0
Sub Total
240
100.0
Missing
47
Total
287
90.3% of the respondents reported that developing the likelihood for a promotion or salary
increase was a very important or moderately important goal for their educations. Fewer respondents
(82.9%) reported that they had made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 109.
Importance of Goal: Likelihood for promotion/salary increase.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
152
61.3
61.3
Moderately Important
72
29.0
90.3
Not Important
24
9.7
100.0
Sub Total
248
100.0
Missing
39
Total
287
Table 110.
Extent of Progress: Likelihood for promotion/salary increase.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
49
20.0
20.0
Good
154
62.9
82.9
Poor
33
13.5
96.3
Very Poor
9
3.7
100.0
Sub Total
245
100.0
Missing
42
Total
287
94.0% of the respondents reported that staying current with job demands was a very important or
moderately important goal. Fewer respondents (88.2%) reported good or very good progress toward this
goal.
Table 111.
Importance of Goal: Staying current with job demands.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
159
64.1
64.1
Moderately Important
74
29.8
94.0
Not Important
15
6.0
100.0
Sub Total
248
100.0
Missing
39
Total
287
Page 48
Table 112.
Extent of Progress: Staying current with job demands.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
61
24.8
24.8
Good
156
63.4
88.2
Poor
24
9.8
98.0
Very Poor
5
2.0
100.0
Sub Total
246
100.0
Missing
41
Total
287
94.8% of the respondents reported that development of problem solving skills was very
important or moderately important. Nearly as many respondents 91.8% reported having made good or
very good progress toward this goal.
Table 113.
Importance of Goal: Problem solving skills.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
165
65.7
65.7
Moderately Important
73
29.1
94.8
Not Important
13
5.2
100.0
Sub Total
251
100.0
Missing
36
Total
287
Table 114.
Extent of Progress: Problem solving skills.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
74
30.3
30.3
Good
150
61.5
91.8
Poor
19
7.8
99.6
Very Poor
1
.4
100.0
Sub Total
244
100.0
Missing
43
Total
287
Almost all of the respondents (98.8%) reported that to obtain professional skills was a very
important or moderately important goal of their educations. Fewer respondents but still more than 9 in
10 reported that they had made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 115.
Importance of Goal: Obtain professional skills.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
193
75.7
75.7
Moderately Important
59
23.1
98.8
Not Important
3
1.2
100.0
Sub Total
255
100.0
Missing
32
Total
287
Page 49
Table 116.
Extent of Progress: Obtain professional skills.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
87
35.1
35.1
Good
140
56.5
91.5
Poor
17
6.9
98.4
Very Poor
4
1.6
100.0
Sub Total
248
100.0
Missing
39
Total
287
93.7% of the respondents reported that acquiring skills for selfdirected learning was a very
important or moderately important goal. Almost as many respondents (91.4%) reported that they had
made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 117.
Importance of Goal: Acquire skills for self directed learning.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
159
63.1
63.1
Moderately Important
77
30.6
93.7
Not Important
16
6.3
100.0
Sub Total
252
100.0
Missing
35
Total
287
Table 118.
Extent of Progress: Acquire skills for self directed learning.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
81
33.2
33.2
Good
142
58.2
91.4
Poor
17
7.0
98.4
Very Poor
4
1.6
100.0
Sub Total
244
100.0
Missing
43
Total
287
Over one third of the respondents (38.9%) reported that finding a spouse was a very important or
moderately important goal. 61.1% reported that this goal was not important. This is indicative of the
adult learners in this sample. 58.7% reported that they had made good for very good progress toward
this goal.
Table 119.
Importance of Goal: Find a spouse/partner.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
51
20.6
20.6
Moderately Important
45
18.2
38.9
Not Important
151
61.1
100.0
Sub Total
247
100.0
Missing
40
Total
287
Page 50
Table 120.
Extent of Progress: Find a spouse/partner.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
44
20.2
20.2
Good
84
38.5
58.7
Poor
28
12.8
71.6
Very Poor
62
28.4
100.0
Sub Total
218
100.0
Missing
69
Total
287
Over half of the respondents (60.2%) reported that preparation for family life was a very
important or moderately important goal. More respondents (68.6%) reported that they had made good or
very good progress toward this goal.
Table 121.
Importance of Goal: Prepare for family life.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
77
31.3
31.3
Moderately Important
71
28.9
60.2
Not Important
98
39.8
100.0
Sub Total
246
100.0
Missing
41
Total
287
Table 122.
Extent of Progress: Prepare for family life.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
40
17.9
17.9
Good
113
50.7
68.6
Poor
27
12.1
80.7
Very Poor
43
19.3
100.0
Sub Total
223
100.0
Missing
64
Total
287
Not quite half of the respondents (45.6%) reported that participation in extracurricular activities
was a moderately important or very important goal. Over half (54.4%) reported that it was not an
important goal. 52.0% of the respondents reports that they had made progress toward this goal.
Table 123.
Importance of Goal: Participate in extracurricular activities.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
44
17.7
17.7
Moderately Important
69
27.8
45.6
Not Important
135
54.4
100.0
Sub Total
248
100.0
Missing
39
Total
287
Page 51
Table 124.
Extent of Progress: Participate in extracurricular activities.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
22
9.9
9.9
Good
94
42.2
52.0
Poor
41
18.4
70.4
Very Poor
66
29.6
100.0
Sub Total
223
100.0
Missing
64
Total
287
A majority of respondents (84.1%) reported that learning to work well with others was a very
important or moderately important goal of their educations. A few more respondents (88.0%) reported
that they had made good or very good progress toward this goal.
