DOCUUENT MOHR. - ERIC - Education Resources ... MOHR. ED 093 397 JC 740 210 AUTHOR Hardman, Clark TITLE Evaluation of Experimental Pour-Day Week Class Schedule, January Through April

DOCUUENT MOHR.

ED 093 397 JC 740 210

AUTHOR Hardman, ClarkTITLE Evaluation of Experimental Pour-Day Week Class

Schedule, January Through April 1974 at Lake CityCommunity College.

INSTITUTION Lake City Community Coll., Fla.PUB DATE 30 May 74NOTE 239p. P

BOBS PRICE HP.40.75 HC-$11.40 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS Administrator Attitudes; *Community Colleges;

*Experimental Programs; Post Secondary Education;*Program Evaluation; *School Schedules; Student.Attitudes; Technical Reports

IDENTIFIERS Four Day Week Schedule; *Lake City Community.College

ABSTRACTDue to the energy disturbance during the fall and

winter of 1973-74, Lake City Community College experimented with a4-days-per-week schedule of classes. a student evaluation of the4-day week was completed by 58 percent of the full-time students.Fifty-one percent of the total student sample preferred the 4-dayweek, and 30 percent preferred the 5-day week. Forty five percent ofthe students reported that they preferred a class .period one hour,and in a related item rating classroom activities, 44 percentreported no difference in classroom activities when the short andlonger periods were compared. I total of 58 percent reported thatthey worked or were on a work/study program. These working studentsalso reported that they were able to work more with a 4-day classschedule. The administrative staff (deans, department heads, programdirectors, and student services personnel) completed a narrativeevaluation. Lists of advantages, disadvantages, and suggestions wereprepared from these evaluations. The Learning. Resources Centerexperienced a decline in services ranging from 15 percent to 44percent. An analysis of class schedules for variation in services,enrollment data, and grades revealed no change that could beattributed to the 4-day week. An analysis of energy consumption overthe yeats 1970-1974 indicated that energy was saved, but the amountcontributed to the total energy-saving program by the 4-day weekcould not be determined with reliability. (Author/DB)

OCPAIITMEN7OfEDUCATION 6WfLPARFNATIONAL INS mute Of

EDUCASIONMCLIMEN7 Nes etEN RtPRO

EXACTLY AS REcelsoED FROMto,c, PERSON C. CR:,21.4':AT,I)N0k1A1040 ,T S CF 41E1. Og OPINIONS

Tao DC 40T INUCL,SARY REPIILSC N1 Or FtCont, hAt,ONAL %5.11101E OF

.E our AT 0.4 04 POI ICY

Os BEST COPY AVAILABLE

hiNhe\CY%C;) EVALUATION or EXPERIMENTAL FOUR-DAY REEK CLASS SCHEDULE

C:5JANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1974 AT

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Clark HardmanPsychologist

Student Services

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGELake City, Florida

May 30, 1974

BEV COPY AVAILABLE

EVALUATION OV EXPERIMENTAL FOUR-DAY WEEK CLASS SCHEDULE

JANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1974 AT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY CC/LEGE

ABSTRACT

Due to the energy disturbance during the fall and winter of 1973-74Lake City Community College experimented with a four days per weekschedule of classes. A student evaluation of the four-day week wascompleted by 58 per cent of the full time students. Fifty-one per centof the total student sample preferred the four-day week and thirty percent preferred the five-day week. Forty-five per cent of the studentsreported they preferred a class period of one hour and in a related itemrating classroom activities forty-four per cent reported no differencein classroom activities when the short and longer periods were compared.A total of 58 per cent of the students reported they worked or wereon a work study program. These working students also reported theywere able to work more with a four-day week. The administrative staff(Deans, department heads, program directors and student servicespersonnel) did a narrative evaluation. Lists of advantages, dis-advantages and suggestiona were prepared from these evaluations. TheLearning Resources Center experienced a decline in services rangingfrom fifteen to forty-four per cent. An analysis of class schedulesfor variation in services, enrollment data, and grades revealed nochange that could be attributed to the four-day week. An analysis ofenergy consumption over the years 1970-1974 indicated that energywas saved but the amount contributed to the total energy saving pro-gram by the four-day week could not be reliably deteumined.

PREFACE

Due to the energy disturbance during fall and winter of 1973-76,Lake City Community College requested and received permission fromthe Florida State Department of Education to experiment with a four-day per week schedule of classes. The letter of December 5, 1973specified that permission was granted subjeot to certain conditions.The condition that is the basis of this report was:

That at the end of the term, the Collegewill transmit to the State Board of Education itsevaluation of the experiment which shall include'-as a minimum evidence on the following items:

a. The savings (if any) realized in consumptionof fuel oil, electricity, gasoline, and otherfuels including any evidence the College mayhave as to the extent to which such savings areattributable to a four-day week or are attribu.;table to a four-day week or are attributableto other energy saving measures.

b. The effect such program has had upon the pro-gress of students.

c. The effects on enrollments or services to thecommunity which are attributable to theexperimental program.

d. The effect of the program on classroom acti-vities and upon non-classroom activities.

e. A student evaluation of the program includingits effect upon employment; availability ofcounseling and faculty assistance; and any un-foreseen advantages or disadvantages of theprogram.

f. A general evaluation of the experiment by theadministrative staff of the College includingattitudes toward the program in regard toenergy conservation, an evaluation of the effectof the program upon the quality and quantity ofeducational services offered by Lake CityCommunity College, and a listing of any unanti-cipated benefits or problems brought about bythe four-day week.

ii

These specific requests for data and how they have been metare listed below,

State Department Request

a. energy Consumption

b. Effect on Progress ofStudents

c. Effect on Enrollments

d. Effect Upon ClassroomActivities and Non-

Classroom Activities

e. Student Evaluation in-cluding Effect on Em-ployment, Counseling, etc.

f. General Evaluation by Ad-ministrative Staff Qualityand Quantity of ServicesBenefits or Problems

fleciriietDstata Meeting the State

Part Ten.

Part Nine,

Part Seven

Fart OneParts Two

Enengy ConsumptionAnalysis

Analysis of Grades

. Enrollment Data

Student Evaluationthrough, Six. evalu-ation by Staff

Part One. Student Evaluation

Parts Two through Six & Part Sight.Evaluation by Staffand Part Eight Quantityof Educational Services

These data requests seemed comprehensive enough for an eval-uation. Also, because of the time squeeze resulting from the needfor data as quickly as possible to supplement decision making thedata is mainly limited to that asked for by the State Department.

This study is unique. There are a few other colleges thatuse a four-day week but to this writer's knowledge no reportedsystematic study of results. There is no guide; nothing to takeapart and build upon. Somewhat because of this we have reportedthe data in exasperating detail.

The most serious deficiency in this study is the lack ofhistorical data. We have data that extends back five years only intwo instances (enrollment and energy consumption). With historicaldata we might have been able to arrive at a random factor in gradevariation, for example, that would have established more meaningto some grade variations.

iii

CONTENTS

Preface

Part One. Student Evaluation1

Part Tstr,o. Evaluation by Division Deans 106

Part Three. Evaluation by Technical Division Program Chairmen -117.

Part Four. Evaluation by Transfer Division Department Heads 129

Part Five. Evaluation by Student Services Division 141

Part Six. Learning Resources Center Evaluation 151

Part Seven. Enrollment Data 157

Part Eight. Quantity of Educational Services 165

Part Nine. Analysis of Grades 170

Part Ten. Energy Consumption Analysis 208

iv

PART ONE

STUDENT EVALUATION

STUDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

STUDENT EVALUATION SUMMARY

METHOD

The evaluation survey started with a brainstorming session ina meeting of Student Services, counseling and activities personnel.A preliminary form and format was prepared. Input was then securedfrom a meeting of all Student Services personnel, Transfer DivisionDepartment Heads Council, Dean Herbert Attaway, W. H. Alexanderand other Technical Division personnel. With each set of sugges-tions, items were changed, combined, added, etc. The final formsused were the fourth or fifth revisions (See pages 104 and 105).

The final form was divided into two parts. The preliminarysection asked the student for items of specific information to beused in sorting the evaluation forms into major groups. The basicscale contained 10 (Form I) and 11 (Form II) items with a note askingfor special problems or comment. The number of responses, as alwayswith a Likert-type scale, was a problem. Research does not providea clear-cut decision concerning the most desirable number of responsecategories. The final decision to use only three response categorieswas made primarily to reduce the work in tabulation.

Another worrisome item was the arrangement of all "A" itemsfavoring the five-day week or critical of the four-day week; all"B" items in between; and all "C" items favoring the four-day week.There was in this arrangement the possibility that the format mightencourage stereotyped responses. This problem did not materialize.The students apparently read and responded to the individual items.

Items and responses were varied and scattered somewhat for what-ever value this might have in avoiding stereotyped responses. The

2

survey was arbitrarily held to one page to save class time in admin-istering and perhaps help in getting a greater number completed.

Differences in the time schedule and the desire to add item 11led to a slightly modified Form 11 for use in the clock-hour programs.Form 11 was used only with Technical Division clock-hour programs.All of the tabulations, however, use the Form I format. Item 11. ofForm 11 is an isolated tabulation.

Many, per haps all, of the items could be gone into in greaterdetail but this would have required almost a special project witheach. The final instrument was a compromise that seemed practical.

Most of the evaluation forms were completed by students March18 and 19, 1974. These dates were about two weeks after. the middleof the semester.

The results were tabulated and entered on a standard table asnumbers and percentages of those responding to the item. A graphwas devised to illustrate the percentage differences and ease thechore of spotting differences. The tables, however, are includedto give the "B" responses, exact numbers and number of students inthe sample. All of the tables reporting tabulations have the sameformat and all of the figures are the same format. Both the tablesand the figures include keys to the content of the item.

RESULTS

I. Responses were obtained from 548 students or 58.5 per centof the full -time enrollment.

2. Fifty-one per cent of the total sample preferred the four-dayweek and thirty per cent preferred the five-day week.

3. The Transfer Division students split 38.8 favoring the five-dayweek and 38.4 favored the four-day week.

4. The Technical Division students liked the four-day week 61per cent to 23 per cent for the total division, 54 to 28 per cent for thesemester-hour programs and 92 to 5 per cent in the clock-hour programs.

5. Students that work, both work-study and other work, preferthe four-day week. Fifty-four per cent of the combined total of workplus work-study like the four-day week. Thirty per cent preferred thefive-day week. Notes The group labeled work is work other than work-study. There is very little overlap between the two groups, i. e., veryfew work-study students that work at another job in addition to thework-study employment.

6. Two hundred forty-eight students report working other thanwork-study or 45.26 per cent of the sample.

7. Three hundred sixteen students either worked or were on awork-study program. This is a total of 57.66 per cent,of the samplethat worked for pay.

8. The pattern of preferring the four-day week continues throughthe grade-point average breakdowns except the grade-point averagerange of 3.0 and up in the Transfer Division. With this 3.0 and upgroup the five-day week was favored 43.5 per cent to 31.8 per cent.This group contains 85 students. The following data specific to thisgroup is not included elsewhere in these tabulations. Fourteen or16 per cent of these students are on work-study programs; 41 or48 per cent work other than work-study. This is a total of 64.70 percent that either work or on a N;ork-study program. Thirty-three percent of this group report they work full-time on Friday.

9. 45 percent of the students reported they preferred a class period ofone hour and in a related item rating classroom activities 4h percentreported no difference in classroom activities when the short andlonger periods wore compared.

TransferwoDiiio10. The nursing programmry x-sstuany students and Transfer

Division students with grade-point averages above 3.0 were the onlytabulations showing a marked preference for the five-day week.

11. Students that work report they are able to work more formoney on a four-day week schedule. Fifty per cent report they wereable to work more and 14 per cent were able to work less.

12. There is not much doubt about clock-hour programs. Someof these programs prefer the four-day week 100 per cent.

I3. One hundred ninety-two students (total technical and transfer)or 35 per cent of the sample report they work full-time on Friday.

14, Only 10 per cent of the students responded with a comment.All of these comments are included in the comments section.

15. Several other tabulations and arrangements of data were triedincluding such things as total A, B, and C responses, mean responses,items against all other items. etc. None of these seemed to add muchto the results.

5


TABLE I. STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

SIZE OF THE SAMPLE - NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EVALUATION FORMSCOMPLETED

*11. .11111

FULL-TIME NUMBER OF EVALUA- PERCENTAGEGROUP ENROLLMENT TION FORMS COMPLETING

COMPLETED EVALUATIONFORM.......m...... e7a./.0*

technical Division 468 311 66.5

Transfer Division 469 237 50.5

TOTAL, 937 548 58. 5

6

I I

STUDENT EVALUATION TOTALS

TABLE 2,

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDIlsIT EVALUATION OF FOURDAY WEEK

TOTAL RESPONSES AND PERCENTAGES

1.

