|
January 31, 2001
Report on the UHWO Senior Project External Evaluation,
January 20-21, 2001
by Ernie Oshiro, Director, Assessment Office
Description of Process
The Senior Project External Evaluation for UH West Oahu was held on January 20 and 21 from 8:30 to 4:30 on each day. The purpose of the external evaluation was to get unbiased opinion of the quality of our senior projects. Faculty teaching senior projects in Fall 2000 were asked to submit completed projects for external evaluation. A total of 70 senior projects from the three divisions in Fall 2000 were submitted for reading. Since 95 students were registered for senior projects in Fall 2000, those submitted for evaluation represented 74 % of the total number of senior projects registered for in Fall 2000.
The external evaluators were chosen by the Assessment Committee in Fall 2000. They represented the divisions of psychology, sociology, humanities, public administration, and business administration. (See Appendix, External Evaluators List of Names) Further they represented a mix of people from academia and non-academia.
The evaluators were given a Senior Project Criteria sheet to evaluate each project (See Appendix, Senior Project Criteria). A training session was held at the start of the reading for one hour to go over each criteria and to clarify the evaluation process. Each evaluator read all or almost all of the senior projects in his/her field and a second reading of selected projects was also done. In total, 103 projects were read out of the 70 which were submitted, some were read more than once. One criteria sheet was filled out for each reading, and comments were made by each reader on this sheet. (A summary of these comments is given in the Appendix, Senior Project Criteria Comments.) At the end of the reading, a defriefing was held to over the findings and the general impressions which the evaluators had of the senior projects. This defriefing was videotaped and the tape is available in the Assessment Office.
Results
The overall results for all readers and all readings ( note that all readings include double readings of single projects, n=103) have a mean of 3.55. This is shown by the last number in the chart below Generally the senior projects as a whole are rated between satisfactory and good, or if we were to give a grade, about C+. The range of the means is between 3.33 to 3.92 so the variation among categories is small.
All categories, mean and standard deviation
For all readers and all readings, n=103
(w1 to w7 are the criteria on writing skills, a1 to a6 are analytical reasoning, r1 to r5
are research skills)
|
Mean |
Std Deviation |
|---|
| w1 Purpose of paper clearly stated |
3.83 |
1.00 |
|---|
| w2 Develops a theme |
3.79 |
.92 |
|---|
| w3 Style and content |
3.92 |
.91 |
|---|
| w4 Orderly/logical reasoning |
3.75 |
.94 |
|---|
| w5 Sound evidence |
3.55 |
1.07 |
|---|
| w6 Understands plagiarism |
3.86 |
.97 |
|---|
| w7 Mechanical and grammatical skills |
3.79 |
1.02 |
|---|
| a1 Theoretical concepts |
3.33 |
1.33 |
|---|
| a2 Integrates ideas from diff. sources |
3.47 |
1.12 |
|---|
| a3 Draws sound conclusions |
3.38 |
1.12 |
|---|
| a4 Analyzes/discusses data in meaningful way |
3.45 |
1.09 |
|---|
| a5 Collects/organizes data |
3.46 |
1.10 |
|---|
| a6 Use statistics if appropriate |
3.94 |
1.07 |
|---|
| r1 Uses research skills accepted in field |
3.53 |
.95 |
|---|
| r2 Use traditional/electronic sources |
3.61 |
1.00 |
|---|
| r3 Method of citation/documentation |
3.58 |
1.09 |
|---|
| r4 Understand ethical concerns |
3.89 |
.97 |
|---|
| r5 Overall quality of project |
3.55 |
1.04 |
|---|
The range however show a distinct grouping by category. The chart below shows the means of all categories except for a6, "Use statistics when appropriate" and r4 "Understands ethical concerns". These were left out because they were peripheral to the main categories of analytical reasoning and research skills. The ratings for the writing category seem to be centered at 3.8 with the exception of w5, "Sound evidence". The analytical reasoning ratings is centered at 3.4, and the research ratings is centered at about 3.55. The groupings seem to indicate that the mean for writing is slightly higher than research and analytical reasoning has the lowest mean. The w5 is low is consistent with the fact that w5 (whose full title is "Presents sound evidence using appropriate data and examples") is closely related to the analytical reasoning and research categories.