Table 125.
Importance of Goal: Learn to work well with others.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
129
51.4
51.4
Moderately Important
82
32.7
84.1
Not Important
40
15.9
100.0
Sub Total
251
100.0
Missing
36
Total
287
Table 126.
Extent of Progress: Learn to work well with others.
Progress
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
67
27.7
27.7
Good
146
60.3
88.0
Poor
20
8.3
96.3
Very Poor
9
3.7
100.0
Sub Total
242
100.0
Missing
45
Total
287
SUPPORT SERVICES
Importance, Use and Opinion of Services
Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance and their satisfaction with support
services made available to them by the university. If they had not used the service they were to indicate
“
didn
’
t use
”
. In determining the level of satisfaction, the following calculations were made: Didn
’
t use and
no response were subtracted from the total to determine the number of respondents who used the
service. The percent of satisfaction was then calculated using this figure.
A majority of respondents (84.7%) reported that the Bookstore was very important or moderately
important. 17.1% had not used the Bookstore. Of those who had used this service, 77.4% were satisfied
or very satisfied with it.
Page 52
Table 127.
Importance of Service: Bookstore.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
130
51.0
51.0
Moderately Important
86
33.7
84.7
Not Important
39
15.3
100.0
Sub Total
255
100.0
Missing
32
Total
287
Table 128.
Use and Opinion of Service: Bookstore.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
44
21.1
21.1
Satisfied
117
56.3
77.4
Dissatisfied
28
13.5
90.9
Very Dissatisfied
19
9.1
100.0
Total
208
100.0
Fewer respondents (60.8%), but still a majority, reported that Career Services was a moderately
important or very important service. 58.9% of the respondents had not used the service. Of those who
had used this service(99), 82 (82.8%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 129.
Importance of Service: Career Services.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
72
29.4
29.4
Moderately Important
77
31.4
60.8
Not Important
96
39.2
100.0
Sub Total
245
100.0
Missing
42
Total
287
Table 130.
Use and Opinion of Service: Career Services.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
11
11.0
11.0
Satisfied
71
71.8
82.8
Dissatisfied
9
9.1
91.9
Very Dissatisfied
8
8.1
100.0
Total
99
100.0
A slight majority of respondents (55.2%) thought that the Cashier
’
s Office was moderately
important or very important. 49.2% had not used the service. Of those who had used this service (122),
112 (91.8%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Page 53
Table 131.
Importance of Service: Cashier
’
s Office.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
46
19.2
19.2
Moderately Important
86
36.0
55.2
Not Important
107
44.8
100.0
Sub Total
239
100.0
Missing
48
Total
287
Table 132.
Use and Opinion of Service: Cashier
’
s Office.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
19
15.6
15.6
Satisfied
93
76.2
91.8
Dissatisfied
6
4.9
96.7
Very Dissatisfied
4
3.3
100.0
Total
122
100.0
Less than half of the respondents (42.0%) reported that the Cazier Science and Technology
Library was moderately important or very important. However 72.1% (173) had not used the library. Of
the 67 respondents who had used the library 62 (92.6%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 133.
Importance of Service: Cazier Science and Technology Library.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
42
18.2
18.2
Moderately Important
55
23.8
42.0
Not Important
134
58.0
100.0
Sub Total
231
100.0
Missing
56
Total
287
Table 134.
Use and Opinion of Service: Cazier Science and Technology Library.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
15
22.4
22.4
Satisfied
47
70.2
92.6
Dissatisfied
3
4.5
97.1
Very Dissatisfied
2
2.9
100.0
Total
67
100.0
Only 36.3% of the respondents ranked the Disability Resource Center as a moderately important
or very important service, but 184 (77.0%) respondents had not used this service. Of the 55 respondents
who had used it, 48 (87.3%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Page 54
Table 135.
Importance of Service: Disability Resource Center.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
38
16.2
16.2
Moderately Important
47
20.1
36.3
Not Important
149
63.7
100.0
Sub Total
234
100.0
Missing
53
Total
287
Table 136.
Use and Opinion of Service: Disability Resource Center.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
8
14.6
14.6
Satisfied
40
72.7
87.3
Dissatisfied
4
7.3
94.6
Very Dissatisfied
3
5.4
100.0
Total
55
100.0
A majority of respondents (50.2%) thought that the Counseling Center was a very important or
moderately important service, but 159 (67.1%) had not used it. Of those 78 respondents who reported
having used the center, 60 (77.0%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 137.
Importance of Service: Counseling Center.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
63
26.8
26.8
Moderately Important
55
23.4
50.2
Not Important
117
49.8
100.0
Sub Total
235
100.0
Missing
52
Total
287
Table 138.
Use and Opinion of Service: Counseling Center.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
10
12.9
12.9
Satisfied
50
64.1
77.0
Dissatisfied
9
11.5
88.5
Very Dissatisfied
9
11.5
100.0
Total
78
100.0
A majority of respondents (66.0%) reported that the computer labs were a very important or
moderately important service. 106 (44.2%) had not used this service. Of those who had 108 of 134
(80.6%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the service.
Page 55
Table 139.
Importance of Service: Computer Labs.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
105
43.6
43.6
Moderately Important
54
22.4
66.0
Not Important
82
34.0
100.0
Sub Total
241
100.0
Missing
46
Total
287
Table 140.
Use and Opinion of Service: Computer Labs.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
34
25.4
25.4
Satisfied
74
55.2
80.6
Dissatisfied
21
15.7
96.3
Very Dissatisfied
5
3.7
100.0
Total
134
100.0
A large majority of respondents (79.7%) reported that the Distance Education Library Service
was a very important or moderately important service. However, 83 (34.3%) of the respondents had not
used this service. Of the 159 respondents who had used the service 136 (85.6%) were satisfied or very
satisfied with it.
