Graduate Satisfaction Student Evaluation and Employment ... · PDF fileSheet Metal Worker...

2011/2012

Red River College

2055 Notre Dame Avenue

Winnipeg, MB R3H 0J9

Information Line: 204.632.3960

Toll Free: 1.888.515.7722

Switchboard: 204.632.2311

Fax: 204.632.9661

www.rrc.ca

Graduate Satisfaction and Employment Report

Student Evaluation of Program Report

Red

Riv

er Colleg

e - Gra

du

ate S

atisfa

ction

an

d E

mploy

men

t Rep

ort &

Stu

den

t Eva

luatio

n of P

rogra

m R

eport – 2

011/2

012

Student Evaluation of Program Report

2011/2012 Student Evaluation of Program Report

165 Students

Table of Contents

Apprenticeship Program Regular Programs continuedCook Culinary ArtsRegular Programs Deaf Studies3D Computer Graphics Digital Media DesignApplied Accounting Graphic DesignAviation Management Graphic Design - AdvancedBusiness Administration (by Majors) Health Information Management Accounting / Administration / Financial Services/ Hotel & Restaurant Management Marketing / Office Management International BusinessBusiness Information Technology Introduction to Business Information Technology Application Development IST - Network Management Network Management Professional Baking & PatisserieCommerce/Industry Sales & Marketing Technical CommunicationsComputer Analyst/Programmer Tourism ManagementCreative Communications

Regular ProgramsAdministrative Assistant Occupational Health & SafetyApplied Counselling Professional PhotographyEducational Assistant Railway ConductorHealth Unit Clerk Recreation Facilitator for Older AdultsLegal Administrative Assistant Residential Decorating Certificate

Apprenticeship Programs Regular ProgramsBricklayer Architectural/Engineering TechnologyCabinetmaker Building Design CAD TechnologyCarpenter CarpentryCommon Core Electrical ElectricalConstruction Electrician Geographic Information Systems TechnologyLather (Interior Systems Mechanic) Geomatics TechnologyPlumber Greenspace ManagementPower Electrician Municipal Engineering TechnologyRefrigeration & A/C Mechanic PlumbingRoofer Refrigeration and Air ConditioningSheet Metal WorkerSprinkler System InstallerSteamfitter

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167Report Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168Survey Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169Gender / Age / Designation of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170

School of Business & Applied Arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .171

School of Construction & Engineering Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

School of Continuing Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .181


166Students

Regular ProgramsAboriginal Language Specialist Biindigen College StudiesAboriginal Self-Government Administration Introduction to TradesACCESS Civil Engineering Technology

Regular ProgramsAnimal Health Technology Health Care Aide Chemical and Biosciences Tech (Co-op) Joint Baccalaureate NursingChild and Youth Care Medical Laboratory SciencesDental Assisting - Level II Medical Radiologic TechnologyDiploma Nursing (Accelerated) Paramedicine - Primary Care ParamedicDisability and Community Support Pharmaceutical ManufacturingEarly Childhood Education QA/QC in Pharmaceutical IndustryEarly Childhood Education - Workplace

Regular ProgramsAcademic Eng for Univ/College Entrance English for Professional PurposesEnglish for Apprenticeship and Trades English for Technical PurposesEnglish for Business Purposes Intensive English as a Second LanguageEnglish for Health Care Aides Intensive English for International StudentsEnglish for Nursing Purposes

School of Health Sciences & Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .184

Language Training Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195

School of Indigenous Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .187

Apprenticeship Programs Regular ProgramsAircraft Maintenance Aerospace ManufacturingAuto Service Ed Program (ASEP) Aircraft Maintenance EngineerAuto Service Technician Intro to Aircraft MaintenanceBoilermaker Manufacturing CADBoilermaker - Entry Manufacturing TechnicianCrane Operator Mechanical Engineering TechnologyIronworker Outdoor Power Equipment TechnicianMotor Vehicle Body Repairer Power Engineering TechnologyMotor Vehicle Body Repairer Painter Technology ManagementMotor Vehicle Mechanic ASSET Transport Trailer Technician Truck and Transport Mechanic

School of Transportation, Aviation & Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191

Appendices

C Quality Category Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199B Quality Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

D Technical Overview of Analytic Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201D1 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

A Programs with less than 5 respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Regular ProgramsBusiness/Technology Teacher Education Industrial Arts/Technology Teacher Education

School of Learning Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189


167

Every year Red River College surveys students, in all full-time programs, towards the end of their program of study. The annual Student Evaluation of Program Survey (SEPS) is part of Red River College’s commitment to understand the attitudes and experiences of college students. The survey questionnaire includes demographic questions and forty-four questions concerning students’ experiences with College programs, facilities, and services. The data are used across the College to improve programs, facilities, and services to students. Selected questions from the survey are part of internal Program Validations and are used as key College performance indicators.

This report presents the results of the 2011-12 SEPS in a mode that allows for a broad overview of findings and that facilitates wide distribution. The report opens with an outline of the College aggregate results, including a summary of student ratings of key aspects of the College and the characteristics of respondents by major program type, that is, Apprenticeship, Regular Program, and Continuing Studies. Primarily, the report summarizes student attitudes by School and by Program. In order to summarize the findings, the data was first reduced through factor analysis. This statistical technique allows the information contained in a large number of questions to be summarized in a smaller set of factors. The main applications of factor analytic techniques are: (1) to reduce the number of variables and (2) to detect structure in the relationships between variables, that is to classify variables into categories.

The forty-four questions on the SEPS can be summarized in eight dimensions:

• Program Quality• Quality of Orientation• Quality of familiarization to College Policies• Quality of welcoming, inclusive College Environment• Quality of Instruction• Quality of Program Resources• Quality of College Facilities• Quality of College Services

Students’ assessments of the College are presented along these dimensions in a four-point scale from one to four, with one indicating strong dissatisfaction and four, strong satisfaction throughout the report.

The College encourages comments about this Report. Questions concerning the methodology of this study should be directed to Ashley Blackman, Director of Research and Planning at 204.632.2091 or [email protected].

Ashley BlackmanDirector, Research and Planning

Introduction


168

Red River College’s Student Evaluation of Program survey of 2011/2012 students shows that students express overall high levels of satisfaction with their education. The main prior activity of students was being employed (58%) followed by being a student [either high school, college or university] (29%) and looking for work (7%).