Barchart all categories, means
(Categories a6 and r4 left out)
Overall quality means by readers
The chart below shows that there is a marked difference in the rating of (r5) "overall quality of the project" by readers, ranging from a high of 4.2 to a low of 3.0. This indicates that the instrument was not clear enough to give consistent readings between readers. The ratings, even for similar projects, vary by who is scoring them.
The table below breaks out the data for overall quality in the chart above in terms of divisions. The group total for each reader is given by the last number of the column and this is the number which is graphed in the chart above. Another total is the mean for each division, which is the last mean number in the row in the table below. Note that the overall quality rating is highest for Psychology (3.94) and lowest for Sociology and Business administration (3.32 for each). However the reason for the divisional differences may be due largely to differences in the rating propensity of the readers. That is, the reader who read the Psychology projects was the most lenient while the readers who read the others were less lenient.
|
Larry Fujinaka |
Jerry Calton |
Mark Helbling |
Eloise Tungpalan |
Lynn Zane |
Stella Hookano |
Group Total |
|---|
| Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
|---|
| Public Administration |
r5 Overall quality of project |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
3.50 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.43 |
7 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Psychology |
r5 Overall quality of project |
4.14 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.94 |
33 |
|---|
| Humanities |
r5 Overall quality of project |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.09 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.47 |
19 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Sociology |
r5 Overall quality of project |
. |
|
2.67 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.27 |
11 |
3.32 |
22 |
|---|
| Business Administration |
4.00 |
2 |
3.25 |
8 |
3.25 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.50 |
6 |
2.00 |
1 |
3.32 |
22 |
|---|
| Group Total |
4.19 |
26 |
3.29 |
14 |
3.05 |
20 |
3.92 |
12 |
3.57 |
14 |
3.12 |
17 |
3.55 |
103 |
|---|
The table below shows the percentage of projects by quality and division. Note that 33% of all of the 5's belonged to Psychology. Forty percent of all 4's were done by Bus Ad.
Rating of divisions, by overall quality of project
The table below shows the actual number of projects read in each of the disciplines and the numbers of each quality. For example in Psychology, 11 papers were excellent, 13 were good, etc. The mode for Psychology and Business Administration were 4's while the mode for Humanities and Sociology/Economics were 3's.
Rating of overall quality of projects by division
(by count)
The table below shows the distribution of ratings by each reader in terms of the number of each rating. Reader 1 had a 14 projects (out of 26) rated as 5, while Reader 6 had more of a normal distribution of 1's to 5's.
Rating of overall quality by reader (in counts)
The table below shows that Reader 1 gave 70% of the 5's while Reader 6 gave about 70% of the 1's. Further there is large variation in the scores they gave.
Rating of overall quality of projects, by reader
Written communication means by division and reader
The table below shows the means for written communication by division and by reader. It is probably more helpful to look at the differences within a category than to compare the means among the categories. Also it may be better still to compare categories by focusing in on the ratings of a given reader. This way, reader differences in rating will not bias the result.
