Table 1
Evaluation of symposia: Mean ratings (SD) for first, second and third master’s year and total
|
Statements |
Students 1st master’s year (n = 416) |
Students 2nd master’s year (n = 140) |
Students 3rd master’s year (n = 810) |
Total (n = 1,366) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mean (1–5) (SD) |
Mean (1–5) (SD) |
Mean (1–5) (SD) |
Mean (1–5) (SD) | ||
|
It is clear why this theme was included in the symposium |
3.8 (0.8) |
3.9 (0.6) |
4.2 (0.7) |
4.1 (0.7) | |
|
The theme addressed in the daypart program was meaningful |
3.6 (0.9) |
3.7 (0.7) |
4.0 (0.8) |
3.9 (0.8) | |
|
Content was aligned with knowledge |
3.4 (0.9) |
3.6 (0.8) |
3.8 (0.9) |
3.7 (0.9) | |
|
Applied teaching methods were suitable |
3.6 (0.8) |
3.9 (0.7) |
3.9 (0.8) |
3.8 (0.8) | |
|
Available time for addressing theme was adequate |
3.9 (0.9) |
3.9 (0.8) |
3.8 (0.9) |
3.8 (0.9) | |
|
Daypart program was interesting |
3.5 (0.9) |
3.7 (0.8) |
3.9 (0.8) |
3.8 (0.9) | |
|
Daypart program was useful for professional development |
3.3 (1.0) |
3.5 (0.8) |
3.9 (0.9) |
3.7 (1.0) | |
|
% score |
% score |
% score |
% score | ||
|
How would you rate the overall level of the content of the daypart program? | |||||
|
Far too low |
5.5% |
3.2% |
1.0% |
2.6% | |
|
Too low |
25.5% |
15.1% |
11.1% |
16.0% | |
|
Just right |
68.8% |
80.2% |
87.4% |
80.8% | |
|
Too high |
– |
1.6% |
0.4% |
0.4% | |
|
far too high |
0.5% |
– |
0.1% |
0.2% | |
SD standard deviation