2.

SURVEY ITEM-TECHNICALIHVISfON

No.

RF,SPONSESTRANSFERDIVISION TOTA1.

No, "lo

38 6,9

% No, °Fs

Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YAs () 5.2 22 9.3B. Some 56 113.1 86 36,3 142 26.0

767 PriC. No ---238 76.7 129 54,4Was able to attend campus

functionsA. No

-----67)---22.77 15 l 86 36.? 163 30.1B, Some 5 64 27.4 133 24...ZC. Yes 161 52.4 84 35.9 245 45.3. Wee unable to take part in

student activitiesA. Could not partIcipate 46 15.0 50 21.4 96 17.1.13. Some trouble 47 15.3 65 27.9 112 20.7

-61.5C. No problem 214 69.7 X118 50.6 3324 Instructors had trouble

adapting materialA. Yea 40 12.9 34 14.4 74 13.6B. .ionle 95 30,7 109 46.2 204 _37.A.C. No 174 56,3 . 93 39.4 267 49.05. Classroom activities wereA, Better short period 95 31.0 101 43.7 196 36.5B. No difference 135 44.1 100 43.3 235 41.8.

b.C. Better longer period 76 24,8 30 13.0 106 19.7

Had sufficient study timeA. No 44 14.2 57 24.0 101 _18.1B. Some trouble 84 27.2 84 35,4 168 30,8C. Yes 181 58.6 96 40. 5 277 50,7

7. Class lengti7preferredA. 3 hour 119 38.3 127 53.8 246 45.0B. No difference 115 37.0 76 32.2 191 34.9C. 11/2 hours 77 24.7 33 14.0 110 20.1

8, Able to work for moneyA. Less 25 9.3 36 15.4 61 11.4B. No difference 177 58.6 152 65.2 329 61. 5C. More 100 33,1 45 19.3 145 27.1

9. Had trouble contactingInstructor/counselorA. Yea 28 9.1 22 9.4 50 9.2U. Some It 20. 1 69 29.4 131 24,1C. No 218 70.8 144 61.3 362 66.7

10. I like bestA. 5-day 72 23.4 92 18.8 164 30.1B. No difference 47 15,3 54 22.8 101 Mr:C. 4-day 188 61.2 91 38.4 279 51.3_

8

90

80

70ER 60

E 50N

40A

30

2

1


Fig. 1. Totals Technical Division plus Transfer Division,

percentage of A And C responses.

..

Ili

.....

.

N...

........

..

il

..t.._.11

.._-,

. ...

/_A-%

/

/_

/

...

%

1

.

.

...

0

/1,..........S..._

/...1._....

/

_

N

........._

2 3 4 5 6 7

ITEM NUMBER8 10

Im.INIONP11111A RESPONSES

(Favors 5-dayweek)

C RESPONSES(Favors 4-dayweek)

SEE NOTE BELOW

ITEM NUMBER KEY

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Wau able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could

not participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yea7. Class length preferred... A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor /counselor: A. Yes

C. No10. 1 like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day. week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.


TABLE 3. 'mum (TFCHNICAL PLUS TRANSFER)

.1.111...1.111

SURVEY ITEM

10.41.411..1..... WI*

1. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC.. No

2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. No /43 I/B. Some l93C. Yes .41 0.3

3. Was unable to take part in student activities ***** *****A Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. SomeC. No

5 Classroom activities wereA. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period

6. Had sufficient study timeA. NoB. Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hour13. No differenceC. 1 1/2 hours

8. Able to work for money

RESPONSES% Total No.

***** *****

o/ 4/ 2 26.0

,***** *****

.2D.7

***** ***** 4457,/

,-2.0k!t37141-U 7 .kei3O***** *****

_19e,

}PI, 19,7***** *****

312_,

***** *****#6, .465., 75-

***** ***** ,53.5A. LessB. No differenceC More

9. Had trouble contactingA. YesII SomeC. No

10. I like bestA. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

61329 ta5i445.

instructot /Counselok_±*!c* '14***_50 9, 2

1) 1,66'7

*,;c * ** *****

/441 30,1-Lib_.67112)

_ 179 _5 / t3

10

It'

STUDENT EVALUATION TRANSFER DIVISION TOTALS


Fit). 2. Transfer Olvision Totals, percentage of A and C responses.

90

80

70ER 60C

50N

40A

30

2

1

.......1.0.k

lI"

1

.

0,

4

%.

.

1t

. .

.

i-,r

i T

v

-

A

%

i

...Ilk

I

-.....-...p...-

% ,

N,

14

I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

9 10

A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweeks


SEE NOTE BELOW

I. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No t Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. I like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

12


21,11 40 TRANSrER_DIVISION TOTALS

SURVEY ITEM

1. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YeaB SomeC.. No

2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. No13. SomeC. Yes

3. Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

RESPONSES

***** *44** 3No. % Total No.

fr-4. 3tpro...***** 44*** .. .

31, .7.4,A7( 1.7

0***** *****

5,0 A.1A_,k51/




7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No differenceC. 1 1/2 hours

8. Able to work for moneyA. LessH. No differenceC More

***** 44***q

to ?9

***** ***** 3// 43'7 \,><_.jj2/PP

***1*() "741... 1'6 'JP L

***** *****LA7 _5j.2.4233

***** *****) 6 15.01

II 15 1 99. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselok,**It ***** 35-

A 3_6_

2 65.E

A. YesB SomeC. No Ps

10. I like best ***** *****A. 5-dayB. No difference la 'ILC. 4-day

13

IV

STUDENT EVALUATION TECHNICAL DIVISION TOTALS

EN

A

a to 4:4 4% a a:.raluLi AVVI VIC 1/4/16..61 sun t I Agil

Fig, 34 Technicol Division Totals (clock-hour plus semester hour),

percentage of A and C responses,

90

80

70

60

50

40

C)

E30

2

1

t

14

.

/71---tI

.....

.

.

1

\--\

-4-

/-.

/%

\

..

/

I

I r-1 /

_. ._____...

........_

.....

.

.

.

,..-

3 4 5 6 7 8ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

9 10

A RESPONSES(Favors S-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length, preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yes

C. No10 I like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day


15


4cMgALLE....2,,,31V ION jrOTAL (CiLOCK-HOUR PLUS SEMESTER-HOUR)

SURVEY ITEM

. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC.. No

2, Was able to attend campus functionsA. NoB. SomeC. Yes


4. Instructftrs had trouble adapting materialA YesB. SomeC. No


6. Had sufficient study timeA. NoB. Some troubleC. Yea

7. Class length preferredA. I hourB. No differenceC. I 1/2 hours

8. Able to work for moneyA. LessB. No differenceC More

9. Had trouble contacting instructor/CounseloA. YesB SomeC. No


..............RESPONSES

Total No.

***** 3 0 9

30.7

***** 344

***** .344z

112.

/76,q ,---***** 3 n 73.4ij5.3

16

V

STUDENT EVALUATION TECHNICAL DIVISION PROGRAMSSEMESTER-HOUR

C

A

GE


Fig. 4.. Semester Hour Programs Totals Technical Division,

percentage of A and C reaponees.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

1

.

\

\.%,

dik

I.

iII

t--

, 4 -

---.1-%

-V'

.

_.

- .................

...

__Jb,

8

/

/ /. . . .. .. 11,-... -..... ...

.... .

.._


ITEM NUMBER KEY

10

A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C, Yea3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could

not participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A. Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesG. No10. T like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day


18

STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEI{TABLE 6srubidzsaTk.ImuR.,pRxxl.B.Ams_na.ALs_azcalucusamszaL_

SURVEY ITEM

1. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC. No

2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. NoB. Some

laftm1 s*RESPONSES

No, %**** *****

Total No.fl

C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities

A Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No'problern


5 Classroom activities wereA. Better short period

.4

***** .2 AC

B. No differenceC. Better longer period




***** *****

rr ""4ice 4/a, I c-

* * * ** *****

ai L5-42.***** *****,J /7 4417

74 304J.2,1

***** *****

,115- 0,0/it? 0.

7,0 ,2 .f9. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselo*** 44*** 1247

B Some 2 ---441------A. Yes

,./4 I...T.4Eh5L-.-..-(e./:2-4....---CC. No

10. I like best ***** ***** ,1114,

A. 5-day %0B. No difference li- 1.` 3C. 4-day j.3.2, ; ., "7-1_,

19

ERC

N

AaE

STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

Fig, 5. Business Related Programs Technical Division, percentage

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

2

1

of A and C responses.

. . . 1 ...

4AI

... a ..

I

V

....

...,.

. ..

.4

t. %

4-4

i

.1.

.............

1

/

I

....-

.

1r

2

ITEM NUMBER KEY

4 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

8 9 10

IIM110.11110A RESPONSES

(Favors 5-dayweek)

C RESPONSES(Favor. 4-dayweek)

SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions; A. No C. Yea3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could

not participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yea C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 11/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yes


Note: -The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

20

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WW1<

134 D.; /, D PI20GRAMS TECHNICAL DIVISION..4SURVEY ITEM

1.1.0.110*101

I. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC.. No

2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. NoB. SomeC. Yes

3. Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participate

RESPONSESNo. Total No.**** *****27 1715

A.

B. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YeaB. SomeC. No


6. Had sufficient study timeA. No

17 #7,...5***4.* *****, 3r

13.1./***** *****

534/

6)0**SS*, *****

B, Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No differenceC. 1 112 hours


9. Had trouble contacting instructot/CounseloA. YesB SomeC. No

10. I like beatA. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

*-

lci 411,7;.3./

***** ***** Ai 0

to5

***** *****/Z 37

*La_5

***** *****

7 9o -

41

...................1111111.10

21

90

80

70EIt 60

50

40ACi

30

2

1


Fig, 6. Forestry Programs Technical Division,

percentage of A and C responses.

, .

.

4

1 0

11

V%

..

.. .

.0,4 -

%

1.. a.

1

1

10

k

lii

...i.. -1-*/

1 /11

AN- ,1 --

.

..........,...... 1J.4 5 6

ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

8 10



SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Couldnot participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting materials A Yea C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study times A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yes

C. No10. I like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favor's the 4-day week.

22


O1 ,ST ROGRAMS `TECHNICAL DIVISION

*.......-,.......*....IIwIs...oe.o.1aeofoxlf.wII.a1arIPN.OIY.Ogrw

SURVEY ITEM


2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. No13. SomeC. Yea


4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA Yes

RESPONSESTotal No.

**** 75

155111MOM3=112=1111111M

13. SomeC. No


6. Had sufficient study timeA. NoB. Some troubltC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No differenceC. 11/2 hours

8. Able to work for moneyA. LessB. No difference

0.0

C More9. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselo

A. YeeB SomeC. No


23

P.

RC

N

AC

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

2

1


7. Golf and Landscape Programs Technical Division, percentageof A and C responses.

i.1

.

1,

1

1.

.

....

i/7*-

.

....

. - .

.

%

\%

%

. .

t

....

.

%

1

.

_

i%

- iI

...

1

1

1

._.

1

I

.

.

.

.

.

..._.....,...i

#

.....

*ft.

1

1 .-.....r

...

.. .

...

.

.

.

.


10



SEE NOTE BELOW

ITEM NUMBER KEY

I. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. NoZ. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes). Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Couldnot participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/Z hoursS. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. I like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: The A response always favors the 5 -day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

24


TA13144.24QUILANDJANTCHNICAL.11.01.11141,........m.m......M1111.111...11...11110.46.0

SURVEY ITEM RESPONSES

1. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC.. NO

2. Was able to attend campus functions

No.***** *****

Total No.= 5I

A. No/3. SomeC. Yes

3. Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participate'B. Some troubleC. No problem

A11.1.0,4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. SomeC. No


6. Had sufficient study timeA. NoB. Some trouble

to .3046

M7 4? I**k** 44***

15 2.Z aliq tg3_9 50 '0

** *** *****).1 3.z3?

94

C. Yes7. Class length preferred

A. 1 hour13. No differenceC. 1 1/2 hours

8. Able to work for moneyA. Less

***** *****

***** *****

3 iT")6 23.5

***** 44***

6 k,B. No difference 412 &it ).C More

9. Had trouble contacting instructot/CounsA. Yes13 SomeC. No


6 4

eloi,_2.**** 44*** ,657 M.11'

-2126412. 06E,***** *****15

; 1

25


Fig. 8, Nursing Program Technical Division,

percentage of A and C responses.or.