|
Larry Fujinaka |
Jerry Calton |
Mark Helbling |
Eloise Tungpalan |
Lynn Zane |
Stella Hookano |
Group Total |
|---|
| Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
|---|
| Public Administration |
w1 Purpose of paper clearly stated |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
4.50 |
4 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
4.14 |
7 |
|---|
| w2 Develops a theme |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
4.50 |
4 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
4.14 |
7 |
|---|
| w3 Style and content |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
3.75 |
4 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
3.71 |
7 |
|---|
| w4 Orderly/logical reasoning |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
3.75 |
4 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
3.57 |
7 |
|---|
| w5 Sound evidence |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
3.50 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.43 |
7 |
|---|
| w6 Understands plagiarism |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.14 |
7 |
|---|
| w7 Mechanical and grammatical skills |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
2.50 |
4 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
2.86 |
7 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Psychology |
w1 Purpose of paper clearly stated |
4.64 |
22 |
4.50 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
4.33 |
3 |
4.00 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.45 |
33 |
|---|
| w2 Develops a theme |
4.36 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
3.67 |
3 |
4.00 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.19 |
33 |
|---|
| w3 Style and content |
4.68 |
22 |
5.00 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.45 |
33 |
|---|
| w4 Orderly/logical reasoning |
4.27 |
22 |
5.00 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.09 |
33 |
|---|
| w5 Sound evidence |
4.36 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.50 |
2 |
4.00 |
33 |
|---|
| w6 Understands plagiarism |
4.91 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.48 |
33 |
|---|
| w7 Mechanical and grammatical skills |
4.86 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
4.67 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.55 |
33 |
|---|
| Humanities |
w1 Purpose of paper clearly stated |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.42 |
19 |
|---|
| w2 Develops a theme |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.18 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
2.50 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.42 |
19 |
|---|
| w3 Style and content |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.27 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.53 |
19 |
|---|
| w4 Orderly/logical reasoning |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.09 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.42 |
19 |
|---|
| w5 Sound evidence |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
2.82 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.32 |
19 |
|---|
| w6 Understands plagiarism |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.17 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.71 |
19 |
|---|
| w7 Mechanical and grammatical skills |
5.00 |
1 |
5.00 |
1 |
3.18 |
11 |
3.50 |
2 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.47 |
19 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Sociology |
w1 Purpose of paper clearly stated |
. |
|
3.33 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.36 |
11 |
3.50 |
22 |
|---|
| w2 Develops a theme |
. |
|
3.00 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.73 |
11 |
3.68 |
22 |
|---|
| w3 Style and content |
. |
|
3.67 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
5.00 |
2 |
4.00 |
3 |
4.00 |
11 |
3.95 |
22 |
|---|
| w4 Orderly/logical reasoning |
. |
|
3.00 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.73 |
11 |
3.68 |
22 |
|---|
| w5 Sound evidence |
. |
|
2.67 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
4.00 |
2 |
4.00 |
3 |
3.40 |
11 |
3.38 |
22 |
|---|
| w6 Understands plagiarism |
. |
|
3.33 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.82 |