Table 141.
Importance of Service: Distance Education Library Services.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
131
54.4
54.4
Moderately Important
61
25.3
79.7
Not Important
49
20.3
100.0
Sub Total
241
100.0
Missing
46
Total
287
Table 142.
Use and Opinion of Service: Distance Education Library Services.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
65
40.9
40.9
Satisfied
71
44.7
85.6
Dissatisfied
14
8.8
94.4
Very Dissatisfied
9
5.6
100.0
Total
159
100.0
79.9% of the respondents indicated that the fee and tuition payment services were very
important or moderately important. However, 60 (24.9%) of the respondents had not used this service.
Of 181 who had used this service 157 (86.8%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Page 56
Table 143.
Importance of Service: Fee &
Tuition Payment Services.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
108
44.3
44.3
Moderately Important
87
35.7
79.9
Not Important
49
20.1
100.0
Sub Total
244
100.0
Missing
43
Total
287
Table 144.
Use and Opinion of Service: Fee & Tuition Payment Services.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
45
24.9
24.9
Satisfied
112
61.9
86.8
Dissatisfied
15
8.3
95.1
Very Dissatisfied
9
4.9
100.0
Total
181
100.0
A majority of respondents (63.0%) reported that the Financial Aid Office was very important or
moderately important. However, 111 (45.9%) had not used this service. Of those who had used this
service 106 of 131 (80.9%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 145.
Importance of Service: Financial Aid Office.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
94
39.5
39.5
Moderately Important
56
23.5
63.0
Not Important
88
37.0
100.0
Sub Total
238
100.0
Missing
49
Total
287
Table 146.
Use and Opinion of Service: Financial Aid Office.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
41
31.3
31.3
Satisfied
65
49.6
80.9
Dissatisfied
16
12.2
93.1
Very Dissatisfied
9
6.9
100.0
Total
131
100.0
67.5% of the respondents rated the General Registration Office as a moderately important or
very important service. 97 (40.1%) had not used this service. 129 of 145 respondents (89.0%) were
satisfied or very satisfied with the service. It is not clear that this question was understood by the
respondents. This office serves students with low academic standing at the university, the rankings
might indicate that the respondents thought this was an office servicing enrollment needs of students.
Page 57
Table 147.
Importance of Service: General Registration Office.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
75
32.1
32.1
Moderately Important
83
35.5
67.5
Not Important
76
32.5
100.0
Sub Total
234
100.0
Missing
53
Total
287
Table 148.
Use and Opinion of Service: General Registration Office.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
23
15.9
15.9
Satisfied
106
73.1
89.0
Dissatisfied
13
8.9
97.9
Very Dissatisfied
3
2.1
100.0
Total
145
100.0
A little over half of the respondents (58.1%) ranked the Merrill Library as a moderately important
or very important service. Remember that this is an off campus distance education sample, numbers
are reportedly higher for the on campus population. As would be expected, 136 (56.4%) of the
respondents had not used this service. Of those who had used the service 102 of 105 (97.2%) were
satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 149.
Importance of Service: Merrill Library.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
66
28.0
28.0
Moderately Important
71
30.1
58.1
Not Important
99
41.9
100.0
Sub Total
236
100.0
Missing
51
Total
287
Table 150.
Use and Opinion of Service: Merrill Library.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
36
34.3
34.3
Satisfied
66
62.9
97.2
Dissatisfied
3
2.8
100.0
Total
105
100.0
A majority of respondents (76.1%) rated the Registration and Records Office as a moderately
important or very important service. 34.3% had not used this service. Of those who had, 136 of 159
(85.6%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the service.
Page 58
Table 151.
Importance of Service: Registration & Records Office.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
71
30.3
30.3
Moderately Important
107
45.7
76.1
Not Important
56
23.9
100.0
Sub Total
234
100.0
Missing
53
Total
287
Table 152.
Use and Opinion of Service: Registration & Records Office.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
26
16.4
16.4
Satisfied
110
69.2
85.6
Dissatisfied
18
11.3
96.9
Very Dissatisfied
5
3.1
100.0
Total
159
100.0
Less than a majority of respondents (46.2%) rated Student Orientation and Registration as a
moderately important or very important program. A majority of respondents (53.8%) thought that it was
not important. 142 (58.9%) of the respondents had not been involved with this program. Of those who
had, 78 of 99 (78.8%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the program.
Table 153.
Importance of Service: Student Orientation &
Registration.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
47
19.9
19.9
Moderately Important
62
26.3
46.2
Not Important
127
53.8
100.0
Sub Total
236
100.0
Missing
51
Total
287
Table 154.
Use and Opinion of Service: Student Orientation & Registration.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
14
14.1
14.1
Satisfied
64
64.7
78.8
Dissatisfied
15
15.2
94.0
Very Dissatisfied
6
6.0
100.0
Total
99
100.0
Only 40.0% of the respondents rated Touch Tone Registration as a moderately important or very
important service. This is due to the fact that 173 (72.1%) of the respondents had not used this service.
Of those who had used it, 62 of 67 (92.6%) were satisfied or very satisfied with the service.
Page 59
Table 155.
Importance of Service: Touch Tone Registration.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
36
15.7
15.7
Moderately Important
56
24.3
40.0
Not Important
138
60.0
100.0
Sub Total
230
100.0
Missing
57
Total
287
Table 156.