70ER 60CE 50

40A

30

ITEM NUMBER KEY

6 7 8 9 10ITEM NUMBER

erw A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. 1-lad trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes4. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could

not participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yea C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. 1 like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day


26


EJL114...X)N PROGRAM TECHNICAL DIVISION


. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC.. No

2. Was able toàttend campus functionsA. NoB. SomeC. Yes


4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA Yea

*****310

.1111,00

Total No,

.22 17*****

B. SomeC. No






7_2,3***** 1/5rie)

a., 0


27


Fig, 9. Park Management Program Technical Division,


90

80

70E

60C

50

40A

30

20

10

41.

VIM

I S.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY



SEE NOTE BELOW


not participate C. No problem4. Instructcrs had trouble adapting material: A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred; A. 1 hour C, 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. 1 like best. A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: ì he A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

28

TAR.LE

LAKE CITY COMMUN1TYCOLLEGESTUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

AC M T PRQORQM TEclINICAL DryjmQv

.....SURVEY ITEM

..1. Had trouble scheduling courses

A. Yes13 SomeC.. No

2. Was able to attendA. No13. SomeC. Yes


4. Instructors had trouble adapting material

campus functions

AB.C.

YesSomeNo


6. Had sufficient study timeA. No13. Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hour15. No differenceC. 1 1/2 hours


RESPONSESNo. 1 % Total No.

/5/

63 ir-q i() ,./"

\***** *ON**

c.

/5

6

0.0*****

30 se)6 71

*****

.1.1

*****

0 '73

_yelp

zt.1/ 3 . 3***** 1.5

1 3Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselot**** 44*** 13

A. Yes 313 Some 2L7e 53.3

****. ,,****C. No

10. like bestA. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

dt 02.010

O 0

29

LAKE crrY COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

TABLE 41"OLICE SCIENCE AND CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS TECHNICAL DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM

I, Ilad trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB Some

ESPONSESNo. Total No.014*** *****

C.. NoL. Was able to attend campus functions

A. NoB. SomeC. Yes

3. Was unable to take Part in student activitiesA Could not, participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adaptingA YesB. SomeC. No



7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No difference

material ***** *****

I

0***** *****

I*um*.

0

***** )'plc***

0C. I I/L hours a

8. Able to work For money ***** ***icA. LessB. No differenceC More

9. Had trouble contacting instructor/CounseloA. Yes11 SomeC. No

10. I like bestA. 5-day11. No differenceC. -day

I

7**** *****1

***** * *

00

....1.1......

30


TABLE 13, TIMBER HARVESTING AMPROGR '__1=HNSa,1

SURVEY ITEM

1. Had trouble scheduling courses.A. YesB SomeC.. No





6. Had sufficient study timeA. No

RESPONSESNo. % Total No.**** *****

**** *****

3***** *****

0

***** *****

*41*** *it***1

***** *44***

B. Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hour13. No difference 2-C. 1 1/2 hours

8. Able to work for moneyA. Less 0B. No differenceC More

. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselo **** *****A. YesB Some 1

A***** *****

C. No10. I like best

A. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

***** *****U

31

VI

STUDENT EVALUATION TECHNICAL PROGRAMSCLOCK-HOUR

Fig. 10. Clock-hour Programs Totals Technical Division,


80

70

60C

50

40A

30

20

.

,

,

...

.i._.......

... rI

.

e.

.

,, .

\

.

.....t

_

_.

. .

, 1t--I

.

..... I /____

.. ....-. 1 /I. .

.. .

.......momme.......

....

__10

10

ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY



SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yea C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Couldnot participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. }lad sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor /counselor: A. YesC. No

Like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is 'always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

33


TABLE 14,C LOCK HOUR PROGRAMS TOTALS TECHNICAL DIVISION

41=emospagyer...../.00.... +ow..

SURVEY ITEM


2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. No

RESPONSESTotal No.

00

OP*****

B. SomeC. Yes






0. Able to work for moneyn

A. LessB. No differenceC More

0_.00

9. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselo ****

7/V4c lc .c .

A. YesB SomeC. No


0

*****

j

34

70ER 60C

50

40A

30


Fig. 11. Auto-Body Program technical Division,

percentage of A end C responseS.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

..1.11111. A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions; A. No C. Yes

Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Couldnot participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yea C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Bettor short period



35


TABLE 15,AUTO-BODY PROGRAM TECHNICAL DIVISION

am.

SURVEY ITEM

I. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YeeB SomeC.. No


RESPONSESNo. % Total No.**** *****

B. SomeC.' Yes 6b4e

3. Was unable to take part in student activities *****A Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting material *****A YesB. SomeC. No /00

5 Classroom activities were *****A. Better short periodB. No difference AS',oC. Better longer period

6. Had sufficient study time *****A. No 13B. Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferred *****A. 1 hourB. No difference 3.3C. 1 1/2 hours L %.3

8. Able to work for money *****A. Less 0 0B. No differenceC More 2. /6s7

9. Had trouble contacting instructor/Counselo *****A. YesB Some

1 ...111

C. NoJO, I like bast

A. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

?-

',10

36

p

RC

NTA

E

90.

80

70

()0

50

40

30

2

1


Fig. 12. Automotive Mechanics Program Technical Division,


likl,....W

. .

I

/I /i

6 . . . 1 .. .

I

I .

. . .........-4

II

i

6. -.-..... .. . ....

2

ITEM NUMBER KEY

4 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

8 9 10


C RESPONSES(Favors 4-clayweek)

SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yea C. NoZ. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yea

Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Couldnot participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. I ltke best: A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-dav week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4day week.

37


TABLE 16, AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS PROGRAM TECHNICAL DIVISION

....1....1,11110111111111.0.10.11..1M11.1.1.

SURVEY ITEM RESPONSESTotal No



3. Was unabli to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. SomeC. No 1 ........

5 Classroom ac tivities wereA. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period




9. Had trouble contacting instructor/CounseloA. YeaB SomeC. No


38

blUDEN'i E,VALUA'11014 Lne leUUkt.u.alt WA4k41%

F19, 13. Aviation Mechanics PrograwTechnical Division,

percentage of A end C responses.

90

80

70ER 60C

E 50N

40

30

ITEM NUMBER KEY

4 5 6 7 8 9 10,ITEM NUMBER

.1... A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

I. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer, period6. Had sufficient study time; A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor /counselor: A. Yes

C. No10. I like best; A. 5-day C. 4-day


39


AV! 'TABLE4

DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM

1. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YeeB SomeC.. No


Oft., .11

RESPONSESY9 Total No.

*****

B. SomeC. Yes

. Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem





S. Able to work for moneyA. LessB. No differenceC More

9. Had trouble contacting instructot/CounseloA. YeeB SomeC. No


II,

41 *10.41.

fewassarmile

63.631,

/IMMO Mi.

40

90

80

70

60CE 50N

40A

30

20

WAM. ti V ALUA / JUIN ta UUtt ult vr raas

Fig, 14, Cosmetology Program Technical Division,


2 3 5 7ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

10



SEE NOTE BELOW


not participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble zdapting materials A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Haa sufficient study times A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yes



41


COSMETOLOGY PROGRAM TECHNICAL DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM




4. Instructors had trouble adaptingA YesB. SomeC. No

5. Classroom activities wereA. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period

Had sufficient study timeA. NoB. Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No differenceC. I 1/2 hours



10. beetA. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

material

.11.01111111,

RESPONSESNo. % Total No.**** *4***

.11110.1110.

*****

ONNI .81/=11,

42

90

80

70ER 60CE 50

40A

30

2

1


Fig. 15. Welding ProgrAm Technlc;t1 Division,

percentage of A end C re2ponses.

\......../._, A

s.,N.

, ...............

\ 1

v

. _................... ..1,......1 a- . - .1.4- ........ a .r. r. - ....1.....4-..........*-6-

....._.... ,.......

, .6........,,..---4.6....

2......41

r- ,.......--......4........' ....... L L..

4- 4

o .../... ..... 4............4.........-..

1 2

ITEM NUMBER KEY


dorronaorml.A RESPONSES

(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW



C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study times A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 11/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/comaeler: A. Yes



43


TABLE PROGRAM iggijNICALMISION________11111,11.1110011111

SURVEY ITEM

I. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB Some

11 IMO .Offliewe

RESPONSESTotal No,

*****

C.. No2. Was able to attend campus functions

A, NoB. SomeC. Yes


4, Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. SomeC. No

5. Classroom activities wereA. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period

6. Had sufficient atudy timeA. NoB. Some troubleC. Yes


8, Able to work for moneyA. LessB. No differenceC More



44

VII

STUDENT EVALUATION WORK-STUDY STUDENTS

PE

C

E

A

blUIJk.311. 16VALUAlLUN Ule 10U1 t.1.)AY WW'.

Fig. 16. WORK STUDY STUDENTS TOTAL TECHNICAL AND TRANSFER DIVISIONS.

PERCENTAGE OF A AND C RESPONSES

90

80

70

60

50

40

CE

30

2

1.

4 4

......

.

1

I

I

.... .

16

II...

1 .11-....*I.

II.

% .r_...........71

*

g

%i 4 IkI

SI...L.*....,...... -,Ili

th

4

.............1

4

- .......--.. _............._ ........-1

. .

',1......

b ... as........

lir.. .........

1

ITEM NUMBER KEY

4 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

9 10

adoA RESPONSES

(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yea3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yes



46


T CHNIrA AN. TRANSFER DIVLSIQNS

Ow11....111

SURVEY ITEM


Z. Was able to attend campus functionsA. NoB. SomeC. Yes

RESPONSESNo. % Total No.***** ***** 75-

4, 7 ( .,*a.2 3 2, 1.--

....,...._--***** *****

,2f/ 311/ /.

3. Was unable to take part in student activities ***** *****A Could not participate .2.S: L.B. Some trouble /7e -73.e.

f P

C. No problem t38' ..37..34, Instructors had trouble adapting material ***** ***** .. --..

A Yee 1/ //,..5*B. Some 02 :p-'3-C. No 3 .../r e', el---

Classroom activities were ***** *****,"?...)=;

A. Better short period __,,,2" 34i ::\,, -----

B. No difference 1C. Better longer period / v7. c. _--

6. Had sufficient study time >144**

A. No 212 42_6 .1..B. Some trouble lig 2 1,,,,2 9 (5C. Yes if____222/,'

7. Class length preferred ***** ***** 73A. 1 hour 3 Y 1//// e ------,B. No difference ........._ .2._cC. C. 1 HZ hours /7 2 /

8. Able to work for money ***** ***** ,_,5

A. Less .---, V ...?1-: r '---.., --, ---.

B. No difference ,...77 ..;3 ..,,,-_ // a ,z/ ---..C More

9. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counse1014 **** *****1

,......._ ,2C, ..4.??.6.. 3

fi /' 7***** ***** 75--

A. YesB SomeC. No


C za:r1( f'

47

90

80

70ER 60CE 50N

40A

30


Fig, 17, Semester Hour Students On Work-study Programs

Technical Division, percentage of A and C responses,

.

................

1....r..__.

-.A

e

,

....L._.

1..

A11'

_

I,

1

ITEM NUMBER KEY

4 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

10



SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. NoZ. Was able to attend campus functions; A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could

not participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting materials A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money; A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yea


Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between vesponse and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4:day week.

48

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGETABLE 21. STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEKSEMESTER HOUR STUDENTS ON WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS (ITEM C) TECHNICAL DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM

Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC.. No

RESPONSES% Total No,

***** 40

111


/13*****

s9,93. Was unable to take part in student activities

A Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4, Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. SomeC. No

Classroom activities wereA. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period



8, Able to work for moneyA. LessB. No difference

024

C More9, Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselo

A. YesB SomeC. No

10, I like bestA. 5-dayB. No difference

*****

c-*** *

C. 4-day

49


Fig. 18. CLOCK-HOUR STUDENTS ON WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS (ITEM C) TECHNICAL DIVISION

90

80

70

R 60CE 50N

40A

30

2

PERCENTAGE OF A AND D RESPON5r9.

4 . .

I I.

. . . . .

I//

0

0.4 , 6.4. 4 . II .4 , ...yaw

4 .

..

OP

4...

rt...... e .

..

III

1...

A

...... 4

1

!rr

. ..........

. . _ . . .

1

I

i

%

Ilk

I. 1 a

t

o. 4.

0V

- + - --t

'

-

IF. ...4..

, ,. . .

t11

%

4i

I

o

. .. .......4.

.1..

.1

I....

1

t

1

-i-

II

4-

%-

I

1.......... 4..4...

4.--4

O. 11...... ...Ir. ..... 41....

3 4 S 6 10ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

1.00 400 A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

I. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. I 1/2 hours8. Able to work for moneys A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yea


Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

50

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEKTABLE 22.

CLOM-10120112WS (ITEM TECHNICAL DIVISION

1110.011011.1.111.11.1.140111111111.11.....0..

SURVEY ITEM



3. Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some trouble

.1111.111i.