Of all the students who expressed an opinion, 90% were satisfied with their education, 92% would recommend their program to others, and 91% were satisfied with instruction.

Students gave overall ratings higher than 3.0 to Instruction (3.38), College Environment (3.37), Program Quality (3.25), Orientation (3.24), College Facilities (3.16), Program Resources (3.15), and College Services (3.12). Policy Awareness at (2.76) was above the mid-point.

Overall Primary Prior Activity (Before entering program)

Summary of Student Ratings of the College

Student assessments are presented in a four point scale from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating strong dissatisfaction and 4 indicating strong satisfaction

Total College

3.12

3.16

3.15

3.38

3.37

2.76

3.24

3.25

3.19

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

29%

2%

58%

7%

2% 1% Student874 (29%)

Homemaker71 (2%)

Employed1748 (58%)

Unemployed (Looking for work)195 (7%)

Unemployed (Not looking for work)64 (2%)

Undeclared44 (1%)

90% 92% 91%

Satisfied withProgram

RecommendProgram to Others

Satisfied withInstruction

(of those expressing an opinion)

Report Highlights


169

Red River College surveys its students about their program on an annual basis. Students are asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the education received.The analyzed data from the completed and returned surveys are presented in this report for each program. Data are also presented for each Academic School.

Scope of the SurveyStudents from certificate, diploma, advanced diploma and degree programs, as well as from apprenticeship, no award and programs delivered in partnership with external agencies are surveyed during the last term of the program.

Students of contract programs are generally not surveyed. A total of 2,996 students participated in the survey.

MethodologyThe survey is conducted annually during the last term of each program using a paper or online version of the questionnaire. To ensure anonymity, class time is allocated without the instructor being present. If the paper method is being used, a student volunteer collects survey materials from each student and seals them in a return envelope, which is delivered to Research and Planning. The online survey data is collected and accessed directly.

Response Rates All program students who were in class were surveyed, and a proportion of this population responded. The results in this report are based on those respondents. The survey methodology and fielding process does not allow for the calculation of response rates, although, anecdotally, most students in class respond. The number of students responding to the survey is identified in this report for each program.

Surveys Received

Primary Prior Activity by Program Type

Survey Process

Apprenticeship688 (23%)

Continuing Studies196 (7%)

Regular2112 (71%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Apprenticeship Continuing Studies Regular

Undeclared

Unemployed and notlooking for work

Unemployed andlooking for work

Employed

Homemaker

Student

Prior activity of students varied by program type. Most survey respondents were working before attending Red River College, particularly in the Apprenticeship programs. But more Regular and Continuing Studies program students were previously in school than those students in Apprenticeship programs.

Achievement # Programs Surveyed

Surveys Received

Advanced Diploma 7 61Apprenticeship 28 688Certificate 43 1222Diploma 49 887External 1 39No Award 6 99

Total 134 2996


170

Gender of Respondents

There was a significant difference in gender by program type. Apprenticeship students were by far male, Continuing Studies students were primarily female and Regular students were more evenly distributed.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Male Female Undeclared

Age of Respondents

There was a variation in the age structure by program type. Sixty-nine percent of Apprenticeship students and 61 percent of Regular students were 20 to 29 years of age.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Undeclared

35 or older

30 to 34

25 to 29

20 to 24

15 to 19

Designation of Respondents

The proportion of Aboriginal people, visible minorities, and people with disabilities varied by program type with Apprenticeship programs having a smaller proportion than Continuing Studies or Regular programs.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%


Aboriginal Visible Minority Disabled Not Applicable Undeclared


171

Programs in this reportApprenticeship Programs:CookRegular Programs:3D Computer GraphicsApplied AccountingAviation ManagementBusiness Administration (by Majors)

- Accounting - Administration - Financial Services - Marketing - Office Management

Business Information Technology - Application Development - Network Management

Commerce Industry Sales & MarketingComputer Analyst/ProgrammerCreative CommunicationsCulinary ArtsDeaf StudiesDigital Media DesignGraphic Design

Graphic Design - AdvancedHealth Information ManagementHotel & Restaurant ManagementInternational BusinessIntroduction to Business Information

TechnologyIST - Network ManagementProfessional Baking & PatisserieTechnical CommunicationsTourism Management

Primary Prior Activity(Before entering program)

Summary of Student School Ratings

Business & Applied Arts

3.15

3.13

3.19

3.28

3.41

2.69

3.14

3.19

3.17

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Programs with less than 5 respondents are not illustrated in this report, but are included in the School statistics.

45%

2%

44%

7%

2% 0.3% Student283 (45%)

Homemaker12 (2%)

Employed274 (44%)



Undeclared2 (0.3%)

School of Business & Applied Arts


172

Business Administration ‐ Accounting Business Administration ‐ AdministrationTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program

Respondents: 13 Respondents: 35


Business Administration ‐ Financial Services Business Administration ‐ MarketingTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program

Applied AccountingOne‐Year Certificate Program

Respondents: 48Two‐Year Diploma Program

Respondents: 7

Aviation Management

(Apprenticeship) Cook Apprenticeship Program

Respondents: 9

3D Computer GraphicsOne‐Year Advanced Diploma Program

Respondents: 5

3.213.013.19

3.073.44

2.643.113.173.13

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.173.053.09

2.823.32

2.383.38

3.033.03

College ServicesCollege Facilities

Program ResourcesInstruction

College EnvironmentPolicy Awareness

OrientationProgram Quality

Overall Score

3.103.053.223.17

3.502.642.83

3.183.13

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.813.593.733.673.63

2.683.563.633.57

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.583.573.773.803.69

3.003.70

3.573.59

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.263.32

3.113.223.36

2.893.31

3.123.20

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.082.80

3.223.39

3.022.41

3.212.43

2.92

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.182.983.223.233.39

2.592.93

3.203.12

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students


173 Students





BIT ‐ Network Management Commerce Industry Sales & MarketingTwo‐Year Diploma Program One‐Year Certificate Program

Culinary Arts Deaf StudiesTwo‐Year Diploma Program One‐Year Certificate Program

Computer Analyst/Programmer Creative CommunicationsTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program

Two‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma ProgramBusiness Administration ‐ Office Management BIT ‐ Application Development