Use and Opinion of Service: Touch Tone Registration.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
16
23.9
23.9
Satisfied
46
68.7
92.6
Dissatisfied
5
7.4
100.0
Total
67
100.0
Less than a majority of respondents (41.8%) rated the USU ID Card Office as a moderately
important or very important service. 164 (68.3%) had not used this service. ID cards are available to
distance education students who want them. They allow students to use other university libraries in
closer proximity to them and also allow them to attend USU sports events. Of those respondents who
had used the service, 70 of 76 (92.1%) were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 157.
Importance of Service: USU Card Office.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
31
13.4
13.4
Moderately Important
66
28.4
41.8
Not Important
135
58.2
100.0
Sub Total
232
100.0
Missing
55
Total
287
Table 158.
Use and Opinion of Service: USU Card Office.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
17
22.4
22.4
Satisfied
53
69.7
92.1
Dissatisfied
2
2.6
94.7
Very Dissatisfied
4
5.3
100.0
Total
76
100.0
Only 28.3% of the respondents rated Intramural and Club Sports as a moderately important or
very important activity. 188 (79.3%) had not participated in these activities. Of those who had, 43 of 49
(87.7%) were satisfied or very satisfied with these activities.
Page 60
Table 159.
Importance of Service: Intramural/Club Sports.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
24
10.4
10.4
Moderately Important
41
17.8
28.3
Not Important
165
71.7
100.0
Sub Total
230
100.0
Missing
57
Total
287
Table 160.
Use and Opinion of Service: Intramural/Club Sports.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
6
12.2
12.2
Satisfied
37
75.5
87.7
Dissatisfied
2
4.1
91.8
Very Dissatisfied
4
8.2
100.0
Total
49
100.0
Only 31.6% of the respondents rated KUSU Utah Public Radio as a moderately important or very
important support service. 189 (79.1%) had not used this service. Of those who had, 47 or 50 (94.0%)
were satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 161.
Importance of Service: KUSU/Utah Public Radio.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
21
9.2
9.2
Moderately Important
51
22.4
31.6
Not Important
156
68.4
100.0
Sub Total
228
100.0
Missing
59
Total
287
Table 162.
Use and Opinion of Service: KUSU/Utah Public Radio.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
11
22.0
22.0
Satisfied
36
72.0
94.0
Dissatisfied
1
2.0
96.0
Very Dissatisfied
2
4.0
100.0
Total
50
100.0
Only 33.8% of the respondents rated the Statesman as a moderately important or very important
support service. The Statesman is mailed to each distance education center each week, there is also an
online version available. Which format of the Statesman the respondents were rating is not known. 172
(71.4%) of the respondents had not read the Statesman. Of those who had, 61 of 69 (88.4%) were
satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Page 61
Table 163.
Importance of Service: Statesman.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
25
11.0
11.0
Moderately Important
52
22.8
33.8
Not Important
151
66.2
100.0
Sub Total
228
100.0
Missing
59
Total
287
Table 164.
Use and Opinion of Service: Statesman.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
13
18.8
18.8
Satisfied
48
69.6
88.4
Dissatisfied
3
4.3
92.7
Very Dissatisfied
5
7.3
100.0
Total
69
100.0
Only 30.9% of the respondents rated Varsity Athletics as a moderately important or very
important service. 178 (75.1%) had not used this service. Of those who did, 53 of 59 (89.8%) were
satisfied or very satisfied with it.
Table 165.
Importance of Service: Varsity Athletics.
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Important
28
12.0
12.0
Moderately Important
44
18.9
30.9
Not Important
161
69.1
100.0
Sub Total
233
100.0
Missing
54
Total
287
Table 166.
Use and Opinion of Service: Varsity Athletics.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Satisfied
13
22.0
22.0
Satisfied
40
67.8
89.8
Dissatisfied
4
6.8
96.6
Very Dissatisfied
2
3.4
100.0
Total
59
100.0
GENERAL EDUCATION PREPARATION
In this section the respondents were asked to rate how well the University Studies Program
prepared them in the various domains of general education. Items that were rated as not applicable, not
receiving their general education at USU, and those who did not respond to this item were subtracted
out to determine the proportion of respondents who rated these items from very well to very poorly.
Percentages are then presented based on the remaining proportion of respondents to each item.
Communication.
There were 138 responses to this item. Of these respondents 130 (94.2%)
rated their preparation as well or very well in this domain.
Page 62
Table 167.
General Education Preparation:
Communication.
Preparation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Well
58
42.0
42.0
Well
72
52.2
94.2
Poorly
5
3.6
97.8
Very Poorly
3
2.2
100.0
Total
138
100.0
Numeracy.
There were 126 responses to this item. Of these respondents, 110 (87.3%) rated
their preparation as well or very well in this domain.
Table 168.
General Education Preparation: Numeracy.
Preparation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Well
43
34.1
34.1
Well
67
53.2
87.3
Poorly
12
9.5
96.8
Very Poorly
4
3.2
100.0
Total
126
100.0
Computer Literacy.
There were 138 responses to this item. Of these respondents, 123 (89.1%)
rated their preparation as very well or well in this domain.
Table 169.
General Education Preparation: Computer Literacy.
Preparation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Well
65
47.1
47.1
Well
58
42.0
89.1
Poorly
12
8.7
97.8
Very Poorly
3
2.2
100.0
Total
138
100.0
Humanities and Art.
There were 121 responses to this item. Of these respondents, 110
(90.9%) rated their preparation as well or very well in this domain.
Table 170.
General Education Preparation: Humanities & Art.