No.*44**

111 .. oftwtoro

RESPONSESTotal No,

SONO .11...C. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. SomeC. No 110..e...1 4101.1~1/0001110./1.0110

5 Classroom activities wereA. Flatter short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period




..+111we



41111.111.,..

51

Fa"


Fig, 19, Students On Work-study Programs Transfer Division,

percentage. of A and C responses,

90

80

70ER 60CE 50

40AO

30

2

Altiiikil2 3 4 5 6 7

ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

9 10



SEE NOTE BELOW



C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Lees C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. I like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day


52


TABLE 23. STUDENTS_ON WORK- STUDY PROGRAMS (ITEM C) TRANSFER DIVISION

004

SURVEY ITEM


Z. Was able to attend campus functionsA. NoB. SomeC. Yee

3.' Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. Some

RESPONSESNo. j % Total No.4...0 ...a .4.**** *****

C. NoClassroom activities were

A. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period




Had trouble contacting inetructot/CounseloA. YesB SomeC. No


.*44/

53

VIII

STUDENT EVALUATION STUDENTS THAT WORK


Fig. 20STUDENTS THAT WORK TOTAL TECHNICAL AND TRANSFER DIVISIONS,PERCENTAGE OF A AND C RESPONSES

PE

CENTA

90

80

70

60

50

40

CE 30

., ,

o

I.

.1 4

...

I.

4 N.

.

...%

.

J.

,

11114...*

....A....c....., i

...._,.,..,--

4 4

%

LA.... ...

4 -4. ---

a

N.,

.4. ....,.

4.,...............4.4 .....

%

%,

_ ...... **b....

1. ....1

i

If

I

----..,_4/

..4.

... . ..........*tr...NIIIV

1

ITEM NUMBER KEY

4 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

8 9 10



SEE NOTE BELOW(

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yea C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yea3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselors A. Yes



55


TABLE 24. STUDENTS THAT WORK TOTAL TECHNICAL AND TRANSFER D I VIS IONS

SURVEY ITEM

Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB Some

RESPONSES

woe

Total No.irof

C.. No 4 S..........001111.1.4.1.1./.4.012. Was able to attend campus functions *****

A. No 31. 313. Some oC. Yes iz14, 7

3. Was unable to take part in student activities *****A Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting material Y7A YesB. SomeC. No

Classroom activities wereA. Better short periodB. No difference y,3,2C. Better longer period *VAS ------ ----

6. Had sufficient study time *+ * ** 4.5èA. No x 7. / ,---'B. Some trouble 3, z.C. Yes 9 .2_

7. Class length preferred *****A. 1 hour i ,..5` .,,,.B. No difference 7, 9C. . 1 1/2 hours 2 ,4141..

8. Able to work for money *****A. LessB. No difference

j5,1C More 0.


10. I like bestA. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day /3,"

56


Fig. 21. Semester Hour Studentro ?het Work TechnIcel Division,

percentage of A end C responses,

90

80

70ER 60CE 50

40A

30

2

1

Va11.1.014111.1.01611.....1110.1.0110/10.1."8.10.11WWieneilli.100.01WOIMMENWPMPROMMON.M.0

I v

.. .

.

...

4. 4 .

-11

--1.

, r-.

- 1

- 4

I

.-4--'4-

i /IF...

....

,

, ........,

%

\

ti

..-. -

.......

?41

i

. ...v.....

.r...

/0........,

oh.

\'''s

.

I.....

1 . I - f.

%

%

r % 4.

%

11

. .

_

.. ...

so.

4...4.. 41111/4.

. i

........................

......

..... .....* ........

....... .

....Ia. 4.........


ITEM NUMBER KEY

8 9 10



SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities, A. Could



Note, The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

57


TABLE 25,,SEMESTER HOUR STUDENTS THAT WORK (I TEM D) TECF1NIOAL DIVISION.11,1100.1..

INO

SURVEY ITEM

1. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YeeB SomeC.. No


11..00.110011.0110111101.......11%

RESPONSESTotal No.

0

11112111 P P=1:11 =ill

IFEEDI94. Ykr,S.***** *****

B. SomeC. Yes




6. Had sufficient study timeA. NoB. Some troubleC. Yee


8. Able to work for moneyA. LeesB. No differenceC More



/Oa--....71P

33

/3,3***** /do

/0 2

*****

58

E

CE

TAGE

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

2

1


Fig. 22. Clock-hour Students ?het Work Technicel Division,


tr......

11.... 411420.-

....... 11. 4 . 6 I a. .0.

6

..

..,..4.

..A.

1

a., .. ..

I..4-

.

4. 4-4 --

............. . ..0......4 -.1...... -

......

.

. ...s... ,-..*..- , ..... I.-.

. I 1

....-... ...V. ......11.,....

..I .-...-..- - 1.............6. r

. 0

-. . 6,....

I . 6, ...!.....}..,

-..4 ry....e.

.A...4.. b. .../..

_. .

2 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

10

01.11.11. A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

I. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Couldnot participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material: A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length p..eferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. I like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day


59


TSB E 26 0 K-HOUR STUDENTS THAT RK T M D T H I A

1.11=.1.1........1.111511141.0011411.1.011111.101111101.14

SURVEY' ITEMWOWNWN..0MOMmiD7New.l..,.F.01...MON.f.I.




RESPONSES

dam. asol

C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material ***** **it**

Mil WAN0111111*.

A YesB. SomeC. No

Classroom activities wereA. Better short periodB. No difference

% Total No.=111 =MI1111311111111ilimb.

111731111M1111111=I g=allEEO 1111M1111

war 0 eminsuana

No.

spiallirgLop.walk.

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time

A. NoB. Some troubleC. Yes



9.Had trouble contacting instructot/CounseloA. YesB SomeC. No

10. I like beatA. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

*.***

I I 1E1 I I I 1

Fn. warmMEM MIEN

IIIIIr3N'qllIllpPPP"Ira

RIMMIFFlaw *** **IIll 0

KM IliPillmai

wan MN=111112111.naM-

tn.

60


Ficr, 23, Students Thet Work Transfer DivIelon,


70ER 60C

50

40

30

ITEM NUMBER KEY


MINNIM11. A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. NoZ. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor /counselors A. Yes


Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day weak, B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

61


TABLE V. STUD NTS THAT RIS_)IVISION

M41 .1111.4....1...111....1.11.11'

SURVEY ITEM



3. Was unable to take part in student activities ****A Could not participateB. Some trouble

*****

424

C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material ***** *****

A YesB. Some __----- 03

es/ tAtc-***** '( * * ** /07

01.1fad

period 4, /7,g6. time ***** ***** //d

4.10.0MIO

4.11.1.01111.1. *1 sommull

RESPONSESTotal Nom___

***** llo

/AL_

5


A. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer

Had sufficient studyA. NoB. Some troubleC. Yes



aY9I

*****0-434

*****

*****j l*****

so

//

--,,.0 ,,./. .:-.

9. Had trouble contacting instructor/Counselor *le*** ***** /0,--------'A. Yes 7

B Some .4 9C. No --.2/

10. I like best ***** *****

..A. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4 -day .1.11,..

kg7 5g-'4.2 120 0_

04-

62

I X

STUDENT EVALUATION WORK PLUS WORK-STUDY


Fig. 244LIORM AND WORM STUDY STUDENTS TOTAL TECHNICAL AND TRANSFER DIVISIONflp

PERCENTAGE OF A AND C RESPONSES

90

80

70ER 60CE 50N

AT

40

30

2

1

ha stlih,..

113 4 5 6 7

ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

111..A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)

C RESPONSES(Favors 4 -dayweek)

SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yee1. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 112 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor /counselor: A. Yes


Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or is

critical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

64

TABLE 28.ii0FIK AND.


iy_14 IONS

fro 0.....111.11.........1111.1.0.1111Mid.1111... .1.0.0.41111res*.*r" -"^

SURVEY ITEM

. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB Some orraw*.C.. No

RESPONSESNo. % Total**** *44**at' 6.3

3 4.3"`Z. Was able to attend campus functions

A. NoB. SomeC. Yes


ilmom0

,

C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material

A Yes

011.

B. SomeC. No



7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No difference

aeowo Mitorars,..

.111111 =111

.4 .0M111

C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money

A. LeesB. No differenceC More



41,33.8.

74P,a,-*****

? .0/° Ls

.31.

65

"Y.

P

R

EN

A

E


Fig. 25, Semester Hour Students That Work Plus Work-study Students

Technical Oivision, percentage of A and C responses.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

2

1

.

IN . *

...AP.

..4111: 4 - 4

+'.1. .....,.......

...I

.

4..

. ... . ... . . -.

\ .

...

4 O..* .0. lo.......4.........,..-- .. ..4

I i ,

,-...1. - -rl1...,-.6.4.4.... / .1...

I....

P... .......11..A.4.. .. ..... ..«.......P.i« ..... «........1,

4 5 6ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

10

A RESPONSES(Faiors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

I. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. NoZ. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study times A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for moneys A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. I like best: A. 5 -day C. 4-day


66

tow I .1.0 %O. 4..10 L r.4

TABLEZ9. STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

5EMESTER Ii R STUDENTS THAT WORK PLUS WORK -STUDY STUDENTS (ITEMS C AND

TECHNICAL DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM

11RESPONSES

. Had.trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB Some

N o.****

A Total No.

C.. Ni)Z. Was able to attend campus functions

A. NoB. SomeC. Yes





1111111111nral.V"r.

ZCOMEUMIlampres

110711,71E11

lik7X11111110111111017/11

**** *

WirillteREM1111Len.=UM=/MI

111=211

12

/9-*****

45A*44**





moo 11.....

op-

67

R

EN

A

E


lig, 26, STUDENT EVALUATION or FOUR-DAY WEEK

Semester Hour Studente That Neither Work Nor Are On Work-study Programs

Technical Division, percentage of A end C responses.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

2

1

4.

/ '. .

.

.. 4.

...__A-.............

4 -

14 I.

......_...................,...................

.1.

1. -4.0,4. a

01,

.

I -0

+.04

I ,

-

-0.

I o

i/411

4yy

-

4 - Irr .* 4

.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY


C RESPONSES(,Favors 4-dayweek)

SEE NOTE BELOW



C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselors A. Yes


Note: The A response always favors the 5 -.day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

68


TABLE 30.STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOURDAY WEEK 4

SEMESTER HOUR STUDENTS THAT NEITHER WORK NOR ARE ON WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS

TECHNICAL DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM11010.1.01111111111140101111111INIMIMMIMEM11.111111111111ft1.1.0.1.1111



.1.1.....1.

RESPONSESTote, l.No.

4..?/

3. Was unable to take partin student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem Ws..B. SomeC. No

ElWW2010"4. Instructors had trouble adapting material

A Yes

UMW=Classroom activities were 0=3113=311

A. Better short period 11031111MaB. No difference Iniallirliali --,..C. Better longer period 1111M111111117111

6, Had sufficient study time Mani=n1111111r 4A. No WMB. Some trouble OMC. Yes 111MI

7. Class length preferred 12=1 .........A. 1 hour W1311B. No difference NMI.........___C. 1 1/2 hours firm

. Able to work for =hey *****A. Less ,6

C More I,B. No difference?

9. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselo **.t**A. Y68B SomeC. No 1/10


69

E

CENTA

E

blUDEN1. 1GVALUAT1UN OF FOUR-DAY W haat

Fig. 27 Clock.hour Students Thet Work Plus Work-study Programs

Technics' Division, percentage of A and C responses.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10P

..11\ o , = 1- *

4.441144 .4. .1. -

l

4. 4 ...IP.

V

4.1.1 1. .-41.1.11 4.. . ...a 4.*.

1.

ITEM NUMBER KEY

4 5 6ITEM NUMBER

10



SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yea C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselort A. Yes



70


TABLE 31,CLOCK-HIM STUDENTS THAT WORK PLUS WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS (ITEMS C AND D)

TECHNICAL DIVISIONvomma001140011/101...........y............a... moda~M.11=1~M.or..0.~..rarms 'r ow. omam**

SURVEY ITEM


Was able to attend campus functionsA. NoB. SomeC. Yes

3. Was unable to take part in student activities, A Could not participate

B. Some trouble igrairiff111110101C. No problem

RESPONSESTotal No

41,35

//1111111111111111.7/11MilliINF. frilk211111111111b1.,




7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No differenceC. 1 1/Z hours



110....1.1

10. I like bestA. 5dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

MUMS10:=

o

LIMINT3111111

* 31grig * *

110001...........ammo.......

11Mtawoostel.m....

71


Fig, 28, Clock-hour Students that Neither Work Nor Are On Work-study Programs

Technicel Division, percentage of A end C responses.

90

80

P

R

E

TA

E

70

60

50

40

30

2

1

b ...DOA

I I I. 41.