2.772.592.793.00

2.882.54

2.832.892.78





Overall Score

3.023.003.013.163.31

2.733.253.143.09

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.162.953.06

3.683.60

2.703.293.37

3.24

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.223.413.523.553.62

2.793.34

3.633.41

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.193.18

3.033.37

3.122.682.833.063.08





Overall Score

3.153.40

3.263.77

3.422.52

3.313.333.29

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.163.043.163.08

3.412.44

2.983.23

3.10





Overall Score

2.912.832.90

3.303.27

2.602.953.032.99

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


174

Hotel & Restaurant Management International BusinessTwo‐Year Diploma Program One‐Year Advanced Diploma Program


Digital Media Design Graphic DesignTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program



Graphic Design ‐ Advanced Health Information ManagementOne‐Year Advanced Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program

Introduction to Business Information Technology IST ‐ Network ManagementFour‐Month Preparatory Certificate Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


3.193.153.243.18

3.522.76

3.143.173.20





Overall Score

2.883.103.073.063.20

2.503.083.093.00

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.852.963.062.97

3.292.742.932.862.96





Overall Score

3.403.373.503.703.62

3.203.52

3.373.45

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.273.243.283.503.63

3.033.54

3.203.35





Overall Score

2.822.923.013.19

3.522.482.502.66

2.94

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.213.283.343.343.37

3.053.56

3.243.29





Overall Score

3.133.153.24

3.633.29

2.433.253.283.16

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students


175 Students

Professional Baking & Patisserie Technical CommunicationOne‐Year Certificate Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


Tourism ManagementTwo‐Year Diploma Program

Respondents: 6

2.852.642.69

3.253.02

2.273.083.00

2.83





Overall Score

3.283.32

3.003.66

3.472.71

3.253.263.24

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.403.35

3.133.40

3.773.363.50

3.103.37

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


176

Programs in this reportApprenticeship Programs:BricklayerCabinetmakerCarpenterCommon Core ElectricalConstruction ElectricianLather (Interior Systems Mech)PlumberPower ElectricianRefrigeration &

Air-Conditioning Mechanic

RooferSheet Metal WorkerSprinkler System InstallerSteamfitterRegular Programs:Architectural/Engineering TechnologyBuilding Design CAD TechnologyCabinetry & WoodworkingCabinetry & Woodworking - CertificateCarpentryElectrical

Geographic Information Systems Technology

Geomatics TechnologyGreenspace ManagementMunicipal Engineering TechnologyPlumbingRefrigeration and Air Conditioning


Construction & Engineering Technologies

3.04

3.17

3.08

3.33

3.22

2.57

3.16

3.24

3.11

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score



11% 1%

81%

4%

1% 2% Student78 (11%)

Homemaker11 (1%)

Employed598 (81%)



Undeclared15 (2%)

School of Construction & Engineering Technologies


177 Students

(Apprenticeship) Bricklayer (Apprenticeship) CabinetmakerApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Carpenter (Apprenticeship) Common Core ElectricalApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Construction Electrician (Apprenticeship) Lather (Interior Systems Mech)Apprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Plumber (Apprenticeship) Power ElectricianApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


2.592.63

3.073.443.32

2.673.213.41

3.06

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.303.123.033.283.22

2.822.95

3.293.13

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.223.183.243.293.26

2.613.23

3.073.13

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.373.603.533.78

3.463.04

3.713.68

3.52

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.153.54

3.353.84

3.502.48

3.463.69

3.41

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.113.28

2.963.46

3.222.62

3.333.29

3.14

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.003.173.163.183.11

2.453.183.20

3.05

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.863.073.003.103.11

2.523.163.27

3.02

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

School of Construction & Engineering Technologies


178

(Apprenticeship) Refrigeration & AC Mechanic (Apprenticeship) RooferApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Sheet Metal Worker (Apprenticeship) Sprinkler System InstallerApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Steamfitter Architectural/Engineering TechnologyApprenticeship Program 32‐Month Diploma Program


Building Design CAD Technology Cabinetry & Woodworking20‐Month Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


2.923.13

2.993.55

3.252.48

3.313.173.11





Overall Score

3.373.463.483.71

3.432.94

3.433.65

3.44

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.843.123.08

3.403.06

2.813.15

3.403.12





Overall Score

3.083.103.22

3.013.32

2.372.92

3.283.09

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.032.89

3.243.273.25

2.833.033.073.10





Overall Score

2.892.742.88

3.223.13

2.042.762.932.83





Overall Score

2.933.13

2.953.26

3.092.58

3.043.053.00





Overall Score

3.203.33

3.033.83

3.333.20

3.723.57

3.35

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students


179 Students

Cabinetry & Woodworking ‐ Certificate CarpentryFour‐Month Certificate Program Five‐Month Certificate Program


Electrical Geographic Information Systems TechnologyFive‐Month Certificate Program One‐Year Advanced Diploma Program


Geomatics Technology Greenspace Management32‐Month Diploma Program 30‐Month Diploma Program


Municipal Engineering Technology Plumbing32‐Month Diploma Program Five‐Month Certificate Program


3.093.20

2.893.33

3.221.89

2.793.17

2.99





Overall Score

3.233.33

3.053.353.25

2.753.323.263.19

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.013.19

3.023.083.21

2.513.013.18

3.04





Overall Score

3.042.50

2.762.92

3.452.74

3.073.12

2.95

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.072.81

3.163.293.23

2.563.083.163.05





Overall Score

3.272.98

2.852.83

3.282.61

3.052.47

2.91

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.802.77

3.023.13

2.852.23

2.642.852.80





Overall Score

2.873.31

3.153.55

3.242.46

3.123.38

3.15

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


180

Refrigeration and Air ConditioningOne‐Year Certificate Program

Respondents: 9

2.943.022.943.17

2.862.51

3.063.15

2.94





Overall Score

Students


181

Programs in this reportRegular Programs:Administrative AssistantApplied CounsellingEducational AssistantHealth Unit ClerkLegal Administrative Assistant

Occupational Health & SafetyProfessional PhotographyRailway ConductorRecreation Facilitator for Older AdultsResidential Decorating Certificate


Continuing & Distance Education

3.27

3.29

3.21

3.37

3.43

2.97

3.34

3.14

3.25

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


30%

2%

60%

5%

2% 1% Student58 (30%)

Homemaker5 (3%)

Employed117 (60%)



Undeclared2 (1%)

School of Continuing Education


182

Administrative Assistant Applied CounsellingContinuing Studies Certificate Program Continuing Studies Certificate Program


