Table 2.
Distribution of Student Ratings by Instructional Method (Count and % Within Group)
| Question |
Instructional Method |
Ratingsa |
||||
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
||
| Students were able to complete the course assignments and readings | ||||||
| Traditional | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.9%) | 8 (7.2%) | 42 (37.8%) | 60 (54.1%) | |
| Integrative | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.3%) | 9 (5.9%) | 35 (23.0%) | 106 (69.7%) | |
| Students allocated sufficient time for study | ||||||
| Traditional | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 12 (11.3%) | 55 (51.9%) | 39 (36.8%) | |
| Integrative | 1 (0.7%) | 1 (0.7%) | 8 (5.3%) | 50 (32.9%) | 92 (60.5%) | |
| Organization of faculty member | ||||||
| Traditional | 2 (1.9%) | 7 (6.6%) | 16 (15.1%) | 40 (37.7%) | 41 (38.7%) | |
| Integrative | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 10 (6.6%) | 51 (33.8%) | 90 (59.6%) | |
| Faculty members encouraged students to participate in class | ||||||
| Traditional | 1 (0.9%) | 2 (1.9%) | 16 (15.1%) | 44 (41.5%) | 43 (40.6%) | |
| Integrative | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (4.6%) | 41 (27.0%) | 104 (68.4%) | |
| Use of class time supported student learning | ||||||
| Traditional | 4 (3.8%) | 6 (5.8%) | 14 (13.5%) | 44 (42.3%) | 36 (34.6%) | |
| Integrative | 1 (0.7%) | 3 (2.0%) | 11 (7.5%) | 42 (28.6%) | 90 (61.2%) | |
| Class resources and instruction contributed to student learning | ||||||
| Traditional | 2 (1.8%) | 5 (4.6%) | 17 (15.6%) | 49 (45.0%) | 36 (33.0%) | |
| Integrative | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 19 (12.6%) | 42 (27.8%) | 89 (58.9%) | |
| Effective use of class time by faculty member | ||||||
| Traditional | 2 (2.1%) | 7 (7.3%) | 10 (10.4%) | 41 (42.7%) | 36 (37.5%) | |
| Integrative | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0.0%) | 7 (5.6%) | 35 (28.0%) | 82 (65.6%) | |
a
Scale for ratings: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.