11 |
3.77 |
22 |
|---|
| w7 Mechanical and grammatical skills |
. |
|
3.67 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.70 |
11 |
3.76 |
22 |
|---|
| Business Administration |
w1 Purpose of paper clearly stated |
4.00 |
2 |
3.75 |
8 |
3.00 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.33 |
6 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.50 |
22 |
|---|
| w2 Develops a theme |
4.00 |
2 |
3.57 |
8 |
3.25 |
4 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.33 |
6 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.52 |
22 |
|---|
| w3 Style and content |
4.50 |
2 |
3.75 |
8 |
3.00 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.33 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.50 |
22 |
|---|
| w4 Orderly/logical reasoning |
4.00 |
2 |
4.00 |
8 |
3.25 |
4 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.33 |
6 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.67 |
22 |
|---|
| w5 Sound evidence |
4.00 |
2 |
3.71 |
8 |
2.75 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.83 |
6 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.29 |
22 |
|---|
| w6 Understands plagiarism |
4.50 |
2 |
3.33 |
8 |
3.25 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.30 |
22 |
|---|
| w7 Mechanical and grammatical skills |
4.50 |
2 |
3.38 |
8 |
2.75 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.20 |
6 |
2.00 |
1 |
3.24 |
22 |
|---|
| Group Total |
w1 Purpose of paper clearly stated |
4.62 |
26 |
3.79 |
14 |
3.00 |
20 |
4.42 |
12 |
3.50 |
14 |
3.53 |
17 |
3.83 |
103 |
|---|
| w2 Develops a theme |
4.38 |
26 |
3.50 |
14 |
3.20 |
20 |
4.33 |
12 |
3.43 |
14 |
3.71 |
17 |
3.79 |
103 |
|---|
| w3 Style and content |
4.69 |
26 |
3.93 |
14 |
3.20 |
20 |
4.08 |
12 |
3.50 |
14 |
3.82 |
17 |
3.92 |
103 |
|---|
| w4 Orderly/logical reasoning |
4.31 |
26 |
3.83 |
14 |
3.05 |
20 |
4.08 |
12 |
3.43 |
14 |
3.71 |
17 |
3.75 |
103 |
|---|
| w5 Sound evidence |
4.38 |
26 |
3.54 |
14 |
2.80 |
20 |
3.67 |
12 |
3.21 |
14 |
3.38 |
17 |
3.55 |
103 |
|---|
| w6 Understands plagiarism |
4.88 |
26 |
3.50 |
14 |
3.33 |
20 |
3.75 |
12 |
3.14 |
14 |
3.71 |
17 |
3.86 |
103 |
|---|
| w7 Mechanical and grammatical skills |
4.85 |
26 |
3.64 |
14 |
3.05 |
20 |
3.67 |
12 |
3.46 |
14 |
3.50 |
17 |
3.79 |
103 |
|---|
Analytical, quantitative, and qualitative reasoning by division and reader
|
Larry Fujinaka |
Jerry Calton |
Mark Helbling |
Eloise Tungpalan |
Lynn Zane |
Stella Hookano |
Group Total |
|---|
| Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
|---|
| Public Administration |
a1 Theoretical concepts |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
2.86 |
7 |
|---|
| a2 Integrates ideas from diff. sources |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.57 |
7 |
|---|
| a3 Draws sound conclusions |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
3.75 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.43 |
7 |
|---|
| a4 Analyzes/discusses data in meaningful way |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
3.50 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.29 |
7 |
|---|
| a5 Collects/organizes data |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
3.75 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.43 |
7 |
|---|
| a6 Use statistics if appropriate |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
. |
1 |
3.50 |
4 |
. |
|
. |
1 |
3.80 |
7 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Psychology |
a1 Theoretical concepts |
4.41 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
4.33 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.18 |
33 |
|---|
| a2 Integrates ideas from diff. sources |
4.45 |
22 |
3.50 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
4.00 |
2 |
4.09 |
33 |
|---|
| a3 Draws sound conclusions |
4.23 |
22 |
4.50 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.94 |
33 |
|---|
| a4 Analyzes/discusses data in meaningful way |
4.18 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
3 |
4.00 |
3 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.97 |
33 |
|---|
| a5 Collects/organizes data |
4.18 |
22 |
4.50 |
2 |
1.00 |
1 |
3.67 |
3 |
2.67 |
3 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.85 |