Educational Assistant Health Unit ClerkContinuing Studies Certificate Program Continuing Studies Certificate Program


Legal Administrative Assistant Occupational Health & SafetyContinuing Studies Certificate Program Continuing Studies Certificate Program


Professional Photography Railway ConductorContinuing Studies Certificate Program Continuing Studies Certificate Program


3.073.04

2.762.883.06

2.722.97

2.842.89

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.202.97

2.692.59

3.042.31

2.942.20

2.74

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.283.363.433.57

3.423.16

3.443.353.38

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.403.503.47

3.773.64

3.173.51

3.253.46

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.203.18

2.902.73

3.412.652.812.863.00

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.162.972.883.00

3.372.77

3.503.003.05

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.253.393.333.583.57

3.103.72

3.263.38

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.393.21

2.983.353.59

3.003.50

2.933.24

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students


183 Students

Recreation Facilitator for Older Adults Residential Decorating CertificateContinuing Studies Certificate Program Continuing Studies Certificate Program


3.443.263.27

3.593.53

2.973.433.393.35





Overall Score

3.073.26

3.053.253.30

2.743.003.103.11

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


184

Programs in this reportRegular Programs:Animal Health TechnologyChemical and Biosciences Technology (Co-op)Child and Youth CareDental Assisting - Level IIDiploma Nursing (Accelerated)Disability and Community SupportEarly Childhood EducationEarly Childhood Education - Workplace

Health Care AideJoint Baccalaureate NursingMedical Laboratory SciencesMedical Radiologic TechnologyParamedicine - Primary Care ParamedicPharmaceutical ManufacturingQA/QC in Pharmaceutical Industry


Health Sciences & Community Services

3.23

3.23

3.23

3.45

3.45

2.80

3.30

3.32

3.26

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score



31%

4%58%

4%

1% 0.6% Student156 (31%)

Homemaker21 (4%)

Employed294 (58%)



Undeclared3 (0.6%)

School of Health Sciences & Community Services


185 Students

.

Early Childhood Education Early Childhood Education ‐ WorkplaceTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


Diploma Nursing (Accelerated) Disability and Community SupportTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


Child and Youth Care Dental Assisting ‐ Level IITwo‐Year Diploma Program One‐Year Certificate Program


Animal Health Technology Chemical and Biosciences Technology (Co‐op)Two‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


3.223.09

2.973.353.39

2.873.193.183.16

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.163.103.113.403.45

2.753.323.33

3.21

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.122.953.093.173.23

2.763.243.22

3.07

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.203.163.37

3.733.50

3.353.353.453.39

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.573.533.563.783.68

3.263.463.553.55

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.152.892.893.07

3.402.87

3.363.173.07

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.993.09

2.783.173.27

2.943.00

2.873.01

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.213.243.373.243.42

2.733.333.323.24

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

School of Health Sciences & Community Services


186

QA/QC in Pharmaceutical IndustryOne‐Year Advanced Diploma Program

Respondents: 11

Paramedicine ‐ Primary Care Paramedic Pharmaceutical ManufacturingOne‐Year Certificate Program One‐Year Certificate Program


Medical Laboratory Sciences Medical Radiologic TechnologyTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


Health Care Aide Joint Baccalaureate Nursing20‐Week Certificate Program Four‐Year Joint Program


3.403.503.403.653.61

2.753.383.493.41

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.123.36

3.143.383.32

2.803.40

3.103.19





Overall Score

3.363.373.513.78

3.592.97

3.573.65

3.48

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.403.293.303.60

3.282.77

3.253.083.24

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.042.702.903.01

3.272.53

2.943.012.95





Overall Score

3.093.083.05

3.413.38

2.593.133.213.13

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.063.263.233.45

3.293.133.273.163.22

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students

School of Indigenous Education


187

Programs in this reportRegular Programs:Aboriginal Language SpecialistAboriginal Self-Government AdministrationACCESS Civil Engineering Technology

Biindigen College StudiesIntroduction to Trades




Indigenous Education

3.08

3.16

3.12

3.43

3.35

2.73

3.21

3.17

3.17

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

27%

66%

7%

Student11 (27%)

Employed27 (66%)


School of Indigenous Education


188

Aboriginal Language Specialist Aboriginal Self‐Government AdministrationTwo‐Year Diploma Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


ACCESS Civil Engineering Technology Biindigen College StudiesOne‐Year ACCESS Program One‐Year Certificate Program


Introduction to TradesFive‐Month Certificate Program

Respondents: 13

3.053.033.03

3.383.27

3.003.08

3.383.14

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.852.963.193.36

3.652.37

3.143.123.09

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.343.23

3.523.423.40

2.443.40

3.143.22

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.553.63

3.373.35

3.023.403.403.403.42

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.003.19

2.803.46

3.332.72

3.153.053.12

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students

School of Learning Innovation


189

Programs in this reportRegular Programs:Business/Technology Teacher EducationIndustrial Arts/Technology Teacher Education


Learning Innovation

2.95

3.15

2.83

3.02

3.41

2.66

3.02

3.07

3.07

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score



70%

22%

8%

Student19 (70%)

Employed6 (22%)


School of Learning Innovation


190

Business/Technology Teacher Education Industrial Arts/Tech Teacher EducationFive‐Year Joint Diploma/Degree Program Five‐Year Joint Diploma/Degree Program


2.952.95

2.142.33

3.582.752.65

2.472.83

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.963.253.203.45

3.302.62

3.243.42

3.20

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students

School of Transportation, Aviation & Manufacturing


191

Programs in this reportApprenticeship Programs:Aircraft MaintenanceAuto Service Ed Program (ASEP)Auto Service TechnicianBoilermakerBoilermaker - EntryCrane OperatorIronworkerMotor Vehicle Body Repairer

Motor Vehicle Body Repairer PainterMotor Vehicle Mechanic ASSETTransport Trailer TechnicianTruck and Transport Mechanic

Regular Programs:Aerospace ManufacturingAircraft Maintenance Engineer


Transportation, Aviation & Manufacturing

3.06

3.11

3.05

3.42

3.33

2.73

3.26

3.27

3.16

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score



Intro to Aircraft MaintenanceManufacturing CADManufacturing TechnicianMechanical Engineering TechnologyOutdoor Power Equipment TechnicianPower Engineering TechnologyTechnology Management

17%

0.5%

75%

4%

3% 1% Student68 (17%)