... 6. 4

, ... . 6

/

....., .lo

. .4..4 4,...,6 .

., ...

.

4

i

....4. 11.

/ '.1.

A-.1 ..

\0 ..

-... Pr

-14

.........._.

,It -..\--,......4..41

1 . '

....4..1 ...--.1.

..11.

p. 4.

...1....10,....-1.

/

................

_...

t

......1.4.4...

4....11.4.4...

11. ow. -4 ...

.iv - }

.... .. ...

1. ,

4 5 6 7ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

10

.1.1.101/11.11.1111A RESPONSES

(Favors 5-dayweek)

C RESPONSES(Favors 4 -dayweek)

SEE NOTE BELOW

I. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. NoZ. SVas able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yee3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could




Note: The A response always Tivors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and ii not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

72


TABLE 32.CLOCK-HOUR STUDENTS THAT NEITHER WORK NOR ARE ON WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS

TECHNICAL DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM

v..1101.11111111111141...111 NO

RESPONSES

Had trouble scheduling courses%a. Total No.

***Ile*

MNC.. No

000-M EM=

A. YesB Some

Was able to attend campus functions

MA. NoB. SomeC. Yes

Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some trouble 11nMI%IMalIllIlr-C. No problem MeV

4. Instructors had trouble adapting material =112=1

B. SomeC. No

MI*A Yes

VFAIIPTIONINI5 Classroom activities were =EMCEE

A. Better short period 111117111111M1B. No difference 1111FarlalliC. Better longer period NMI MINI

6. Had sufficient study time EU13111=0111A. No

WWB. Some troubleturaI

C. Yes NMI7. Class length preferred 1=11 * * * **

A. 1 hour MIMIB. No difference MNc. 1 1/2 hours All II 111°11°''

rfPT

iiffl8. Able to work for moneyA. LessB. No difference riffp16.14111C More

Had trouble contacting instructot/CounseloA. YesB SomeC. No

10. I like beetA. 5-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

ml

73


Fig. 29. Students that Work Plus Work-study Students Tronster Division,


90

80

70ER 60

E

AaE

50

40

30

2

I

. . e -4146 I 11.4. 44..4.

, - 4 .4 . , I. 4- " .4 ...., ........-- .-i....0,-.. ............. . , ... .............. ...es.* ,..I. r-

I 44 .44441i..i I. Ia.... v... 4 I. 4 ,... 4. ... 4 .' ' . 1". ....Ir.- -4.. -* .:k

V1

. . 111,.. qr....* A.. \

II 4. 6 , v 4 4.4411. .4. . 14.1. 4 41.. . .14-4 1.0. .4

4...I

' I

Ow.. *. .4 .4- 4.4441.4. .4...4.-4.1r4 .4 .......*.....4114. b..** .6.

I I

I ,

4 5 6 7

ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

10

elso.owl A RESPONSES(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campu, functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could





74


TABLE 33STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

_,STUDENTS THAT WORK PLUS WORM-STUDY STUDENTS (ITEMS C AND D)

TRA SF R IUISION

SURVEY ITEM RESPONSESNo. 0

0


2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. NoB. SomeC, Yes

***** *****13 .2/

.v. 7.661411.0.0.....m..s. Wet

** ** ***** ge2".0.40

Total







***** ***** 131:.57 9,6.0 ,>1.1

***** *****

,r4 32L2-4,3 :34

----_---C More

1$Q

***** ***** yo97

***** ***** [91

9. HadHad trouble contacting instructor/Counselor, **** ***** /f12-)A. YesB SomeC. No.


.70 41,9

,c4.1 _

75

PERC

NTA


Fig, 50, Students Thet Neither Work Nor Are On Workatudy Programil

Transfer Division, percentage of A and C responses.

90

80

70

60

50

40

CE

30

2

1

a a

) 4.

.

11,

a a r

\.... ,

1.....

....a..... 4

,

.

.4...... g

............

.

. p I

1..4

....

.0 alla

A

..1.4.....

- -.....

. a

4*

. ..

.

..- .............. . .....i

.-....o........p.ara

11411tarl. l LA

A

.I. alraa -

... . ti.M.

1

mi.' al.. I.*. almm


ITEM NUMBER KEY



SEE NOTE BELOW


not participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting materials. A Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yea



76


TABLE 34, STUDENTS THAT NEITHER WORK NOR ARE ON WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS

TRANSFER DIVISION0.1


C%

Had trouble scheduling coursesNo.**** *****

Total No.9V 7.

A. YeaB Some

.110011.1.100111.1110111wrC.. No



4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA Yee lin111.B. SomeC. No






10. I like bootA. S-dayB. No differenceC. 4-day

owl 1.411 ano. ama eas nr.

.111.8.11 olaas111.o.O.M. Ma

0111.1.1................31,3

AZ)39, s.

77

X

STUDENT EVALUATION RESPONSES BY GRADE-POINT AVERAGE

SEMESTER-HOUR TECHNICAL

E

C

NTA


Fig. 31. No Grade Point Average Reported Semester Hour Programs

Technical Division, percentage of A and C responses.

90

80

70

60

50

40

E30

2

1

...11.11.81/1.1.01,

. , - -.4

II I b.

,........

>...... .....

.

.

, -.-

I ,

I O 0

.

I .......

. 4.4...

0

vo-

OOP. .

.....

4.

11 O.

..--

. 41.

6

.

...

. 4

4 ....a.. ........ - .

I.

I

...

O. 4.

.... ..1. ...........

........ ....v.*,

1.11.

b .1.1

........

0.11. ..

.

. g MO...

.0.

.. fir.di

TIT-,

....

A......-

4. .1 ......... k..........,

i .

.4

nil.......

i......

4 5 6ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

9 10

11.014.1.1.0A RESPONSES

(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. NoZ. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yee3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


Cs Better longer period6. Had sufficient study times A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred, A. 1 hour C. I 1/2 hours8. Able to work fur moneys A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor /counselors A. Yes

C. No10. I like bests A. 5-day C. 4-day


79


35 NO GRADE AVER GE REPORTED SEMESTER HOUR PROGRAMSTECHNICAL DIVISION

SURVEY ITEM RESPONSES% Total No.


Z. Was able to attend campus functionsA. No EraB. Some NMIC. Yes

3. Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem MIE .




7. Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No differenceC. 1 1/Z hours

8. Able to work for moneyA. LessB. No difference .

No.**** *****

41.1.*

3

* * * * *

,scso31.3

./94/*****

SY.

WINI . MOO.

C More9. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counselo

A. YesB SomeC. No

10. I like bestA. 5.dayB. Nu difference OralC. 4-day

v... MO

44L.......

80

1111.


JABDifcbr 41,10Ag .1.9 AND UNDER SEMESTER HOUR PROGRAMS TECHNICAL oivisinN

SURVEY ITEM



.11110.11110

B. SomeC. Yes






8. Able to work for moneyA. LeesB. No differenceC More



81


Fig, 32. Grade Point Average 2.0 - 2.9 Semester Hour Programs

Technical Division, percentage of A and C responses.

90

80

70ER 60CE 50N

40A

30E

2

1

4 .i ..1 1 1.. 1 - I 0 4 ... 0.- Y... - I - -P - . p . y ,-

\.0 . ..... a 4, -yr. -II- ...yr.. yr..

r p

..

1.4 of....1, J4I . a ... ..\..--..

.

. a . ... a vaa ..-14. Y.-6Y. .Ihr

i IP y y --

i -, . r

- --...4-4. ... . ...... . ......................


ITEM NUMBER KEY

10



SEE NOTE BELOW.






82


TABLE 37,STUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

GRADE POINT AVERAGE 2.0 2.9 SEMESTER HOUR PROGRAMS TECHNICAL DIVISION

oremonoasowmd.wrora.rormbwarowposmkaryrome...ftwamoll=orwarmosamor

SURVEY ITEM





RESP,ONSESelo Total No.

*****

1.20.5 Classroom activities were

A. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better banger period



8, Able to work for moneyA. Less

/w20

....B. No differenceC More

4,20

9. Had trouble contacting instructo * /CounseloA. YesB SomeC. No

10. I like bestA. 5 -day __----------------B. No differenceC. 4-day

83

*****

u A. v J.d L riyr v IVAN Ur rVUtt -UAY WZZIS

Fig. 33. Grids Point Average 3.0 And Up Semester Hour Programs

Technicsi Division, percentage of A and C responses.

90

80

70ER 60C

50

40A

30

2

1

4

.

/ .4

0 ...

4...

..

\ .

Ir

.4.. , . - I . ..4.

i

1. -0. 41.0- .. .4...4.0 - . ..J

.II.

4

.4. 044 .11.

1 . I

lama...

.0.

4. I.

I .

.

'. .

......

..

1 i

t.

..... *41.... ........

I1

I


ITEM NUMBER KEY

10



SEIC NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yea C. No2. Was able to attend campus function.: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study times A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor /counselors A. Yes



84


TABLE 38.GRADE POINT AVERAGE: 3.0 AND UP SEMESTER HOUR PROGRAMS TECHNICAL DIVISION

.000000MINIONOMMIPIOMOIMMDMONNMONIFINI.1.

SURVEY ITEM RESPONSESTotal No,

Had trouble scheduling coursesA, YesB SomeC., No



4. Instructors had trouble adapting materialA YesB. Some

100.111M.....1.1Ik


A. Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period


7, Class length preferredA. 1 hourB. No differenceC. 1 1/2 hours


9. Had trouble contacting instructot/CounseloA. YesB SomaC. No


85

a

XI

STUDENT EVALUATION RESPONSES BY GRADE-POINT AVERAGES

TRANSFER DIVISION

PERC

NTAGE

J. iiVALUA LIVAV VUWlAre Y 11Z4,CAS

Fig. 34. No Grade Point Average Reported Transfer Divisiont

percentsge of A and C responses.

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

2

1

'

.

* .

....

, ............

4 -... .

a ..,..-

.4..

11

1 4, , 4.4., ....a .

. ..

........

.....- ....,......................

........ .........,..........................

. ...

.. 4. ,. .

.

1..............

1.......... *a...A

...... ..... ...........IP.

4...._

.......

511.

.4... . SY-


ITEM NUMBER KEY

9 10



SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities! A. Could


C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for moneys A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yes


Note: The A response always favors the 5-day week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the In-between response and is not plotted her The C responsealways favors the 4day week.

87

TAM.,


ti :tO I t t :ti It

SURVEY ITEM

Had trouble scheduling coursesA. YesB SomeC.. No

2. Was able to attend campus functions *****A. NoB. SomeC. Yes

3. Was unable to take part in student activities 444**A Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4. Instructors had trouble adapting material *****A Yee

41.111.1.14.101.

NMI Oemil. 11.

RESPONSESTotal No.

*****

*****

e). 6*****

B. SomeC. No P 1/4.3" 0.4Z-----::-''---,

J.E.--;'Classroom activities were ,***** *****

A. Better short period Z 6.01.4 '''''.,.,B. No difference - Y .21,L, -/-C. Better longer period 3 Ab ik ,-----. -*.s. -,,

6. Had sufficient study time ***** 14As No

*4***

*****

B. Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hour .......-B. No difference 7 -,1Al-

C. 1 1/2 hours i....8. Able to work for money * **** 2.5

A. Less -- i 416 .. -

B. No difference /O 4 4, 7C More i4k-7-_- ......

9. Had trouble contacting instructot/Counseloc*** ;;.?A. Yes -2 /, ----"

B Some c j91C. No I 9 ,-- ----.

_A. 5-day 7 --'"10. I like best ***** *****

A L_/4

..

B. No difference .2. /214.C. 4-day , 7 41. 51.-'-

.27

4-6

88


TABLE 40. GRADE POINT AVERAGE 1.9 AND UNDER TRANSFER DIVISION.410.111.

,../.111.11.....m111memomosomwasefta ...woo ow


1. Had trouble scheduling courses77A, Yes

B SomeC., No


No, Total

3 Was unable to take part in student activitiesA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem

4, Instructors had trouble adapting materialA Yes w.11.0B. SomeC. No

5 Classroom activities wereA, Better short periodB. No differenceC. Better longer period

6, Had sufficient study timeA. No13, Some troubleC. Yes

7. Class length preferredA. 1 hour1;1. No differenceC, I 1/2 hours

8. Able to work for moneyA. LessB, No differenceC More

9. Had trouble contacting instructor/CounseloA. Yee13 SomeC. No

10. I like bestA. 5-day .rir.www.B. No difference ...C. 4-day

89

E

C

N

Aa

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

2

1

1 UU t.341. VAL UA Ukt...1A11 x YV X*0411

FIg. 35, Grade Point Average 2,0 - 2.9 Transfer Division,

percentage of A end C responses,

4o.