Preparation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Well
41
33.9
33.9
Well
69
57.0
90.9
Poorly
8
6.6
97.5
Very Poorly
3
2.5
100.0
Total
121
100.0
Social Science.
There were 131 responses to this item. Of these respondents, 122 (93.1%)
rated their preparation as well or very well in this domain.
Page 63
Table 171.
General Education Preparation: Social Science.
Preparation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Well
54
41.2
41.2
Well
68
51.9
93.1
Poorly
4
3.1
96.2
Very Poorly
5
3.8
100.0
Total
131
100.0
Life Science.
There were 113 responses to this item. Of these respondents, 101 (89.4%) rated
their preparation as well or very well in this domain.
Table 172.
General Education Preparation: Life Science.
Preparation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Well
31
27.4
27.4
Well
70
62.0
89.4
Poorly
6
5.3
94.7
Very Poorly
6
5.3
100.0
Total
113
100.0
Physical Science.
There were 102 responses to this item. Of these respondents, 93 (91.2%)
rated their preparation as well or very well in this domain.
Table 173.
General Education Preparation: Physical Science.
Preparation
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Well
28
27.5
27.5
Well
65
63.7
91.2
Poorly
6
5.9
97.1
Very Poorly
3
2.9
100.0
Total
102
100.0
IMPRESSION OF USU
In this section the respondents were asked to give their impressions of various aspects of the
university such as programs, departments, student quality, etc. Items that were rated as no opinion and
no response were subtracted out to determine the proportion of respondents who rated this item from
very good to poor. Percentages are then presented based on the proportion of respondents to each item.
Undergraduate Programs.
172 of 195 (88.2%) rated undergraduate programs as good or very
good. However, 25.6% had no opinion.
Page 64
Table 174.
Impression: Undergraduate Programs.
Impression
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
65
33.3
33.3
Good
107
54.9
88.2
Fair
20
10.3
98.5
Poor
3
1.5
100.0
Total
195
100.0
Major Department.
201 of 237 (84.8%) rated their major department as good or very good.
Table 175.
Impression: Major Department.
Impression
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
95
40.1
40.1
Good
106
44.7
84.8
Fair
26
11.0
95.8
Poor
10
4.2
100.0
Total
237
100.0
Teaching Ability of Faculty.
207 of 252 (82.1%) rated the teaching ability of faculty as good or
very good.
Table 176.
Impression: Teaching Ability of Faculty.
Impression
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
95
37.7
37.7
Good
112
44.4
82.1
Fair
36
14.3
96.4
Poor
9
3.6
100.0
Total
252
100.0
Personal Interest of Faculty in Students.
180 of 243 (74.1%) rated the personal interest of
faculty in them as students as good or very good.
Table 177.
Impression: Personal Interest of Faculty in Students.
Impression
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
74
30.5
30.5
Good
106
43.6
74.1
Fair
53
21.8
95.9
Poor
10
4.1
100.0
Total
243
100.0
Quality of Students.
195 of 243 (80.3%) rated the quality of their fellow students as good or
very good.
Page 65
Table 178.
Impression: Quality of Students.
Impression
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
58
23.9
23.9
Good
137
56.4
80.3
Fair
41
16.9
97.2
Poor
7
2.8
100.0
Total
243
100.0
Research Activities.
155 of 207 (74.9%) rated research activities of the university as good or
very good.
Table 179.
Impression: Research Activities.
Impression
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
43
20.8
20.8
Good
112
54.1
74.9
Fair
38
18.4
93.3
Poor
14
6.7
100.0
Total
207
100.0
Public Relations.
139 of 198 (70.2%) rated the public relations of the university as good or very
good.
Table 180.
Impression: Public Relations.
Impression
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Very Good
39
19.7
19.7
Good
100
50.5
70.2
Fair
46
23.2
93.4
Poor
13
6.6
100.0
Total
198
100.0
AVAILABILITY
This section of the survey dealt with the availability of resources to distance education students.
Respondents were asked to rate the following resources:
Course Materials.
A majority of respondents (86.2%) rated course materials as usually
available or always available.
Table 181.
Availability: Course Materials.
Availability
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Always Available
79
30.3
30.3
Usually Available
146
55.9
86.2
Available About ½ the Time
20
7.7
93.9
Unavailable More Than Available
13
5.0
98.9
Never Available
3
1.1
100.0
Sub Total
261
100.0
Page 66
Missing
26
Total
287
Technical Assistance.
A majority of respondents (78.4%) rated technical assistance for use
with distance education was usually available or always available.
Table 182.
Availability: Technical Assistance for Distance Education Technology.
Availability
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Always Available
82
31.7
31.7
Usually Available
121
46.7
78.4
Available About ½ the Time
31
12.0
90.4
Unavailable More Than Available
18
6.9
97.3
Never Available
7
2.7
100.0
Sub Total
259
100.0
Missing
28
Total
287
Multimedia Materials.
Fewer respondents, but still a majority (68.8%), rated multimedia
materials as usually available or always available.
Table 183.
Availability: Multimedia Materials.
Availability
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Always Available
54
21.6
21.6
Usually Available
118
47.2
68.8
Available About ½ the Time
44
17.6
86.4
Unavailable More Than Available
19
7.6
94.0
Never Available
15
6.0
100.0
Sub Total
250
100.0
Missing
37
Total
287
Library and Other Learning Resources.
A majority of respondents (71.6%) rated the library
and other learning resources as usually available or always available.
Table 184.
Availability: Library and Other Learning Resources.