33 |
|---|
| a6 Use statistics if appropriate |
4.36 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.50 |
2 |
4.12 |
33 |
|---|
| Humanities |
a1 Theoretical concepts |
5.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.00 |
11 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
4.00 |
2 |
2.59 |
19 |
|---|
| a2 Integrates ideas from diff. sources |
5.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.45 |
11 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.06 |
19 |
|---|
| a3 Draws sound conclusions |
5.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.73 |
11 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.21 |
19 |
|---|
| a4 Analyzes/discusses data in meaningful way |
5.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.73 |
11 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.21 |
19 |
|---|
| a5 Collects/organizes data |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
2.73 |
11 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.26 |
19 |
|---|
| a6 Use statistics if appropriate |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
1 |
. |
11 |
2.00 |
2 |
. |
2 |
. |
2 |
3.50 |
19 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Sociology |
a1 Theoretical concepts |
. |
|
3.00 |
3 |
2.67 |
3 |
5.00 |
2 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.36 |
11 |
3.36 |
22 |
|---|
| a2 Integrates ideas from diff. sources |
. |
|
3.00 |
3 |
2.67 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.55 |
11 |
3.41 |
22 |
|---|
| a3 Draws sound conclusions |
. |
|
2.33 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.50 |
11 |
3.24 |
22 |
|---|
| a4 Analyzes/discusses data in meaningful way |
. |
|
2.33 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.40 |
11 |
3.24 |
22 |
|---|
| a5 Collects/organizes data |
. |
|
2.67 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.50 |
11 |
3.33 |
22 |
|---|
| a6 Use statistics if appropriate |
. |
|
3.00 |
3 |
3.00 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.00 |
3 |
4.20 |
11 |
3.94 |
22 |
|---|
| Business Administration |
a1 Theoretical concepts |
4.00 |
2 |
2.75 |
8 |
1.00 |
4 |
5.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.71 |
22 |
|---|
| a2 Integrates ideas from diff. sources |
4.00 |
2 |
3.13 |
8 |
2.25 |
4 |
2.00 |
1 |
2.83 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.91 |
22 |
|---|
| a3 Draws sound conclusions |
4.00 |
2 |
2.75 |
8 |
2.50 |
4 |
4.00 |
1 |
2.50 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.82 |
22 |
|---|
| a4 Analyzes/discusses data in meaningful way |
4.00 |
2 |
3.13 |
8 |
2.75 |
4 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.14 |
22 |
|---|
| a5 Collects/organizes data |
4.00 |
2 |
2.86 |
8 |
3.00 |
4 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.17 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.14 |
22 |
|---|
| a6 Use statistics if appropriate |
5.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
8 |
. |
4 |
4.00 |
1 |
2.00 |
6 |
. |
1 |
3.17 |
22 |
|---|
| Group Total |
a1 Theoretical concepts |
4.42 |
26 |
3.00 |
14 |
1.85 |
20 |
3.92 |
12 |
3.17 |
14 |
3.38 |
17 |
3.33 |
103 |
|---|
| a2 Integrates ideas from diff. sources |
4.46 |
26 |
3.14 |
14 |
2.40 |
20 |
4.08 |
12 |
3.00 |
14 |
3.41 |
17 |
3.47 |
103 |
|---|
| a3 Draws sound conclusions |
4.27 |
26 |
2.93 |
14 |
2.65 |
20 |
3.83 |
12 |
2.93 |
14 |
3.31 |
17 |
3.38 |
103 |
|---|
| a4 Analyzes/discusses data in meaningful way |
4.23 |
26 |
3.00 |
14 |
2.70 |
20 |
4.00 |
12 |
3.29 |
14 |
3.19 |
17 |
3.45 |
103 |
|---|
| a5 Collects/organizes data |
4.23 |
26 |
3.15 |
14 |
2.75 |
20 |
4.00 |
12 |
3.07 |
14 |
3.25 |
17 |
3.46 |
103 |
|---|
| a6 Use statistics if appropriate |
4.44 |
26 |
3.33 |
14 |
2.67 |
20 |
3.73 |
12 |
3.29 |
14 |
4.08 |
17 |
3.94 |
103 |
|---|
Research skills by division and reader
|
Larry Fujinaka |
Jerry Calton |
Mark Helbling |
Eloise Tungpalan |
Lynn Zane |
Stella Hookano |
Group Total |
|---|
| Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
Mean |
Count |
|---|
| Public Administration |
r1 Uses research skills accepted in field |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
3.50 |
4 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