4 I 40. -I. - 0., I. -a 0...4 ..4. ... +I

1IP.

. 4 a . al. 0. 6.-.. ....-a

a ...- .... .4......... ........ ... a .. ....... .4.w.Illr

4 5 6 7

ITEM NUMBER

ITEM NUMBER KEY

9 10

IIIIMINM1.111 WHOA RESPONSES

(Favors 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW



C. Better longer period6. Had sufficient study times A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9. Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. Yes

C. No10. I like bests A. 5-day C. 4-day


90


TABJE 41. GRADE POINT AVERAGE 2.0 - 2.9 TRANSFER onnsInN

=1.........1011111111.01110.11011.41.1...,

01.111.11111.1.

0.01.1...1101.


1. Had trouble scheduling coursesA. Yes'B SomeC.. No


Total No.**** *****

3. Was unable to take part in studentA Could not participateB. Some troubleC. No problem


activities



7. Class length preferredA. I hourB. No differenceC. 1 1/2 hours

8. Able to work for money

s**it** *14

*****NNW.= 11

/3 .2_

A. LessB. No differenceC More

9. Had trouble contactingA. YesB SomeC. No


/a /"777'

instructor/Counselo.91


Fig, 36. Grade Point Average 3,0 And Up Transfer Divielon,

percentage of A end C responses.

90

80

70

R 60CE 50

40A

30

2

1

IP. a ...1 .

\

. ........4

/ \

a ..... a um.

/.

/

. L


ITEM NUMBER KEY

9 10

4.1 A RESPONSES(rayons 5-dayweek)


SEE NOTE BELOW

1. Had trouble scheduling courses: A. Yes C. No2. Was able to attend campus functions: A. No C. Yes3. Was unable to take part in student activities: A. Couldnot participate C. No problem4. Instructors had trouble adapting material , Yes C. No5. Classroom activities were: A. Better short period

C. Better longer period6. Had sufficiant study time: A. No C. Yes7. Class length preferred: A. 1 hour C. 1 1/2 hours8. Able to work for money: A. Less C. More9, Had trouble contacting instructor/counselor: A. YesC. No10. I like best: A. 5-day C. 4-day

Note: The A response always favors the 5 -say week or iscritical of the 4-day week. B response is always the in-between response and is not plotted here. The C responsealways favors the 4-day week.

92

LAKE CITY COMMUNI7Y COLLEGESTUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

TA13LE 42.ORADE POINT AVERAGE 3.1) AND UP TRANVER DIVISION

11.01..1.40.14.10.0. 4.0 ..11.11,

SURVEY ITEM


2. Was able to attend campus functionsA. No13. SomeC. Yes



RESPONSESTotal NNo.

A***y *****

8.2

s'r 1.47°yy



7. Class length preferredA. 1 hour13, No differenceC. 1 1/2 hours

.......111

***** **',**.57

7.

***** *****45:

ttl ,

3-3 41:..***!),* *****13. .3

fl..5

-7Y,***** *****

$'d

...............*.***** *****41--,-At-a-

..4 g45*

enema.


***** *****MI 4 3

***** *****

9. Had trouble contacting instructor/Counselok **** *44***

C More

s.41--"

01Y Lf .51.710. I like best _***** ***** RS'A. 5-day13. No difference

A. YesB SomeC. No

C. 4.day

93

XII

STUDENT EVALUATION MISCELLANEOUS


TABLE 43. ITEM 11, CLOCK-HOUR PROGRAMS TECHNICAL DIVISION

10101.....010.1.1101*.auv.woIM.M....Mohw 1

11. Assume clock-hour students remained on a four-day weekand semester-hour students returned to a f ive-day week,would this cause any special problem for you? If "yes"mark A and explain on the back of this sheets

NUMBER

A. yes, serious problems

1111011=01110.

0 0

IL not much difference for me 6 11.76

C. no problem 45 88.23

Total number of responses

95

51

=110


TABLE 44. STUDENTS THAT WORK FULL-TIME ON FRIDAY,NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION BY GRADE-POINT AVERAGE (CPA)

1.11.1....1. ego.. .... Nay Nmes111DIVISION

:yaw.

G. P. A. NUMBER

-

% OFSCHOOL TOTAL

Technical

.Semester-hour not reported 3 1.56

1.9 and lower

2.0 - Z. 9 33 17.19

3.0 and up 33 17.19

Clock-hour total 40 20.83

Technical total 109 56.77

Transfernot reported 8 4.17

1.9 and lower 1 .52

2.0 - 2.9 49 25.52

3.0 and up 25 13.02

Transfer total 83 43,23

School total 192 100.00

Notes The school total of 192 is 35 per cent of the total sample.

96

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGESTUDENT EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY LEEK

STUDENT COMMENTS

Yee, this has bean a problem for me; because I can't gat he onFriday. No way to gat here! (Cosmetology, Tuasdoy to Friday schedule)

1.I prefer the five day week, becausn we can get more hours in andfinish sooner.

The longer the day is that much more work gets done.

No comments!

111111.11111.111M 1116M1101.000141.111.1.

why don't you OPEN THE PARKING LOT!? You built it when you don'tneed it--so open it.

tse110This survey is stupid due to the fact that anything that stu-

dents say is regarded as irrelevant and doesn't matter anyway.

When the students are regarded as people who have some rationaljudgement, and not ss high school freshman, then these questionnairescan be useful and not just a useful waste of paper.

.11.1.1.1..11.M.111 www....1.111110......11111J

I miss the school functioos and things like that because I live along way away. I like the 4-day week. I get more other things doneon the extra day off.

111.1111enjoy camping, hiking, fishing, etc., that is one of the reasons /1m

in the Forestry Program, because of the out -of- doors. This gives memore time to get outside.

,.......1. Arranging work-study hours.

97

Special problem: The 4-day week takes more of my time and I em unableto work a part-time job at night on the week days becnuen of the longerdays. It is very hard to find a job where you can work from 6 to 9 p.m,and still have time to study.

Less gen for 4-day week'

Any trouble I have encountered is due to the newness of the 4-dayweek and could be corrected without much trouble.

/ didn't enjoy having long weekends with no access to school facilitiesthat / needed for study. I did like the longer classes because youweren't as pushed to get your materials in working order and you hadtime to work end get a sufficient amount accomplished while had yourmind on it.

Although the four-day week plan is an advantage for some students, itin not so for others. Friday might be a great day for an added week.and vacation and it might meet some of the students requirements forgetting the school kinks out of their bones. But, it is no "picnic"for the rest of us. The longer hours do not make classes easier onyou. On the contrary, it makes it harder. Time is spent more ireclasses and less in the Library, where students have the thence tostudy. LRo has reported that there has been lees students in thelibrary this semester than there have been last semester. Thisbrings the study rate an all time drastic low. I am not kickingyour 4-day week plan, but would you please go tibugusomeone else?

many of my friends must stay an extra semester to take one or twocourses that were either dropped because of the 4-day week or theindividual could not fit them into their schedule because of thefour-day wnsk,

411.11.0,111.6m.

I wouldn't mind the four-day week if I had more time on my hands.-Thank you.

In the fall term of '74 I will be carrying an increased load of 19hours; in the science and math field. I feel that alour-day weakwill be nxtremnly detrimental to my grades.

98

some teachers do not prepere enough to cover a lengthy clans withinthe Four-day week. Student attentiveness, I feel, has dropped.

411/1.41111.111

Only problem is a 4-hour drafting and surveying course one day a week--should be. two 2-hour sessions. .0It seems to ma that the 1%.hour class is better for me because I getwarmed up and can get n better picture of the lesson---more underetnodt.ing. Also, more time to study.

.1111.011011.0110110MINIV

I like the 4-day week. I hope that LCCC dose not go back on the 5-dayweek.

.1.0.110.I sure spend a lot of time in class each day.

The schedule is much tougher for the forestry student. (Carriesa heavier load) Instructors had allow extra time to enable us to pre-pare ourselves for labs end lunch.

It's very tough to sit through 11311 one and one-half hour classesevery morning from 8:30 to 12:50 and get the full benefits from classlectures.

Look of otudent activity,

......11The labs are hard to attend when the schedules are packed. The activi-ties on campus, or the activities during the day I usually miss. The4-day week contributes to more night classes; therefore it would beherd to hold a job at night.

The 3-day weekends, I like; and I presume the school saves fuel.1111.one bad point about the four-day week is that a very light load ofsemester hours seems like a very heavy load. Last semester I wastaking 20 semester hours and this semester I can only munege 14.

99

well, obviously, the four-dny week in going to be tough for thosepeople like MR who hevu to carry 19 or morn hours. r do admit thatthe person who commutes or lives in the dorm and lives close to home,going home every weekend excluding the fact that some of them hew) to,carry more then 16 hours find it pleasing since they have en extraday for luisurn. out oven with a person who carries 16 hours orso finds it rough because that is a lot of material to cram into yourhead in just 4 days, especially for the people who are in generalcourses because everything is different and can get to be nerve-rack-ing with too much on your mind. / can almost bet my worth, that thegrade point average from last semester will surpass this semester'saverage by at lease 1/3 of a latter grade and even morn.

I have, heard some professors come up with ideas why you shouldcontinua the four-day week that were quite stable on their paint ofview but I have heard others talk of "damn" good stable reasons whyit should not be continued for the goad of the students, which it isreally for, isn't it?

.....................11.I've had trouble, because I've hod a lot more work to do in a lotless study time at home. (I have less time to study, because / gethome two to three hours later this semester, because of 4-day week.)Also, when I needed to see my advisor or my instructor I couldn't,because I have class almost all day and when I did have time they hada class or they ere gone. (During their office hours I had class mostof the time.) very few times would I get to talk to them.

.......m......11.........

I feel the 4-day week is academically unsound because it forces antudent to cram his studies.

0.The 4.day week has left me less time to study, fewer (no) breaksbetween classes and I'm so tired on Friday that I sleep all day. Ifeel the 4-day week is hard on students and teachers.

Class length is not the issue. Four days with class crammed to-gather is! 1111

I voted for the 4-day week in fall of 1973. After experiencingit, I vote strongly against such a plan in an educational institution.

pewees;(1) Extracurricula activities provided at LCCC for students (dorm &commuter) were few enough in the fell. In the spring with the 4-dayweek than activites are practically non-existent!! (Excluding sport-ing events)

100

(2) Library hours have been shortened--ot the coat of the studentswho use the facility, if the energy shortage becomes so bad thata 4 -day week is absolutely necessary, let's find something construc-tive and/or entertaining to do with the three days off. Don't letrecreationtil or entertainment activities disappear as they have atLOCC

1101.1111./.............1.1Due to the 40day week, the time blocke that my classes are in madeit impossible for me to continue my previous job. I had to findanother job and take a considerable pay cut. If I had been just aregular student, full time, I really wouldn't have minded the 4 -dayweek. But due to working full time and being married with a son, the4-day week caused considerable problems. For the overall student, I

would say the four-day week is fine.

I think the four -day week is great!

I think that since I'll be going to Florida next year that this couldcause ma some trouble in adjusting beck to a 5-day week. Also, I thinkthat if the school is saving a lot of money running for four days thatthe savings should be passed on to the student's tuition costs.

I' like the 4-day week because I have found me a job on Friday--whichassists me with my education. Let's keep the 4-day week!

I am taking business courses, which require the use of the machinesoutside of class. I have to work 15 hours weekly. After class and15 hours of work, / geriinly an hour or so a day left and there wereclasses in the Business Building using the machines. on the weekend

could do nothing because I have no typewriter and no calculator.This caused much distress. Also, after spending 8-10 hours at school,

was exhausted. It would be better to have 5 days to spread out thework, classes, and lab-time.

1..../164..0,

haVe really enjoyed having Friday off, but I would much rather attendschool five days. The classes are so long, that when I do get out, Ican hardly make it through the next class. Also, i miss the activityperiod a lot.

0.101!11100.6-ealrIlawiaIlway...o........m....00/./........

101

/ enjoy the extra day off but the classes are lust ton long andsince r had to schedule 3 classes in r row on Tuesarend Thurs-day. I'm very tired at the end of the day.

W1111.1.41111....N.1.011.41111=10011....11110^

I like the four-day week better than the five-day. The four-dayweak given, you a longer week end.

can't answer truthfully about being able to attend the campusfunctions, because there hasn't been much function and what littlereally wasn't to my taste.

The four-day week is lousy in that I don't have enough time foreverything. Typing, office procedures, and office machines re-quire outside work if you are planning on passing the course. Theseclan only be done in the business building, where there are type-writers, calculators, etc. And this building is locked an weekends.During the 4-day week, classes and trying to keep Mrs. Turner caughtup with her papers, (work study) takes up my time, I, also think itwas a pretty cheap trick saying we voted for it when the student bodydidn't.