Availability
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Always Available
69
27.6
27.6
Usually Available
110
44.0
71.6
Available About ½ the Time
30
12.0
83.6
Unavailable More Than Available
25
10.0
93.6
Never Available
16
6.4
100.0
Sub Total
250
100.0
Missing
37
Total
287
Instructor (Other Than Class).
A majority of respondents (64.8%) rated the instructor as
usually available or always available.
Page 67
Table 185.
Availability: Instructor (other than at class time).
Availability
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Always Available
41
16.2
16.2
Usually Available
123
48.6
64.8
Available About ½ the Time
44
17.4
82.2
Unavailable More Than Available
30
11.9
94.1
Never Available
15
5.9
100.0
Sub Total
253
Missing
34
Total
287
CONDUCIVENESS OF FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT
In this section the respondents were asked to rate the conduciveness of the facilities, the
environment, and the technology to the learning process.
“How conducive were the facilities (including equipment, furniture, etc.) at your site for
the following?”
Communicating with the instructor during class.
A little over half of the respondents
(53.5%) rated the conduciveness of the facilities as best or pleasant. 94.7% thought they were adequate
or better.
Table 186.
Facilities: For communicating with instructor during class.
Facilities/Communicating
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Best
36
13.8
13.8
Pleasant
103
39.6
53.5
Adequate
107
41.2
94.6
Barely Tolerable
12
4.6
99.2
Worst
2
.8
100.0
Sub Total
260
100.0
Missing
27
Total
287
Communicating with Instructor After Class.
Less than half of the respondents (39.8%) rated
the conduciveness of the facilities as best or pleasant with respect to furniture, etc.
Table 187.
Facilities: For communicating with instructor after class.
Facilities/Communicating
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Best
34
13.1
13.1
Pleasant
69
26.6
39.8
Adequate
109
42.1
81.9
Barely Tolerable
30
11.6
93.4
Worst
17
6.6
100.0
Sub Total
259
100.0
Missing
28
Total
287
Page 68
Viewing Video Tapes and Other Multimedia Materials.
Only 39.8% of the respondents rated
the facilities for viewing multimedia materials as pleasant or best, but 85.5% thought they were adequate
or better.
Table 188.
Facilities: For viewing multimedia material.
Facilities/Viewing
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Best
27
10.5
10.5
Pleasant
75
29.3
39.8
Adequate
117
45.7
85.5
Barely Tolerable
28
10.9
96.5
Worst
9
3.5
100.0
Sub Total
256
100.0
Missing
31
Total
287
“
”How conductive was the environment (including
noise, etc.) at your site for the
following?”
Paying Attention to the Instructor.
Almost half the respondents (49.8%) rated the facilities as
pleasant or best in terms of paying attention to the instructor. A majority of the respondents (83.5%)
thought the facilities were adequate or better.
Table 189.
Facilities: For paying attention to the instructor.
Facilities/Paying Attention
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Best
43
16.5
16.5
Pleasant
87
33.3
49.8
Adequate
88
33.7
83.5
Barely Tolerable
31
11.9
95.4
Worst
12
4.6
100.0
Sub Total
261
100.0
Missing
26
Total
287
Taking Exams.
Over half of the respondents (55.4%) rated the facilities as conducive for taking
exams. A majority (90.3%) thought the facilities were adequate or better.
Table 190.
Facilities: For taking exams.
Facilities/Taking Exams
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Best
55
21.3
21.3
Pleasant
88
34.1
55.4
Adequate
90
34.9
90.3
Barely Tolerable
19
7.4
97.7
Worst
6
2.3
100.0
Sub Total
258
100.0
Missing
29
Total
287
Page 69
CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY
This section of the survey asked the respondents to rate statements about use of technology in
their classrooms by agreeing or disagreeing with particular statements.
“The technology used enhanced my learning.”
A majority of the respondents (74.7%)
agreed or strongly agreed that technology enhanced their learning.
Table 191.
“
The technology used enhanced my learning.
”
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
67
25.7
25.7
Agree
128
49.0
74.7
Undecided
44
16.9
91.6
Disagree
15
5.7
97.3
Strongly Disagree
7
2.7
100.0
Sub Total
261
100.0
Missing
26
Total
287
“The technology used was essential to the course (it could not have been delivered
otherwise).”
A greater majority of the respondents (81.2%) strongly agreed or agreed that the courses
could not have been delivered without the technology used for them.
Table 192.
“
The technology used was essential to the course (it could not have been delivered
otherwise).
”
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
109
41.8
41.8
Agree
103
39.5
81.2
Undecided
30
11.5
92.7
Disagree
13
5.0
97.7
Strongly Disagree
6
2.3
100.0
Sub Total
261
100.0
Missing
26
Total
287
“The technology used was reliable.”
A majority of the respondents (76.1%) agreed or
strongly agreed that the technology used in their classes was reliable.
Table 193.
“
The technology was reliable.
”
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
53
20.5
20.5
Agree
144
55.6
76.1
Undecided
35
13.5
89.6
Disagree
21
8.1
97.7
Strongly Disagree
6
2.3
100.0
Sub Total
259
100.0
Missing
28
Total
287
Page 70
“The technology actually got in the way of learning.”
Only 22.8% of the respondents agreed
or strongly agreed that the technology interfered with the learning process.
Table 194.
“
The technology actually got in the way of learning.
”
Agreement
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Strongly Agree
22
8.5
8.5
Agree
37
14.3
22.8
Undecided
45
17.4
40.2
Disagree
101
39.0
79.2
Strongly Disagree
54
20.8
100.0
Sub Total
259
100.0
Missing
28
Total
287
CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES
In this section the respondents were asked to report the number of exams, papers and projects
assigned per course.