Homemaker2 (0.5%)

Employed305 (75%)



Undeclared3 (1%)

School of Transportation, Aviation & Manufacturing


192

(Apprenticeship) Aircraft Maintenance (Apprenticeship) Auto Service Ed Program (ASEP)Five‐Month Certificate Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Auto Service Technician (Apprenticeship) BoilermakerApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Boilermaker ‐ Entry (Apprenticeship) Crane Operator Apprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Ironworker (Apprenticeship) Motor Vehicle Body RepairerApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


3.173.28

3.113.64

3.362.60

2.933.37

3.22

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.032.852.99

3.683.062.88

3.263.56

3.16

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.013.22

2.793.433.41

3.103.293.163.17

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.233.36

3.223.443.50

2.733.433.433.31

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.303.243.19

3.773.50

2.493.473.54

3.30

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.043.16

2.893.363.33

2.663.243.253.12

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.982.94

2.782.64

3.132.61

3.282.962.90

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.843.26

2.903.44

3.242.42

3.253.37

3.10

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students


193 Students

(Apprenticeship) Motor Vehicle Body Repairer Painter (Apprenticeship) Motor Vehicle Mechanic ASSETApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


(Apprenticeship) Transport Trailer Technician (Apprenticeship) Truck and Transport MechanicApprenticeship Program Apprenticeship Program


Aerospace Manufacturing Aircraft Maintenance EngineerFive‐Month Certificate Program Fifteen‐Month Diploma Program


Intro to Aircraft Maintenance Manufacturing CADFour‐Month Certificate Program One‐Year Certificate Program


3.023.38

3.093.54

2.992.60

3.003.22

3.11





Overall Score

3.153.32

3.103.413.37

2.803.403.47

3.25

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.193.313.26

3.773.47

2.933.333.233.30

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.832.62

3.273.12

3.442.81

3.322.983.04

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.833.023.13

3.583.23

2.862.883.073.11





Overall Score

2.953.10

2.942.78

3.042.762.903.002.94





Overall Score

3.503.69

3.423.83

3.673.473.673.673.60

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.103.34

3.173.75

3.482.35

3.363.363.25

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


194

Outdoor Power Equipment Technician Power Engineering TechnologyOne‐Year Certificate Program Two‐Year Diploma Program


Manufacturing Technician Mechanical Engineering TechnologyTwo‐Year Diploma Program 28‐Month Diploma Program


Technology ManagementOne‐Year Advanced Diploma Program

Respondents: 5

3.333.50

3.334.004.003.444.00

3.233.55





Overall Score

2.502.92

3.263.57

2.982.67

3.143.163.07





Overall Score

2.922.82

3.063.42

3.112.57

3.003.20

3.03





Overall Score

3.203.31

2.903.173.30

2.173.08

2.963.02





Overall Score

2.821.941.96

2.752.78

2.522.59

2.052.40





Overall Score

Students

Language Training Centre


195

Programs in this reportRegular Programs:Academic English for Univ/College EntranceEnglish for Apprenticeship and TradesEnglish for Business PurposesEnglish for Health Care AidesEnglish for Nursing Purposes

English for Professional PurposesEnglish for Technical PurposesIntensive English as a Second LanguageIntensive English for International Students



3.06

3.10

3.23

3.53

3.45

3.04

3.40

3.32

3.27

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


44%

4%

28%

16%

4% 4%Student201 (44%)

Homemaker20 (4%)

Employed127 (28%)



Undeclared19 (4%)



196

Academic Eng for Univ/College Entrance English for Apprenticeship and TradesLanguage Training Centre Certificate Program Language Training Centre Certificate Program


English for Business Purposes English for Health Care AidesLanguage Training Centre Certificate Program Language Training Centre Certificate Program


English for Nursing Purposes English for Professional PurposesLanguage Training Centre Certificate Program Language Training Centre Certificate Program


English for Technical Purposes Intensive English as a Second LanguageLanguage Training Centre Certificate Program Language Training Centre Certificate Program


2.873.03

2.723.713.95

3.593.63

3.493.34

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.143.223.14

3.893.48

3.283.36

3.793.42

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.083.133.34

3.643.46

3.183.433.393.34

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.063.073.263.363.50

3.073.503.403.28

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

2.682.812.892.973.12

2.743.27

2.782.87

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.002.942.993.15

3.452.71

3.003.123.10

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.253.403.31

3.593.19

3.003.253.363.30

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

3.223.54

3.413.77

3.502.88

3.233.333.38

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score

Students


197 Students

Intensive English for International StudentsLanguage Training Centre Certificate Program

Respondents: 54

2.982.842.95

3.403.19

2.533.16

2.872.97

College Services

College Facilities

Program Resources

Instruction

College Environment

Policy Awareness

Orientation

Program Quality

Overall Score


198

Business & Applied Arts• BIT - Web Development

Construction and Engineering Technologies• APP Landscape Technician• APP Painter and Decorator• Electrical Engineering Technology Integrated• Electronic and Network Technician• Network Technology (CCNA) • Structural Engineering Technology• Wood Products Manufacturing Technology

- Diploma

Continuing Education• Power Engineering - 5th Class

Health Sciences & Community Services• Chemical & Biosciences Technology

(Non Co-op)• MRI & Spectroscopy

Indigenous Education• Community Dev/Economic Development• Computer Applications for Business

Transportation, Aviation & Manufacturing• Precision Metal Machining

Quality Category (Dimension) Chart Category Survey Question Number

Overall Program Quality Program Quality 12 to 17

Quality of Orientation Orientation 18 to 19

Quality of familiarization with College policies Policy Awareness 20 to 24

Quality of the welcoming, inclusive college environment College Environment 25 to 31

Quality of Instruction Instruction 32 to 35

Quality of program resources Program Resources 36 to 41

Quality of College facilities College Facilities 42 to 47

Quality of College services College Services 48 to 55

Students

Appendix A - Programs with less than 5 respondents

Appendix B - Quality Categories

Appendices

C Quality Category Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199B Quality Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

D Technical Overview of Analytic Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . 201

D1 Exploratory Factor Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

A Programs with less than 5 respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Appendix C - Quality Category Questions


199 Students

Appendix A - Programs with less than 5 respondents

Appendix B - Quality Categories

Appendices Appendix C - Quality Category Questions

Note: Question 1 - 11 ask for demographic information. Question numbers refer to the numbering used in the survey questionnaire, not the numbering used in the survey results reports (which exclude question 1 from the questionnaire.)