The nature of my classes this semester adept well to the four-dayweek, as they are largely literature related courses. However, it donsput a hamper on thRatre as some people who would otherwise be in-volved must work during rehersal periods.

11.04111=111.1......... Imm.1

classes such as p,E, and Art are the only ones I find the longerperiod advantageous.

.www.....10.....pamana.a.....aammad..==.0.11

Trying to get 19 course hours and 11 work study hours into 4 days isa lot of trouble.

My only trouble was that I have taken too many hour: (18) for'a 4-dayweek and because of it have less study y-67d work time. gut I lovehaving a 3-day weekend!'

.11...*+.1r...

102

In my opnion, eomn of the morn impartrnt diendvantngne of the 4: dnyweek is Vlat thu hour and a half class is harmful to thn inetructionnlvalue of certain courses,

Thn rour..day week cauped a great decrnnnn in my Internet in animal,211 the four school days there was too much to do and not enough timeto do it.

I didn't attend Lake City Community College this fall semester, Outwas enrolled elsewhere. The school I attended was on a five-dayweek; however, / can't seem to notice any difference in my gracklewhether on fourday or five-day schedule.

111111111.0.40..1.1. .111.111ftM

The only thing I have against it is the teachers don't seem to beable to fill the extra class time with work or etc, profitable to ust

voll.*11

I have a hard time scheduling my tutoring hours and I had only oneway to schedule my classes, which included a night class. (I don'tcare for night classes.)

flecause of working full time, the 4-day week helped me get mystudying In,

yes instructors had trouble adapting instructional materials andlectures to longer class periods, except with Dr. wislekt.

have no car, otherwise, / would drive to Atlanta every week-end.

103

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEUE

STUDENT EVALUATION OF THt EXPERIMENTAL FOUR-DAY WEEK

Form /

instructions; please writs or cirdle the desired responses in the apaceprovided on the right margin.

A. high division ere you enrollert in? Transfer or Technical? A.

8. what your major or program? AA degree students with nospeoific major, use, eesneral Courser. Students not work-ing!towerd a degree or certificate write, "UnolaSeified".

If you are in a college work-Study prograM, writs "work..etudY" in the blank,

0. It Vou have a job you work at for money othet then collegework-study, full or part time, write N,40ekN in the blank.

E. Do You work fir money full time on Friday now? Write "yewsor ,tno" in the blank.

what is your best estimate of your cumulative grade-pointsuntrap at the end or the fell semester? Use numbers forexample; 2.1, 2.9, 3.0, ate.

1. I tide unable to schedule courses I needed or have hed todrop coursed essentially because of the four -day week:(A)vas, unworkable; (B)oom. trouble; (e)no problem.

2. Havd you been able to attend the campus functions you wish-ed to attend this term? (A)no, very few; (0)some; (Oyes.

3. Dueto the four-day week / have been unable to take part instudent activities thet,require extended periods of time,for Axample, student government, playa, club activities,etc: (A)vee, problems and unable to participate; (g)eometrouble; (c)no, no problem,

4. Do ya u feel your instructors had trouble adeptino instruc-tional materials and lectures to longer class periods?(A)Vile, a lot of trouble; (13)perhape some trouble; (C)no.

5. Is it your estimate that classroom activities; (A)werebetter when class periods were shorter; (o)not much dill-emit; (C)have been improved due to longer class periods.

6. Haver you been able to arrange sufficient study time (pre-paration for classes) at the time you needed it this term?(A)rio, a lot of trouble; (0)some trouble; (C)Yea.

7. I ritibfer a class length of: (A)one hour; (e)not muchdifference for me; (C)one and one-half hours.

S. Dec4use of the four-day week I have been able to work formoney: (Oleos; (g)no difference or i do not work; (C)more.

9. mays you had any trouble contacting en instructor outsideof 61ase, advisor or counselor that might be attributed tothe four -day week schedule? (A)yes, exasperating trouble;(B)some trouble; (c)nd trouble.

10. coneidering everything / (A)e 5-day week schedulebetter; (g)it doesn't make much difference for me; (C)a 4-day 'week schedule better.

If you have had some special problem or have noted some ad-vantage or disadvantage to the four-day week or just have acomment, write it on beck of sheet. Students that miss thissurvey mby pick up copies from Mr. Hardman or Mr. Hunter.

SIGNATURE:

104

ab..11

1........

1. A

2. A

3.

4. A 8 C

5.

6. A

7. A S C

8. A 8 C

9. A 8 C

10. A S C

STUDENT EVALUATION OF riit EXPERIMENTAL FOURDAY WECti

Form IT

inetruntliinel pleaeo write or circle the desired responses in thefleece provided on the right margin.

A. Whichtlivielon a.e you enrolled in?

R. wbat program are you enrelled in?

C

D.

E

If yop are in a nonage work-study program, write rwork.studyr in the blank.

If you hove a job you work ut for money other than collegework-study, full or part time, write rworkn in the blank,

Do yoU work for money full time on Friday now? Write "yearor "no 44 in the blank.

F. What le your best eatimatn of your cumulative averagegrade at the end of the fell semester. Use one letter:A, Co D, or F.

A.

n.

C.

0.

E.

F.

0111 11111

1. I wee unable to schedule courses I needed or have had todrop:coursee essentially because of the four-day week; I. A 8(A)yds, unworkable; (fl)some trouble; (C)no problem.

2. Heve'you been able to attend the campus functions youwished to attend thie term? (A)no, very few; (a)some; 2. A 0 C(C)V110,

3. Dun to the four-day week / have bean unable to take partin student activities that require extended periods oftime; for example, student government, plays, club nett- 3. Avities, etc.; (A)yes, problems and unable to participate;(8)sOne trouble; (C)no, no problem.

4. pa you feel your instructors had trouble adapting instruc-tional materiels and lectures to longer class periods? 4. A 9 C(A)yes, a lot of trouble; (g)perhaps some trouble; (C)no.

5. is ii your estimate that classroom activities: (A)wernbatter when class periods were shorter; (0)not much diff- 5. A 8erent; (c)have been improved duo to longer class periods.

6. Heva'you been able to arrange sufficient study time (pre-paration for classes) at the time you needed it this term? G. A 8 C(WO, n lot of trouble; (o)some trouble; (C)yes.

7. / prefer a class length of; (A)3 hours A.M. and 3 hours P.M.;(8)n9t much difference for me; (e)31Lhoure A.M. and to hours 7. A 8 CP.M,.

8. gecause of the four-day week / have been able to work for8. A 8 Comoney: (A)less; (0)no difference or i do not work; (C)more.

9. nave, you had any trouble contaating an instructor outsidlof cIsse, advisor or counselor that might be attributed

9. A q cto the four-day week schedule? (A)yes, exasperatingtrouble.; (8)some trouble; (C)no trouble.

10. eoneldering everything / like: (A)n 5-day week nchadUlehatter; (9)it doesn't make much difference for ma; (Oa 10. A4 -der week schedule bettor.

11. Assume clock -hour students remained on a four -day weekand semester -hour students returned to a five -day week,would this cause any special problem for you? If "Veenmark:A and explain an the back of this sheet: (A)yes,berihils probleme; Meet much difference. Per me; (C)noproblem.

if you have had eome.opecial problem or have noted so-, ed-vantage hr disadvantage to the four-day week or just h,qe 0comment,: write it on beek of sheet. students that miss thissurvey nfiy pick up copies from Mr. Hardman or Mr. Hunter.

SIONATUREi

105

11. A R C

PART TWO

EVALUATION BY DIVISION DEANS

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION OF FOURDAY WEEK BY DEANS,PROGRAMTIRECTORS, DEPARTMENT HEADS AND STUDENT SERVICES PERSONNEL

METHOD

Division deans, program directors, department heads and studentservice pfrsonnel were asked to evaluate the four-day week. The spe-tlflc request was, "Please give me a narrative evaluation and youropinions of the four-day week. Suggestions: advantages staffattitudes; problems, solutions, impressions etc;'

Evalyations were received from 31 of the thirty- two requested.In most instances the department heads and program chairmen evaluationsrepresent:a poaling of the opinions of the people in the departmentor program. These evaluations were then gone through and advantages,disadvantage's or problems and suggestions or solutions written oncards. Duplications were sorted out and the list of major points made.This procedure will have a tendency to eliminate shades of meaningand will include only most of the items in the individual eValuations.

RESULTS

The following sections list the extracted advantages, probiemsand suggestions. It will be noted that many items listed under advan-tages arevalso listed under disadvantages or problems. These differencescome from,different people in different situations.

I ADVANTAGES1. Faculty liked the long week-end2. Students liked the long week-end.3. Energy saved.4. College open to the public longer Monday through Thursday.5. More outside work hours available for students.6. Reduction of overload of students7. Student contact better.8. Course scheduling was easier.

9. Permits additional time in activity courses to develop skills.10. Permits short courses on Friday.11. Days were long enough to get around to all SIE students.12. Four to five thirty generally free for preparation, etc.13. An extra full day for study.14. Spvis time for commuters.15. Athletic contests scheduled for Friday or a week-end less

of a problem.16. Gives self-motivating students time for off-campus activities.17. Longer periods enable better use of films, etc.18. lab use better.19. Professional meetings usually held on week ends and less of

wproblem.20. Registration and scheduling seemed easier - less time required.21. Long hours allowed for a continuity of thought and action.22. Fewer schedule changes.

107

II DISADVANTAGES OR PROBLEMS:1. Reduced student activity time (This was one of the most

frequently mentioned items.)2. Fewer students could construct schedules for a limited number

of days. (A tabulation not reported In this study supportsthis.)

3. S.G.A. has had serious difficulties in scheduling meetings.(This may be partly solved by scheduling the students con-cerned into a course SOP 111 Human Relations Leadership.)

4. Fingind student tutors with free time was difficult.5. Heavier schedule when on campus made it more difficult to

contact students.6. Administration building closed on Friday. Friday visitors

and potential students ,could not secure help.7. Boredom effecting dorm students and disruption of mall, food

and health services.8. Students unable to use learning labs and LRC due to more

classes per day.9. People not as alert the last hours of the day.O. Off-campus professional meetings held the first of the week

more of a problem.1. Two hours less work per week for some employees.2. Discussion classes with a four-day break almost impossible.3. Continuity poorer in two-day per week classes.4. Hard for work-study students to schedule work hours.5. Lab. scheduling more difficult.6. Greater stress and fatigue. (This was one of the most fre-

quently mentioned items.)7. Good students overworked.8. Class periods excessively long for lectures.9.- Any outside of class activity was difficult to schedule.

20. Skills that require more concentrated practice are moreeffectively learned in shorter periods.

21. Early and late hours dificuit to use.22. Students have a heavier class load per day.23. Security for college property was less on Friday.24. Some employees had to work a five-day week.25. Instructors had difficulty getting to off-campus classes

both classes they were taking and instructors for.26. The four-day week is not in phase with the community.27. Students do not use the extra day for study.28. Hospital time for nursing students difficult to schedule.29. Lab time cut chort,30. Less time for field trips.31. Less flexibility in programming classes.32. Trouble getting up so early in the morning.33. Seminars were hard to schedule.34. Danger in coming to work so early.35. First hour wasted - social hour.36. No personal transactions possible on work days; Stores

closed, etc.37. Night classes made excessively long hours.38. Proportionately more time in class and less for preparation.39. Less time for individual student contact.40. No time for faculty Inservice training.44. Transportation to work problems.

108

III SUGGESTIONS1. Use shorter class periods.2. Use more flexibility in hours on campus.3. Use Friday for labs.4. Use car pools for protection5. Schedule hours for conferences with students.6. Use four-day week for students and five-day week for instruc-

tors In clock-hour programs.7. Return to five-day week.8. 'Cut the number of contact hours.9. Uevelop the use of physical facilities seven days a week.

10. More constant contact with students needed, for example,three courses meeting five days per week on a modifiedquarter system.

11. Establish a break In the class schedule around mid-day.12. Provide time for activities for social as well as educational

development.

109

LAKE CITY CCMHUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FCURDAY WEEK

DIVISION DEANS

OFFICE OF BUSINESS SERVICESMaxine Sparkman

The majority of the employees working in this department are infavor of the four-day week. Of the twelve employed, nine are in favorof, two are not in favor of, and one is netbral.

As far as this department is concerned, the only advantages wereconservation of energy such as gasoline, fuel oil and electricity, ashorter work week, and an additional day off from work for employees.

The disadvantages found with the four-day week can be categorizedby disadvantages related to the college and those related to the employees,The disadvantages relating directly to college functions are as follows:

Due to certain buildings having to remain open, some employeeshad to remain on a five-day week. Having varied work sche-dules created payroll and leave problems for the business office.

Due to hours established for the four-day week, there were twoless work hours per week for each employee.