“About how many
exams
did you take per course?”
A majority of respondents (87.3%)
reported having to take 34 exams per course.
Table 195.
“
About how may exams did you take per course?
”
Number of Exams
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
9
3.5
3.5
1
16
6.2
9.7
2
47
18.1
27.8
3
71
27.4
55.2
4
83
32.0
87.3
5
27
10.4
97.7
6
2
.8
98.5
7
4
1.5
100.0
Sub Total
259
100.0
Missing
28
Total
287
“About how many
major papers
did you write per course?”
A majority of respondents
(52.0%) wrote 1 or 2 major papers per course. 71.4% wrote 13 papers, and only 6.6% wrote 5 7
papers per course.
Table 196.
“
About how many major papers did you write per course?
”
Number of Major Papers
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
21
8.1
8.1
1
66
25.6
33.7
2
68
26.4
60.1
3
50
19.4
79.5
4
36
14.0
93.4
5
9
3.5
96.9
6
3
1.2
98.1
7
5
1.9
100.0
Page 71
Sub Total
258
100.0
Missing
29
Total
287
“About how many
minor papers
did you write per course?”
A majority of respondents
(71.3%) wrote 14 minor papers per course. Only 12.0% wrote no minor papers.
Table 197.
“
About how many minor papers did you write per course?
”
Number of Minor Papers
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
31
12.0
12.0
1
28
10.9
22.9
2
60
23.3
46.1
3
53
20.5
66.7
4
43
16.7
83.3
5
14
5.4
88.8
6
11
4.3
93.0
7
18
7.0
100.0
Sub Total
258
100.0
Missing
29
Total
287
“About how many
projects
did you do per course?”
A majority of respondents (58.7%)
completed 12 projects per course.
Table 198.
“
About how many projects did you do per course?
”
Number of Projects
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
32
12.4
12.4
1
95
36.7
49.0
2
57
22.0
71.0
3
27
10.4
81.5
4
18
6.9
88.4
5
5
1.9
90.3
6
9
3.5
93.8
7
16
6.2
100.0
Sub Total
259
100.0
Missing
28
Total
287
INTERACTION
This section asked respondents to report on their classroom interactions.
“In your opinion how important is interaction in a university classroom?”
A majority of
respondents (90.5%) rated the importance of classroom interactions as essential, very important, and
important.
Page 72
Table 199.
“
In your opinion how important is interaction in a university class?
”
Importance
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Essential
83
31.7
31.7
Very Important
82
31.3
63.0
Important
72
27.5
90.5
Slightly Important
22
8.4
98.9
Not Important at All
3
1.1
100.0
Sub Total
262
100.0
Missing
25
Total
287
“In your university experience to date, during most class sessions about how many times
did you interact with....?”
The instructors.
A majority of respondents (55.4%) reported at least one, more than two, or 14
interactions with instructors per term. Only 2.7% of the respondents reported no interactions with their
instructors per term.
Table 200.
Times per class interacted with: Instructors.
Interactions Per Term
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
More Than 2 Per Term
42
16.2
16.2
At Least 1 Per Term
37
14.2
30.4
510 Per Term
109
41.9
72.3
14 Per Term
65
25.0
97.3
0 Per Term
7
2.7
100.0
Sub Total
260
100.0
Missing
27
Total
287
The students at your location.
A plurality of respondents (35.0%) reported at least one, two, or
14 interactions with other students at their location. 42.0% reported no interactions with other students.
Table 201.
Times per class interacted with: Students at the same site.
Interactions Per Term
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
More Than 2 Per Term
21
8.2
8.2
At Least 1 Per Term
24
9.3
17.5
510 Per Term
59
23.0
40.5
14 Per Term
45
17.5
58.0
0 Per Term
108
42.0
100.0
Sub Total
257
100.0
Missing
30
Total
287
The students at other locations.
Unlike the previous question, a majority of respondents
(53.1%) here interacted 510 times per terms with students at other sites. 12.9 % had no interactions with
students at other sites.
Page 73
Table 202.
Times per class interacted with: Students at other sites.
Interactions Per Term
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
More Than 2 Per Term
41
16.0
16.0
At Least 1 Per Term
14
5.5
21.5
510 Per Term
136
53.1
74.6
14 Per Term
32
12.5
87.1
0 Per Term
33
12.9
100.0
Sub Total
256
100.0
Missing
31
Total
287
“About how many times did you study with other students?”
A plurality of respondents
(43.7%) reported studying with other students at least one, two, or 14 times per term. However, 37.9%
reported never having studied with other students.
Table 203.
“
About how many times did you study with other students?
”
Interactions Per Term
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
More Than 2 Per Term
31
11.9
11.9
At Least 1 Per Term
26
10.0
21.8
510 Per Term
48
18.4
40.2
14 Per Term
57
21.8
62.1
0 Per Term
99
37.9
100.0
Sub Total
261
100.0
Missing
26
Total
287
“How many times did the instructors encourage students to comment, ask questions or
otherwise interact?”
A majority of respondents (62.1%) reported that instructors encouraged students
to interact 510 times per term.
Table 204.
“
How many times did the instructor encourage students to comment, ask questions, or
otherwise interact?
”
Interactions Per Term
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
More Than 2 Per Term
44
16.9
16.9
At Least 1 Per Term
9
3.4
20.3
510 Per Term
162
62.1
82.4
14 Per Term
42
16.1
98.5
0 Per Term
4
1.5
100.0
Sub Total
261
100.0
Missing
26
Total
287
“How often did you ask questions (either to instructors or other class members?)”