3.43 |
7 |
|---|
| r2 Use traditional/electronic sources |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
3.00 |
1 |
4.25 |
4 |
. |
|
2.00 |
1 |
3.86 |
7 |
|---|
| r3 Method of citation/documentation |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
4 |
. |
|
1.00 |
1 |
3.14 |
7 |
|---|
| r4 Understand ethical concerns |
5.00 |
1 |
. |
|
4.00 |
1 |
2.00 |
4 |
. |
|
. |
1 |
2.83 |
7 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Psychology |
r1 Uses research skills accepted in field |
4.19 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
4.33 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
4.00 |
2 |
4.06 |
33 |
|---|
| r2 Use traditional/electronic sources |
4.43 |
22 |
4.00 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
4.33 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.50 |
2 |
4.16 |
33 |
|---|
| r3 Method of citation/documentation |
4.43 |
22 |
4.50 |
2 |
2.00 |
1 |
4.67 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.31 |
33 |
|---|
| r4 Understand ethical concerns |
4.52 |
22 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
3 |
3.67 |
3 |
4.00 |
2 |
4.31 |
33 |
|---|
| Humanities |
r1 Uses research skills accepted in field |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
11 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.32 |
19 |
|---|
| r2 Use traditional/electronic sources |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
2.91 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
4.00 |
2 |
3.37 |
19 |
|---|
| r3 Method of citation/documentation |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
2.73 |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
3.50 |
2 |
3.21 |
19 |
|---|
| r4 Understand ethical concerns |
5.00 |
1 |
4.00 |
1 |
. |
11 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.00 |
2 |
. |
2 |
4.00 |
19 |
|---|
| Social Sciences - Sociology |
r1 Uses research skills accepted in field |
. |
|
2.67 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.64 |
11 |
3.55 |
22 |
|---|
| r2 Use traditional/electronic sources |
. |
|
2.67 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.33 |
3 |
3.73 |
11 |
3.55 |
22 |
|---|
| r3 Method of citation/documentation |
. |
|
3.00 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
3.67 |
3 |
3.82 |
11 |
3.68 |
22 |
|---|
| r4 Understand ethical concerns |
. |
|
3.00 |
3 |
3.33 |
3 |
4.50 |
2 |
4.33 |
3 |
4.00 |
11 |
3.86 |
22 |
|---|
| Business Administration |
r1 Uses research skills accepted in field |
4.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
8 |
2.50 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.83 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.95 |
22 |
|---|
| r2 Use traditional/electronic sources |
4.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
8 |
3.00 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
2.67 |
6 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
22 |
|---|
| r3 Method of citation/documentation |
4.00 |
2 |
3.00 |
8 |
2.25 |
4 |
2.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
6 |
2.00 |
1 |
2.86 |
22 |
|---|
| r4 Understand ethical concerns |
4.50 |
2 |
3.67 |
8 |
3.00 |
4 |
3.00 |
1 |
3.00 |
6 |
. |
1 |
3.36 |
22 |
|---|
| Group Total |
r1 Uses research skills accepted in field |
4.24 |
26 |
3.15 |
14 |
2.90 |
20 |
3.92 |
12 |
3.21 |
14 |
3.53 |
17 |
3.53 |
103 |
|---|
| r2 Use traditional/electronic sources |
4.44 |
26 |
3.14 |
14 |
2.95 |
20 |
4.25 |
12 |
3.00 |
14 |
3.59 |
17 |
3.61 |
103 |
|---|
| r3 Method of citation/documentation |
4.44 |
26 |
3.31 |
14 |
2.75 |
20 |
3.83 |
12 |
3.29 |
14 |
3.59 |
17 |
3.58 |
103 |
|---|
| r4 Understand ethical concerns |
4.56 |
26 |
3.67 |
14 |
3.29 |
20 |
3.42 |
12 |
3.43 |
14 |
4.00 |
17 |
3.89 |
103 |
|---|
Mean grade, overall rating, and difference of grade and overall rating
The table below shows the comparison between the mean grades given for the senior project and the overall rating received by the project by the external evaluators. This comparison is separated out by division. Note that the mean grade is higher for every division. The mean difference ranges from a high of 1.57 to a low of 0.33. The total difference for all projects is 1.03.