Overall Program Quality (Program Quality)12. Before I applied, I had a good understanding of the program’s purpose.13. The training I have received in this program has met my expectations.14. The program content is relevant to my career goals.15. The tuition fee for this program is reasonable for the education provided.16. Overall, I am satisfied with this program.17. I would recommend this program to others.

Quality of Orientation (Orientation)18. The orientation to the program provided by the Department was effective in explaining the

requirements of the program.19. Upon admission to the program, I was made aware of my role and responsibilities as a student.

Quality of familiarization with College policies (Policy Awareness)20. I am familiar with the College’s challenge for credit policy.21. I am familiar with the College’s transfer of credit policy.22. I am familiar with the College’s appeals procedure as it relates to academic and/or discipline issues.23. I am familiar with the College’s harassment policy.24. I am familiar with Prior Learning Assessment at the College.

Quality of the welcoming, inclusive college environment (College Environment)25. My gender does not limit my success in the program.26. My race or ethnic origin does not limit my success in the program. 27. My physical ability does not limit my success in the program.28. My financial situation does not limit my success in the program.29. My English language skills do not limit my success in the program.30. My Mathematical skills do not limit my success in the program.31. My experience in the program has increased my awareness of values and cultures that are different

from my own.

Quality of Instruction (Instruction)32. The instructors treat students with respect.33. The instructors are effective in delivering the program.34. The instructors are knowledgeable in the areas they teach.35. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of instruction within the program.


200Students

Appendix C - Quality Category Questions continued

Quality of program resources (Program Resources)36. The training materials (texts, workbooks, handouts, etc.) used in the program are current.37. I am satisfied with the quality of the training materials used in this program. 38. The equipment used in this program is appropriate for learning the required skills.39. The equipment used in this program is current with industry.40. There is a sufficient quantity of equipment provided for the program.41. There is a sufficient quantity of CURRENT library resource materials for use by students in the

program. (Books, video tapes, audio tapes, periodicals, pamphlets, etc.).

Quality of College facilities (College Facilities)42. The classroom facilities are appropriate.43. The shop/lab facilities are appropriate. 44. Adequate study space is available to students.45. Student lounge space is adequate.46. The gymnasium/fitness facilities are satisfactory.47. Overall, the College facilities meet my needs as a student.

Quality of College services (College Services)48. I am satisfied with the service provided from the Academic Support Services (Tutorial Centre).49. I am satisfied with the service I received from the Counselling Centre. 50. I am satisfied with the service I received from the Job Centre.51. I am satisfied with the service I received from the Library.52. I am satisfied with the service I received from the Bookstore.53. I am satisfied with the service I received from the Enrolment Services Department.54. I am satisfied with the service I received from the Print and Graphic Centre/Copy Centre.55. Overall, I am satisfied with the quality of service provided by the College.


201 Students

Surveys include many questions about one or more topics. Typically, how respondents answer these different questions tends to form patterns, that is, many of the responses are correlated. The RRC Student Evaluation of Program (SEPS) has 44 attitude questions on a variety of matters about the College.

Factor analysis is a statistical approach used to analyze interrelationships among a large number of variables and to explain these variables in terms of their common underlying dimensions or factors (Fisher & van Belle, 1993; Green & Salkind, 2003; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991). This statistical technique allows the information contained in a large number of survey questions to be summarized in a smaller set of factors. The analysis compresses the original variables into a smaller set of dimensions. There are two main types of factor analysis, confirmatory and exploratory.

The analysis in the first annual SEPS report (2003-04 survey) was exploratory. Exploratory factor analysis is used to discover the factor structure of a set of observed variables. Observed variables are the measured variables and are sometimes called indicator variables or manifest variables or reference variables, such as items in a survey instrument. It is often used when researchers have no hypotheses about the nature of the underlying factor structure of their measures.

Factor analysis generates a correlation matrix for all the observed variables. A correlation matrix is a rectangular array of the correlation coefficients of the variables with each other. Factors (dimensions) are extracted from the correlation matrix based on the correlation coefficients of the variables. Then, the factors are rotated in order to maximize the relationship between the variables and some of the factors. In general, the number of dimensions or factors is much smaller than the number of original variables. Factors or dimensions are also sometimes referred to as latent variables to distinguish them from the observed variables.

Additionally, it is possible to compute factor or dimension scores for use in subsequent analyses. As well, the reliability of dimensions, which generally include a number of items, can be tested. The results of the initial exploratory factor analysis are included as Appendix D1.

The first year, 2003-04, established the factor structure; this year we wanted to establish its consistency. In factor analysis, confirmatory analysis is used to test the consistency of the structure. The 2003-04 factor structure included eight dimensions arising from the original set of variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (Coughlin, 2005; Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991) was applied to the 2004-05 data set using the 2003-04 structure. Confirmatory factor analysis is used when a particular factor structure has been specified, in which the researcher designates the variables to load on each factor – in this case the factor structure arising from the 2003-04 SEPS.

The analysis proceeded through several steps. First a global test of the fit of the original factor model to the new data set was undertaken. The original factor model was re-estimated using the original data set again forcing eight factors, using principal axis factoring with a promax rotation and a maximum likelihood estimation method. The data set had missing data (some of the individual questions had large numbers of non-responses). The chi-square and degrees of freedom were calculated and the model was then applied to the second data set. Table 1 provides the results.

Table 1.

SEPS 2003-04

SEPS 2004-05

2χΔ

2χ 1169.7 1275.8 106.1

df 622 622 0

1 Research and Planning would like to thank Ashley Blackman for his advice and guidance on the statistical procedures.

Appendix D - Technical Overview of Analytic Techniques1


202

This meant the model was rejected, that is, the original model did not fit the second data set. In order to proceed, the two data sets were explored using multinomial logistic regression to help identify why they are different. Seven questions (or variables) showed a difference. Compared to 2003-04, the responses to questions 25, 28, 32, 38, 41, 45 and 53 were more positive (or less negative) in 2004-05. Combined, these variables have a reliability alpha .72 and this set of variables showed a significant difference from 2003-04 to 2004-05. While the model would still be rejected, removing the variables that changed removed most of the variability.

