Putting question #5 (“I would recommend an arts-integrated course (a course with an SSU arts event or in-class arts speaker) to a fellow student.”) in the penultimate position just before the qualitative response allows respondents more time to reflect on both their experience and the previously answered questions. Question #7 (“If you answered 0 or 1-3 to Question 6, are you now more likely to attend campus arts events, because of the arts event or in-class arts speaker in your course?”) is of similar nature, so it is up to SSU to decide which they feel is more important, and place said question just before the qualitative response. Regardless of the decision, both questions of abstract nature should at least be later in the survey than concrete question #6 (“Roughly how many SSU arts events had you attended before this semester (such as music concerts, dance concerts, art gallery exhibitions, plays, poetry or story readings)?”).

        Piping (questions as subsets of others, revealed only after certain responses) could be useful to clean up the survey. Questions such as “If you answered 0 or 1-3 to Question 6, are you now more likely…” can be piped through question #6, revealing themselves only when the respondent answers 0 or 1-3. This obviates the issue of students having to answer non-questions (picking N/A). Additionally, the question of “Did you attend an arts event or experience an in class arts speaker” could be added, and the follow-up questions #3 & #4 (“did the speaker/event connect in a meaningful way”) could be piped through that answer.

        Question #6 calls upon the respondent to list the amount of arts events they have previously attended, presenting the following options:

• 0
• 1-3
• 4-8
• 9 or more

While there may not be any fool-proof way of answering this question, these options blur the lines between students who have visited 1 event and those who have visited 3, between students who have visited 9 and those who have visited 20+. Since the data is to be used in comparison with the individual respondent’s other answers (as SSU already has other data on student attendance at the GMC and other events), I feel that a personal diagnosis may be suitable. While answers such as “I consider myself a frequent arts events attendee” are abstractions that can vary wildly depending on the respondents own subjective perception, the key is that we are using this information to compare the individual to themselves, not others.
        If my presumption is correct, the main purpose of this question is to look at students who are not frequent arts events attendees and see if this course has influenced any change in their behavior. If this is true, the response is isolated to each individual and a personal diagnosis will reveal exactly what we need it to. Therefore, I suggest answers such as:

• I do not attend any on campus art events
• I consider myself an infrequent arts event attendee
• I consider myself somewhere in-between a frequent and infrequent attendee
• I consider myself a frequent arts attendee

With these answers we can measure the influence an arts integration course has had on an individual.

        I am not sure of whether or not the survey is advertised as anonymous by the professors or the system, but I cannot see anything definite from the survey itself. It is important for the questionnaire to distinguish itself as anonymous, especially when the host of the survey (SSU) is also the host of the events/program. Non-confrontational respondents are much less likely to answer honestly in such a case if there is any doubt about their anonymity.

        Many surveys include a final question that allows the student to reflect on their answers and answer whether they completed the survey with honesty or not. It is an opportunity to admit to straightlining and is in no way begrudging. On one hand, this could eliminate some dirty data from the set, but on the other, it can cause respondents to second guess their answers and overthink things. Additionally, it adds the sense of being watched, which is not productive in a study. Placing the question last helps to alleviate this, but students can always backtrack. I only recommend the addition of this fail-safe if the board decides upon mandatory completion of the survey.

#1: For what which course did you go to attend the arts event or have the in-class arts speaker?
Reasoning: Clarity

#6: Roughly how many SSU arts events had you attended before this semester (such as music GMC performances, dance concerts, art gallery exhibitions, poetry and story readings, or plays, poetry or story readings)?
Reasoning: Oxford comma, clarity

#7: If you answered 0 or 1-3 to Question 6, are you now more likely to attend campus arts events, because of the arts event or in-class arts speaker in your course? has the art event or seminar you experienced increased your likelihood of attending more campus arts events in the future?
Reasoning: Clarity. Experienced can be swapped for “attended” at survey conductor’s discretion. Experience calls upon the student to reflect more deeply than the word attended does, but it is much less euphonic in the sentence structure.

#8: What How was your experience like with the arts event or in-class arts speaker? Do you have any suggestions or concerns regarding the way your SSU course was integrated with the event?
Reasoning: This alteration helps reduce the pithy (albeit nice) responses of “Great”, “Was fun”, etc. and evoke more helpful responses that aren’t already covered by previous questions. The question itself may look a tad grim now, but the purpose of a qualitative question is really for critical feedback, and we must encourage it.

        Some professors have required their students to complete the survey under the guise of having access to the results. This becomes clear when we see a group of respondents all from one class ending their qualitative question with their full name, which was not asked for in the anonymous questionnaire.

        While this does help garner responses, it introduces bias to the survey and encourages straightlining. Additionally, a lack of perceived anonymity could reduce the honesty of student responses. SSU should ensure that either all professors are requiring the survey to be done, or none are. Any lack of consistency is going to bring in dirty data.

        Much like many professors dedicate in-class time to completing the SETE, professors of the Arts Integration courses should be encouraged or required to allow their students time to complete the survey. Of the complaints about the event requirement, its consumption of time ranked highest, and this is from the students who did take the time to fill out the questionnaire; we can assume a more negative response on time consumption from those who didn’t. Allotting class time would obviate this issue and allow for a much more transparent data set.