FACULTY CONGRESS ACADEMIC YEAR 212-213 Summary Data of Feedback from the Online Form Related to the Proposed Online B.A. http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/facultycongress/feedback/onlineba.html link active 2 March - 3 April 213 Chart 1: Respondent Type Summary: Most of the respondents were students and faculty with some alumni and parents and only a few staff members or unspecified. Chart of Respondent Type 4 3 2 1 Wayne Bremser, Mary Ann Cantrell, Lillian Cassel, Sohail Chaudhry, Linda Copel, Joseph Dellapenna, Mark Doorley, Rick Eckstein, Edwin Goff, Judith Hadley, Paul Hanouna, Eric Karson, Sandra Kearney, Christopher Kilby, Julie Klein, Edward Kresch, Kenneth Kroos, Sarvesh Kulkarni, Chad Leahy, Michael Levitan, Maryanne Lieb, Wenhong Luo, Susan Mackey- Kallis, Victoria McWilliams (Chair, on leave), Barbara Ott, Paul Pasles, Salvatore Poeta, Paul Reagan, Bernard Reilly, Louise Russo, Sridhar Santhanam, Donna Shai, Nancy Sharts-Hopko, Gay Strickler, Robert Styer, Mark Sullivan, Fayette Veverka, Catherine Warrick, Thomas Way, Kelly Welch (Vice Chair pro tem), Seth Whidden (Chair pro tem), Joyce Willens 8 LANCASTER AVENUE VILLANOVA, PENNSYLVANIA 1985-1699 http://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/facultycongress.html
2 Chart 2: Most Important Response by Respondent Type (consolidated) Summary: The biggest issues are brand (by far), integrity, curriculum, and community. By group, students cared most about brand. Faculty cared about brand, curriculum, and community. cared most about brand and integrity. Chart of Most Important Response by Respondent Type 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Most Important Brand Curriculum Community Diversity
3 Chart 3: Most Important Response by Respondent Type (separated) Summary: The same data in Chart 2, separated by respondent (and thus a bit easier to read by group). Count Chart of Most Important Response by Respondent Type 24 A lumni F aculty member Brand Curriculum Community Mul ti ple Unspeci fied D iversi ty Tenur e 24 18 12 6 18 12 6 Most Important Br and Panel variable: Cur riculum Communi ty Unspeci fied Mi ssion Diversity Br and Integri ty Curri culum Communi ty Diversi ty Fi nanci al Cour ses
4 Chart 4: age of People Who Listed a Given Reason Summary: A variable was added to indicate whether the specific choice was listed at all (in their top 5 list) by the person. The y-axis represents the percent of people who listed it at all (with any ranking). About 75% listed curriculum, 75% brand, 6% community, 55% integrity, 52% standards, 35% courses, and the rest were about 25% or less. Some respondents in the other category discussed intellectual property, despite it not being a category suggested on the feedback form..8 Chart of of People Who Listed That Reason.7.6.5 Data.4.3.2.1. Curriculum? Brand? Community???????? Diversity??
5 Chart 5: Whether Comments were Positive or Negative Summary: The Faculty Congress Executive Committee coded whether written comments included in the feedback responses were generally positive or negative. Two FCEC members scored each response, individually of each other, and their results were compared and checked by the remaining FCEC members for accuracy. Almost 8% were of the comments were negative and less than 1% were positive. In addition, all the staff and parents found only negative, and none of the alumni said anything positive. Chart of Choice1 by Respondent Type 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Choice1 Negative Neither Positive A word on the data A total of 156 people responded: 14 alumni, 65 faculty, 7 parents, 62 students, 4 staff members, and 4 people respondents who did not self-identify. The Faculty Congress contacted all faculty colleagues by e- mail and invited them to participate, but the Congress has no mechanism at its disposal for contacting the other constituencies. Respectfully prepared by the Faculty Congress Executive Committee with assistance from Dr. Michael Posner, Associate Professor of Statistics 8 April 213