The last stage of the analysis conducted the confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling (SEM)2 with AMOS3. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the factor structure model for the 2003-04 (2003 in the figure) SEPS and for 2004-05 (2004 in the figure) in its final form, allowing correlated error terms4.

This means5 that we can have confidence in applying the original factor structure to the 2004-05 survey results. In other words, the original eight dimensions still work with the 2004-05 SEPS findings.

Figure 1. Factor Model for the 2003-04 SEPS.

2 SEM is a multivariate statistical analysis technique that encompasses and extends standard statistical methods such as regression, factor analysis, and simultaneous equations and analysis of variance. It is largely a confirmatory and not an exploratory technique. SEM is used to test hypotheses about the relationships between observed and latent variables. Using SEM it is possible to explore factor models (Coughlin, 2005). The goal of structural equation modeling (SEM) is to compare a covariance matrix generated from a particular sample with a covariance matrix generated by a hypothesized model.

3 AMOS is a structural equation modeling software distributed by SPSS 4 Correlated error terms refers to situations where knowing the residual of one variable helps in knowing the residual associated with another variable. The

correlation of error terms may and should be explicitly modeled in SEM. In SEM, the researcher must model error as well as the variables. It makes particular sense in this instance in that the variables are correlated with each other.

5 For example, the goodness-of-fit (GFI) index should be at .90 or greater to have the model considered as adequate (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996).

Satisfaction

A_Services E_A

.76B_Policy E_B

.65C_Resources E_C

.87

D_Environment E_D.62

E_Instruction E_E

.61

F_Quality E_F

.62

G_Facilities E_G

.77

H_Orientation E_H

.30

.29.24

.39

-.08

.10

Satisfaction model based on principal axis factor analysis2003 GFI .991

Chisq=31.236 df=20 p=.052

.13

.02

-.17

-.19

.06

Students

Appendix D - Technical Overview of Analytic Techniques continued


203 Students

Figure 2. Factor Model for the 2004-05 SEPS. The reliability scores of the eight dimensions for the 2004-05 SEPS data set are illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Factors Extracted from the Student Evaluation of Program Survey 2004-05. Dimension Reliability6 Number of

Items

Overall Program Quality .839 6

Quality of Orientation .660 27

Quality of familiarization to College policies .886 5

Quality of the welcoming, inclusive college environment .802 7

Quality of Instruction .877 4

Quality of program resources .852 6

Quality of College Facilities .842 6

Quality of College Services .914 7 These reliability scores are very similar to the scores from the 2003-04 SEPS, excepting Orientation, which is somewhat lower.

6 Cronbach's alpha measures how well a set of items (or variables) measures a single unidimensional latent construct. When data have a multidimensional structure, Cronbach's alpha will usually be low. Cronbach's alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). The acceptable range is normally considered to be between .7 and 1.0 (Nunnally, 1978).

7 Velicer and Fava (1998) argue that factors should have at least three variables, however, if the original variables are best interpreted as a pair and the intent is to develop the underlying dimensions it makes sense to use only two.

Satisfaction

A_Services E_A

.69B_Policy E_B

.48C_Resources E_C

.95

D_Environment E_D.74

E_Instruction E_E

.68

F_Quality E_F

.77

G_Facilities E_G

.71

H_Orientation E_H

.17

.26.19

.36

-.01

.10

Satisfaction model based on principal axis factor analysis2004 GFI .991

Chisq=31.236 df=20 p=.052

.24

.15

-.24

-.51

-.26

Appendix D - Technical Overview of Analytic Techniques continued


204

The first step in exploratory factor analysis is to assess whether or not the data set is appropriate for factor analysis. SPSS 13.0 was used to conduct the analysis. The overall factor analysis was evaluated through the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Tests. The KMO measures the sampling adequacy which should be greater than 0.6 for a satisfactory factor analysis to proceed (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001). The Bartlett’s test8 of sphericity examines whether there are adequate intercorrelations between the items to use factor analysis and it should be significant (p ≤ .05).

For the factor analysis of the SEPS, the results (Table 1) indicate a satisfactory analysis:

Table D1. KMO and Bartlett's Test Results for SEPS 2003-04 Factor Analysis

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .944

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 11753.541 df 946 Sig. .000

The steps in factor analysis are to select an extraction method for the correlations from the matrix and a rotation method to maximize the loadings of the items into a factor. Examining the correlations among the many survey items in the Student Evaluation of Program Survey (SEPS) for 2003-04 revealed that there was a significant correlation among various subgroups of questions. There are two main extraction methods, principal components analysis or common factor analysis (there are several specific techniques). Two strategies were used in conducting the exploratory factor analysis. First, principal component analysis (PAC)9 with a varimax10 rotation was used for the analysis of the forty-four questions, all of which were attitude-type questions with a four point11 agree – disagree scale. Factors are extracted in order and the first factor accounts for the largest amount of variability and the second factor the second most and so on. The factors were initially selected based on the scree plot12 (included as Figure 1) and included all factors with an eigenvalue (the variability of a factor)13 greater than one. This yielded seven factors. Then the selected factors were rotated through a varimax routine to yield separate uncorrelated factors or dimensions. Factor loading14 were at a minimum of .3015. Subsequently, the derived factors were examined in relation to the original set of questions and a further analysis was conducted to achieve eight dimensions, which seemed to be more interpretable for the original question items. The scree test and the eigenvalue-greater-than-one criteria are meant to act as guides in determining factors; what is more important is to have a set of factors that arise from the data and are more meaningful (Fabrigar, et. al., 1999).

8 A test statistic used to examine the hypothesis that the variables are uncorrelated. It is used to test the suitability of a correlation matrix for factor analysis by examining if the data contain sufficient correlations to warrant analysis (i.e., whether the correlation matrix (variance/covariance matrix) is an identity matrix). If the obtained chi square value is significant, then the correlation matrix to be analyzed is non-random and is suitable for factor analysis.

9 Principal components analysis (PCA) is a form of factor analysis. It involves a mathematical procedure that transforms a number of (possibly) correlated variables into a (smaller) number of uncorrelated variables called principal components. The first principal component accounts for as much of the variability in the data as possible, and each succeeding component accounts for as much of the remaining variability as possible.

10 A variance maximizing (varimax) rotation is a method for rotating axes of a plot such that the eigenvectors remain orthogonal (that is uncorrelated) as they are rotated. These rotations are so that the axes are rotated to a position in which the sum of the variances of the loadings is the maximum possible. This type of rotation is called variance maximizing because the purpose of the rotation is to maximize the variance (variability) of the factor (the "new" variable), while minimizing the variance around the new variable. It assumes uncorrelated factors.

