Objective:

Through clear and concise presentation of evidence, demonstrate the impact of arts-integrated courses on the student body and its relationship with the GMC

Tasks:

• Convert raw survey responses to quantifiable data
• Highlight significant qualitative responses and overall sentiments
• Illustrate findings through comprehensible graphs
• Offer suggestions on how the program can improve

        After ensuring I had acquired all the relevant data, I exported the Qualtrics data sets as an XML file in order to work with them in Excel. Before even crunching the data, it was important to investigate the nature of each survey and its questions; I discovered that the question protocol was not consistent throughout the biannual surveys, meaning I had to sequester certain data sets due to their qualitative incompatibility with the others. After establishing two separate systems for quantifying the two types of response sets, I arrived at some rudimentary data.

The above pi-chart illustrates the demographical data of survey response. Majors of the same schools are grouped into respective color palettes. This information was only asked for in the most recent batch of surveys, thus the “Spring Only” disclaimer. The following charts answer questions fundamental to the program’s goals.

While the events did not always resonate with the students, they were rarely considered irrelevant.

The student body’s optimism about the courses reflects well upon the future of the program.

        With simpler trends analyzed, the next step was an in-depth consideration of the logistical relationships behind responses and an attempt to answer some of the subtler questions they propose. For example, of students who are minimally engaged with SSU’s event program, there is a ~15% disparity between those who enjoyed the course and those who wish to see more events in the future, as demonstrated by the following chart.

This illustrates a disconnect between the course and the impact it seeks to evoke. While the courses were received positively by students otherwise unengaged with the event program, many of these same students were unenthusiastic about further engagement. Therefore, if the goal of the arts-integrated course is to interest disinclined students in attending more events, it is important to recognize that the positive experience of an event is not enough to spur action. Making the comparison readily visible, a bar chart offers a more intuitive way of seeing this disconnect:

The next question to ask is whether or not different types of events had any influence on this trend. Through a bar graph comparing the three different venues and their respective style, we find that the Arts Gallery provided a substantially higher turnover than the Green Music Center, of which Person Theatre is trailing close behind:

This of course does not undermine the productive results of the other venues, but it does suggest one or both of two things:

• The type of student to join an arts focused course is more receptive to program
• The events at the Arts Gallery were more compelling than the events at other venues

It is impossible to reach a conclusion based the given data, thus opening a new potential line of research for the program. Future surveys could include questions of intent, such as: “Were you interested in this course for its content, its unit yield, or both?”. If there are higher “unit yield” answers among the GMC and Person Theatre courses than there are in the Arts Gallery courses, the disparity may be explained by a lack of relevant passion among students seeking to fulfill their graduation requirements. There are many unexplored avenues revealed by scrutinization of the data sets, and the deeper trends offer insights to the program that are not discernible at foreground levels.

        The nature of written responses requires they be handled with great care. Respondents who feel compelled to write an optional response are typically on either end of the spectrum of satisfaction, and are typically more passionate about the subject at hand. With response bias heavily at play here, the results may not reflect the overall sentiment of the respondent group. Taking this into consideration, it is no surprise that the arts-integrated courses received quite skewed results from the qualitative response:

With each qualitative response flagged with its relevant data, one can easily sift through the responses and find what they’re looking for. The responses provide a more intimate look at student reaction to the program, offering advice and feedback on its implementation. I read each response and compiled a list of responses that both encompass the overall sentiment among them and raise points of interest and concern. The collected responses can be read here.

        The data collected in these surveys demonstrates the success of the arts-integrated course program, while also highlighting potential areas of improvement. I included many more examples and graphs in my work for SSU, providing a more exhaustive analysis than can be presented reasonably on this site. My last task was to provide input on the fundamental properties of the survey, to which I had a lot to say. The positioning, piping, and nature of elements in the survey could be reworked to be either clearer or simply more professional. Additionally, the handling of the survey extends beyond its interface and certain precautions (such as in-class time and anonymity) must be taken by its administrators to ensure its validity. To view my proposals, please visit the Survey Considerations sub-page.