| DIVISION |
Grade |
o1 Overall quality of project |
d1 Difference: grade-overall |
|---|
| Pub Ad |
Mean |
5.00 |
3.43 |
1.5714 |
|---|
| N |
7 |
7 |
7 |
|---|
| Std. Deviation |
.00 |
1.51 |
1.5119 |
|---|
| SocSci - Psy |
Mean |
5.00 |
3.94 |
1.0606 |
|---|
| N |
33 |
33 |
33 |
|---|
| Std. Deviation |
.00 |
1.03 |
1.0289 |
|---|
| Humanities |
Mean |
4.68 |
3.47 |
1.2105 |
|---|
| N |
19 |
19 |
19 |
|---|
| Std. Deviation |
.48 |
.84 |
.8550 |
|---|
| SocSci - Soc/Ec |
Mean |
3.71 |
3.32 |
.3333 |
|---|
| N |
21 |
22 |
21 |
|---|
| Std. Deviation |
.72 |
1.13 |
1.1972 |
|---|
| Bus Ad |
Mean |
4.64 |
3.32 |
1.3182 |
|---|
| N |
22 |
22 |
22 |
|---|
| Std. Deviation |
.66 |
.84 |
.8937 |
|---|
| Total |
Mean |
4.60 |
3.55 |
1.0294 |
|---|
| N |
102 |
103 |
102 |
|---|
| Std. Deviation |
.68 |
1.04 |
1.0941 |
|---|
Mean grade and overall rating by division
The chart below shows the same information as above in a graphic format.
Crosstabs of grade by overall rating
The crosstab below breaks down the number of each row and column into the categoies specified. For example, of all A grades, 22% were rated as 5 for the overall score by the external evaluators. Also, 40% were rated as 4, 26% rated as 3, 8% rated as 2, 3% rated as 1.
Grade * o1 Overall quality of project Crosstabulation
|
o1 Overall quality of project |
Total |
|---|
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|---|
| Grade |
C |
Count |
1 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
11 |
|---|
| % within Grade |
9.1% |
18.2% |
45.5% |
18.2% |
9.1% |
100.0% |
|---|
| % within o1 Overall quality of project |
33.3% |
16.7% |
16.1% |
5.6% |
5.0% |
10.8% |
|---|
| B |
Count |
|
4 |
7 |
5 |
3 |
19 |
|---|
| % within Grade |
|
21.1% |
36.8% |
26.3% |
15.8% |
100.0% |
|---|
| % within o1 Overall quality of project |
|
33.3% |
22.6% |
13.9% |
15.0% |
18.6% |
|---|
| A |
Count |
2 |
6 |
19 |
29 |
16 |
72 |
|---|
| % within Grade |
2.8% |
8.3% |
26.4% |
40.3% |
22.2% |
100.0% |
|---|
| % within o1 Overall quality of project |
66.7% |
50.0% |
61.3% |
80.6% |
80.0% |
70.6% |
|---|
| Total |
Count |
3 |
12 |
31 |
36 |
20 |
102 |
|---|
| % within Grade |
2.9% |
11.8% |
30.4% |
35.3% |
19.6% |
100.0% |
|---|
| % within o1 Overall quality of project |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
100.0% |
|---|
Appendix:
External Evaluators List of Names
| Name |
Discipline |
Current Position |
| Dr. Larry Fujinaka |
Psychology |
Professor of
Psychology, Leeward Com College |
| Dr Jerry Calton |
Business |
Professor of Business,
UH Hilo |
| Dr Mark Helbling |
Humanities |
Professor of American
Studies, UH Manoa |
| Ms Eloise Tungpalan |
Public Administration |
Former Hawaii State
legislator, completed Masters in Pub Ad, UH Manoa and current PhD student |
| Mr Lynn Zane |
Pub Ad and Social
Sciences |
Retired State of
Hawaii state manager with DBEDT |
| Stella Hookano |
Sociology |
Current masters degree
student in Social Work at UH Manoa |
Senior Project Evaluation Criteria (pdf file)
Senior Project
External Evaluators' Comments
| 