A
plurality of respondents (43.5%) reported that they asked between 510 questions per term.
Page 74
Table 205.
“
How often did you ask questions, (either to instructors or other class members?)
”
Interaction Per Term
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
More Than 2 Per Term
40
15.4
15.4
At Least 1 Per Term
22
8.5
23.8
510 Per Term
113
43.5
67.3
14 Per Term
73
28.1
95.4
0 Per Term
12
4.6
100.0
Sub Total
260
100.0
Missing
27
Total
287
“About how many times did you want to ask a question, but were not able to do so?”
A
plurality of respondents (39.1%) reported they were unable to ask a question. However, a majority of
respondents (60.9%) wanted to ask questions between 110 times but were not able to do so.
Table 206.
“
About how many times did you want to ask question, but were not able to?
”
Interactions Per Term
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
More Than 2 Per Term
26
10.0
10.0
At Least 1 Per Term
51
19.5
29.5
510 Per Term
31
11.9
41.4
14 Per Term
51
19.5
60.9
0 Per Term
102
39.1
100.0
Sub Total
261
100.0
Missing
26
Total
287
KINDS OF QUESTIONS ASKED OVER THE SYSTEM
“Generally the kinds of questions asked over the system were...(choose one).”
The
majority of respondents (65.3%) asked questions about subject matter. A plurality of respondents
(23.3%) asked questions about assignments.
Table 207.
Kinds of questions asked over the system.
Kinds of Questions
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
About Social Life
2
.8
.8
About Exams
23
8.8
9.5
About Assignments
61
23.3
32.8
About Conduct of the Class
5
1.9
34.7
About Subject Matter
171
65.3
100.0
Sub Total
262
100.0
Missing
25
Total
287
“Generally the kinds of questions asked at the local sites were...(choose one).”
A majority
of respondents (52.8%) asked questions about subject matter, followed by a plurality of respondents
(29.4%) who asked questions about assignments.
Page 75
Table 208.
Kinds of questions asked at the local sites.
Kinds of Questions
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
About Social Life
10
4.0
4.0
About Exams
21
8.3
12.3
About Assignments
74
29.4
41.7
About Conduct of the Class
14
5.6
47.2
About Subject Matter
133
52.8
100.0
Sub Total
252
100.0
Missing
35
Total
287
PERCENT COURSES TAKEN BY RESPONDENTS IN THREE MODES
Facetoface.
More than a third of the respondents (38.0%) had not taken a course with an
instructor facetoface (the principle modal frequency). A secondary modal frequency group reported
that 50 percent of their courses were taken facetoface. The median was 20 percent.
Table 209.
Percent courses taken facetoface.
Percent
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
71
38.0
38.0
1
1
.5
38.5
2
2
1.1
39.6
5
8
4.3
43.9
8
1
.5
44.4
10
9
4.8
49.2
15
1
.5
49.7
20
7
3.7
53.5
25
7
3.7
57.2
30
11
5.9
63.1
33
1
.5
63.6
34
1
.5
64.2
40
4
2.1
66.3
45
1
.5
66.8
50
17
9.1
75.9
55
1
.5
76.5
60
1
.5
77.0
65
1
.5
77.5
70
4
2.1
79.7
75
6
3.2
82.9
80
5
2.7
85.6
85
4
2.1
87.7
88
1
.5
88.2
89
1
.5
88.8
90
12
6.4
95.2
95
1
.5
95.7
97
1
.5
96.3
98
4
2.1
98.4
99
2
1.1
99.5
100
1
.5
100.0
Sub Total
187
100.0
Page 76
Missing
100
Total
287
Satellite delivery.
Only 2.4% of the respondents had not taken a course by satellite delivery.
The modal frequency was 100 percent. The secondary modal frequency was 50 percent. The median
was 98 percent.
Table 210.
Percent courses taken by
satellite delivery.
Percent
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
6
2.4
2.4
1
5
2.0
4.5
2
3
1.2
5.7
5
1
.4
6.1
7
1
.4
6.5
9
1
.4
6.9
10
12
4.9
11.8
11
1
.4
12.2
12
1
.4
12.7
20
6
2.4
15.1
22
1
.4
15.5
25
7
2.9
18.4
30
4
1.6
20.0
33
1
.4
20.4
40
3
1.2
21.6
45
2
.8
22.4
49
1
.4
22.9
50
14
5.7
28.6
59
1
.4
29.0
60
4
1.6
30.6
62
1
.4
31.0
65
1
.4
31.4
68
1
.4
31.8
70
8
3.3
35.1
73
1
.4
35.5
75
8
3.3
38.8
80
6
2.4
41.2
85
2
.8
42.0
89
1
.4
42.4
90
10
4.1
46.5
95
8
3.3
49.8
98
3
1.2
51.0
99
2
.8
51.8
100
118
48.2
100.0
Sub Total
245
100.0
Missing
42
Total
287
On line (web based or otherwise computer mediated).
A majority of the respondents (65.6%)
had not taken a class that was on line.
Page 77
Table 211.
Percent courses taken online.
Percent
Frequency
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
0
105
65.6
65.6
1
9
5.6
71.3
2
5
3.1
74.4
3
1
.6
75.0
5
11
6.9
81.9
6
1
.6
82.5
10
15
9.4
91.9
20
1
.6
92.5
25
3
1.9
94.4
34
1
.6
95.0
40
1
.6
95.6
50
2
1.3
96.9
60
1
.6
97.5
80
1
.6
98.1
90
1
.6
98.8
95
1
.6
99.4
100
1
.6
100.0
Sub Total
160
100.0
Missing
127
Total
287
End
Back to top