11 It may be argued that a four-point scale is not continuous, however, factor analysis is very robust and it is not uncommon to use factor analysis with four point scales.

12 A scree plot is a plot of the eigenvalue for each factor; generally, a criterion for selection of factors is that all factors are retained with eigenvalues in the sharp descent part of the plot before the values level off.

13 An eigenvalue is the standardized variance associated with a particular factor. 14 A factor loading expresses the correlation of an item with a factor. 15 A general rule of thumb is that factor loadings greater than .30 are considered to be useful. This is just a guideline and may need to be adjusted, for example,

as the sample size and the number of variables increase, the criterion may need to be adjusted slightly downward and it may need to be adjusted upward as the number of factors increases (see Hair, et. al., 1998).

Students

Appendix D1 - Exploratory Factor Analysis Results from the 2003-04 SEPS


205 Students

In addition, a separate analysis was

conducted using principal axis factoring (PAF)16 with a promax17 rotation. Factor loading were at a minimum of .40. Initially, seven factors were extracted as with the PCA, but the factors varied very slightly. The analysis was re-run for eight factors, and the results were virtually identical to the PCA. What is reported here derives from the pattern matrix of the principal axis factoring (see Table 3 for the factor loadings). Some researchers (Fabrigar, et. al., 1999; Gorsuch, 1990; Preacher & MacCallum, 2003) suggest that principal axis factoring with an oblique rotation is the preferred method of factor analysis even if principal component analysis is widely used and explained in many texts (for example, Green & Salkind, 2003).

According to the analysis, the forty-four questions can be summarized in eight dimensions, or scales as illustrated in Table 2. The dimensions or scale items were also tested for reliability. Hence, the forty-four items can be summarized in eight dimensions with high reliability.

Table D2. Factors (Dimensions) Extracted from the 2003-04 Student Evaluation of Program Survey.

Dimension Reliability18 Number of Items

Overall Program Quality .814 6

Quality of Orientation .721 219

Quality of familiarization to College policies .892 5

Quality of the welcoming, inclusive college environment .794 7

Quality of Instruction .875 4

Quality of program resources .856 6

Quality of College Facilities .869 6

Quality of College Services .902 7

16 Principal axis factoring is another common form of factor analysis. It uses squared multiple correlations as the initial estimates of the communalities. The general factor model asserts that there is common factor plus individual idiosyncrasies. Principal component works only with the common factor, whereas principal axis tries to use both. (Principal component treats the individual elements as part of the error term). In theory, developing a model that takes into account more of the sources of variability can be useful. As well, with the SEPS data set, it is likely that the factors are correlated.

17 Promax is an oblique rotation such that the vertices can have any angle. It allows factors to be correlated. Its name derives from procrustean rotation because it tries to fit a target matrix which has a simple structure. With the SEPS data set, it is likely that the factors are correlated.

18 Cronbach's alpha measures how well a set of items (or variables) measures a single unidimensional latent construct. When data have a multidimensional structure, Cronbach's alpha will usually be low. Cronbach's alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). The acceptable range is between .7 and 1.0 (Nunnally, 1978).

19 Velicer and Fava (1998) argue that factors should have at least three variables, however, if the original variables are best interpreted as a pair and the intent is to develop the underlying dimensions it makes sense to use only two.

Appendix D1 - Exploratory Factor Analysis Results from the 2003-04 SEPS continued

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

987654321

Factor Number

15

10

5

0

Eige

nval

ue

Figure 1. Scree Plot



206

Table D3. Summary of Factor Loadings for Promax, Principal Axis Factoring for the Student Evaluation

of Program Survey 2003-04. (Note. Only factor loadings greater than .40 are shown.)

Factor

College Services

Policy Awareness

Program Resources

College Environment Instruction Program

Quality College

Facilities Orientation

Q12 .551

Q13 .574

Q14 .720

Q15 .473

Q16 .672

Q17 .590

Q18 .433

Q19 .447

Q20 .756

Q21 .904

Q22 .922

Q23 .722

Q24 .747

Q25 .768

Q26 .767

Q27 .830

Q28 .425

Q29 .612

Q30 .482

Q31 .418

Q32 .779

Q33 .844

Q34 .682

Q35 .828

Students



207 Students

Table D3. continued

Factor

College Services

Policy Awareness

Program Resources

College Environment Instruction Program

Quality College

Facilities Orientation

Q36 .677

Q37 .652

Q38 .788

Q39 .821

Q40 .760

Q41 .527

Q42 .658

Q43 .635

Q44 .785

Q45 .723

Q46 .613

Q47 .507

Q48 .571

Q49 .687

Q50 .847

Q51 .729

Q52 .754

Q53 .860

Q54 .818

Q55 .768



208

Table D4. Factor Correlation Matrix

Factor Correlations College

Services Policy

Awareness Program

Resources College

EnvironmentInstructio

n Program Quality

College Facilities Orientation

College Services 1.000

Policy Awareness .549 1.000

Program Resources .659 .500 1.000

College Environment .502 .407 .467 1.000

Instruction .416 .410 .518 .402 1.000

Program Quality .458 .552 .561 .382 .623 1.000

College Facilities .706 .486 .692 .443 .469 .494 1.000

Orientation .212 .277 .232 .263 .221 .236 .235 1.000

References

Coughlin, M.A. (2005). Applied multivariate statistics. In M.A. Coughlin (Ed.) Applications of intermediate/advanced statistics in institutional research. Tallahassee, FL: The Association for Institutional Research.

Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 3, 272-299.

Fisher, L.D. & van Belle, G. (1993). Biostatistics. New York: Wiley.

Gorsuch, R.L. (1990). Common factor analysis versus components analysis: Some well and little known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 33-39.

Green, S.B. & Salkind, N.J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh (3rd Ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, (5th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pedhazur, E.J. & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design and analysis: An Integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Preacher, K.J. & MacCallum, R.C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 13-43.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th Ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Velicer, W.F. & Fava, J.L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231-251.

Students


Graduate Satisfaction Student Evaluation and Employment ... · PDF fileSheet Metal Worker...

Documents

Transcript of Graduate Satisfaction Student Evaluation and Employment ... · PDF fileSheet Metal Worker...