Due to so few employees being oncampus on Friday, there wasa minimum amount of security of college property and groundson that day. While no particular problems developed as a re-sult of this, the possibility for problems was greater.

Duo to having a compulsory Food Service plan for dormitoryresident students, the cafeteria had to remain open on Fridays.This procedure was a disadvantage to some dormitory studentsand an advantage to others.

The disadvantages relating directly to the individual employees areas follows:

(1) Several employees had baby sitter problems.

(2) One employee had a non-driving rider on a different workschedule,

(3) Some employees felt daily hours were too long for maximumproductivity.

110

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

DIVISION DEANS

DEAN OF STUDENT SERVICESRaymond R. Sessions

The foUr.day week appears to have been an interesting andvaluable experiment.

The obvious conclusion is that the majority of students andfaculty liked it. The assumption'would be that this indicatesthey like It better than the five-day week. This assumption,like the conclusion, Is probably accurate. However we interpretthe results of the survey of opinions, etc., we must, I believe,recognize the considerable number of persons who , for variousreasons, prefer a system different from the majority.

If for no other reason than the need to keep enrollment up,these persons, faculty and students, must be given proper consid-eration. Fortunately, It now appears we will have a choice whereasfor a period it appeared that fuel shortages would make preferencesalmost irrelevant.

One other observation is Important, I believe, before myconclusion Is drawn. It Is that whatever persons may say aboutthe ease or discomfort of the four-day week, the record needsto show that many who expressed distaste for the change were ex-pressing, perhaps unknowingly, an opinion about "change". It

Is one thing to be on a four-day week, it is another to changeabruptly to a four-day week. The mixed up work schedules, theincreased work of designing a neu system, the accidental coinci-dentals of daylight savings time and foggy mornings all had somenegative impact on the opinions of those trying to evaluate the"four-day week". These types of things will occur in such a changeregardless of the efforts of all involved to plan ahead.

Our own President is fond of saying that "we can teach itround or flat". My feelings of the four-day week are much likethat. However, I strongly believe that the best way is neithera four-day or a five-day week. I conclude that we should givefurther study of managing this institution to the needs of thepeople we serve. "Different strokes for different folks." Someshould perhaps operate on a four-day system, some on a five-day,and some on some other arrangement. Probably the college needsto remain open long hours most of the week. It will be a "mess"In some ways to administer but that is where the future is. Mycompliments to the President, the faculty, staff and studentsfor their cooperation in this experiment.

Ill

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COL=EVALUATION OF THE FOUR-WAY WEEK BY

DIVISION DEANS

TECHNICAL DIVISIONHerbert Attaway

1. Advantages of the four-day weeks

Certain students, moat Clock-hour and Semester-hour students whpmust work to go to school, appear to favor 4-day week,

b. Clock-hour teachers like the 5th day to do paper work of allkinds, etc. (This is the present 4-day student and 5-dayteacher week for Clock-hour Programs).

2. Disadvantages of the four-day week:

a. Certain semester -hour students, nurses for example, feelpressed--too much material crammed into a shorter time span.

b. Some Semester-hour teachers, other than nurses, feel thattime pressure is too great, even though a number of their stu-dents appear to like the 4-day week.

3. problems created by the four-day weeks

a. No time for inservice training, courses on how to teach or toprepare performance objectives, course syllabi, etc. in-service training did not exist in Technical Division in Springsemester 1973-74.

b. Not as much time for teacher-student counseling--students andteachers absorbed with direct class activities.

4. Estimate of staff attitude toward four-day weeks

Mixed. Most all like the day off. A goodly nuMber do not like theeducational consequences. Too much crowded into too little time.

Other items or comments

My overall view ise except for isolated programs, the 5-day week ismore productiie of educational excellence.

112

LAKE CITY CORHUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF THS FOUR -DAY WEEK BY

DIVISION DEANS

TRANSFER DIVISIONWalter A. Parnell

The four-day week seemed to be a fairly successful experiment

for the Transfer Division. As we progressed through the term I noted

expressions of both satisfaction and discontent on the part of stu-

dents and faculty. Students and faculty were concerned that some ao-

tivities which were possible during the five-day week were made im-

possible or very difficult during the four-day week. Hkamples of such

activities area The reduced activity of use of the LRO, of the in

dividualized instruction labs, of conferences between student and

instructor, etc. Faculty members complained of the increased pressures

exerted by the four-day schedule, that is, proportionately more time

was spent in the classroom thereby reducing the amount of time avail-

able for preparation of materials and for conferences. A four-day

week does seem to quicken the pace of college life. somewhat. One

effect noted was that fewer students were able to construct schedules

with a limited number of days; for instance, previously, large numbers

of students constructed three-day schedules, relatively few could work

out a full-time load on a two-day schedule. The net effect was to re-

duce the total number of hours any one student could take on a four-

day schedule and this was evident in the fact that I signed very few

overload requests.

On the positive side many students liked the opportunity to

compress five days of instruction into four days, thus allowing addit-

113

tonal tirie to work, Many faculty mombers also apparently appreciated

the long week-ond afforded by the four-day week but some claimed that

they had ;to work additional hours on the week, end to catch up on

the work:they could not complete during the regular week. One diffi-

culty that should be noted was the necessity to more carefully

scrutinize the hours spent on campus by faculty merribers. The Lao.

ulty probably spent more time on campus, but only against their will.

It would:seem a good policy in a future experiment such as this to not

establish rigid requirements for hours on campus. For those of us

who made .a diligegt effort to be present for the full ten (10) hours

each day; it proved to be a somewhat tiring experience. I had a

night class in addition to my responsibilities during the day and this

especially proved to be a tiring experience. It is very difficult

to work until 5:30 and than meet a 6:30 evening class. One probably

psychological effect was derived from the necessity of arriving at

school at dawn and leaving at near dark. This actively cancelled

out the possibility of stopping in town to take of any kind of

business before closing hours of businesses. It was also noted that

some secretaries were apprehensive about traveling in the dark and

about entpring dark buildings in tho early morning hours.

Again;, on the positive side it seemed that the long hours

allowed fjpr a continuity of thought and action that provided the.

conditionls for somewhat increased productivity. Another difficulty

that was evident was the reduced amount of time available for nommittee.

meetings,Ispocial events, etc. It should be noted however, in regards

to special events, that those activities which wore scheduled during

114

class hours had attendance as high as "when schedule during student

activity periods.

It would seem that the four.day weok would be more successful

if: 1) shorter class periods were used, 2) faculty members and ad.

ministrators were allowed more flexibility in hours on campus, 3) labs

could be' opened on Friday, 4) personnel could be urged to use car

pools for personal protection if for no other reason, 5) a careful

schedule of hours for purposes of conferences between instructor and

student could be worked out.

115

PART THREE

EVALUATION BY TECHNICAL DIVISION PROGRAM CHAIRMEN

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK BY

TECHNICAL DIVISION PROGRAM CHAIRMEN

AUTO BODY PROGRAMDexter Harris

1. Advantages of the four-day week:

Allows the student one day off for part time Jobs.Allows the students work time In the shop to be In longerunbroken periods.

. Disadvantages of the four-day week:

a. Caused us to have three more contact hours by not havingactivity periods. This time was needed for communications withothers on campus and preparation time.

117



AUTO MECHANICS PROGRAMEmerson Blodgett


a. Longer lab periods. Student could.flnish long projectsinone day.


a. Loss of work-study students at the time we needed them most.

Problems created by the four-day week:

a. Meetings were difficult to schedule.

4. Estimate of staff attitude toward four-day week:

a. Good.

118



AVIATION PROGRAMWayne Duke


a. Students work Friday and Saturday.


a. Fatigue. Students and instructors get tired.

3. Problems created by the four-day week:

a. Getting to school on time in morning.

H9

LAKE am OCHMUNITY COLLE3EEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK


BRICK & BLOCK PROGRAMAustin Johnson


You can work on your plans for the following week, also reoruit.


Strain impact on the students.

3. Problems created by the four -day weeks

None.

4. Estimate of staff attitude toward four -day week:

Everyone seemed to be in favor of it.

5. Other its or comment:

I think the four-day week should be carried on in the Fall.

120



BUSINESS PROGRAMSBob Collins


a. Let student off to work, but as far as school - have to covermore material - bad for motor skills.

b. Teachers talk about things in general - both good and bad,


a. Business seminars hard to hold.b. Tired on Friday,c. Need to work Friday anyway, and did several times.'d. First hour wasted - social hour,e. Danger in coming to work - faculty and students.

3. Problems created by the four-day weeks

No club meetings - didn't get to know students as well.


Problem with children - coordinating school, etc.

5. Other items or comment:

a. Loss of one teacher in accounting - had time to look for job.b. Afternoon hours not bad - work anyway, but early hours rough.c. None of the teachers really gun-ho on four-day. Voted for

It but if had to vote again would vote for five-day unless thefour-day was a help to the college.

In



COSMETOLOGY PROGRAMJeanne Rehberg


a. Students utilize their lab time to a better advantage.b. Enables students to work on part-time jobs,c. Married students like having Monday fqx getting home in order & etc.d. Almost all cosmetology seminars are held Saturday through Monday.


If there are any disadvantages (I'm not aware of any) they are soinsignificant as compared to the advantages.


There is the matter of rescheduling theory and lab hours, which reallyisn't a major problem. Had anticipated transportation difficultiesduring Spring Semester, since the busses would not be running onFriday, but this was solved without any problem.


Mr. Monoit, Mrs. Owens and myself had and still do have a positiveattitude toward four-day week for the students.


All of the clock hour instructors need at least one full worklain order to be able to complete some of the following:

a. Complete attendance, services and grade records on each student,b.- Updating the curriculum.c. Interviewing applicants.d. Taking care of the many reports required by the Dean's office,

L.C.C.C. Registrar, Fla. State Board of Cosmetology and etc.e. Working with Media-Technician from L.R.C.

The preceeding items are just a few of the many tasks we work onthis one day without students.

122

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF THE FOUR-DAY WEEK BYTECHNICAL DIVISION PRO3RAM aHA

FORD T( PHOWIAMWalter Knudsen

be 1>

1. Advantages of the four-day week: Many Forestry labs involve check -ing. out °quilt:ant and/or travel. By having fewer, longer labs wehave more useable lab time. Also, we use quite a number of filmsalong with a lecture. With the longer lecture periods, time is avail-able to discuss films the same period that they are shown.

2. Disadvantages of the four -dey week: Some people have trouble gettingup in the morning.

3. Problems created by the four-day week: Applicants quite often requesttesting and interview on Fridays. However, there has been no problemhaving these persons come in on a different week day. The interviewforms could be changed to indicate this and save correspondence,

4. Eetimate of staff attitude toward four-day week: I have talked withthe Forestry staff, and in general they feel as I do.

5. Other items or comment: I feel that a four-day week is good forthe morale of the staff. It allows time to take care of personaltasks that cannot be done on a weekend.

123

LAKE CITY COMMIT! COLLEGEEVALUATION OF THE FOUR-DAY WEEK BYTECHNICAL DIVISION PROGRAM CHAIRMEN

GOLF di: LANDSCAPE PROGRAM

Dr. Gene C. Nutter

1. ficlvantages of the four-day week:

a. Good for self-motivating students who like more time foroff-campus activities, inoluding jobs, sports, etc.

b. Saves time and -expenses for those who commute.The extra day is desirable for personal planning andactivities for both students and staff.

2. Disadvantages of the four-day weeks

Al Less flexibility in prngramming classes.b. Less time for extra- curricular activity (g_clums).ie. Less time to counsel studentsd. Less time to plan and administer programs.


a. Less time for field days and student tripe.b. Sacrifice to students in total learning experience.o. Lab shortd. Accumulative drain on faculty and staff from continuous

long days.


Not totally as favorably to students instructionally as the5-day week as it was thrust upon us in Spring term '73.


One of real problems of the Spring term experience was thatwe did not have any time to prepare for the new format. Thiswas a drastic change with very short notice. Very likelybetter use of the 4-day week would come with experience andtime to plan, thus offsetting some of the above disadvantages.Effective performance objectives probably would help tomake more efficient use of 4-day week.

124

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COL=EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK ST


NURSING PROGRAMChrystal Oallups

1. Advantages of. the four-day weeks

a, Extra full day for study.


a. No time for campus activities.

b. Hospital time for experiences could not always coincide with14-day week.

o. Academic load for 1st year nursing students was heavy -notime for individual conferences.

3. Problems created by the four.day,weekt

a. Students did,not always use extra day for study.

b. OH and Pods. were 4-5 days depending on available experiencesfor students.

c. In nursing - need absorption time as well as hours - -this was notavailable.


a. 10-hour day is exhausting to instructors which limits amount ofwork which can be accomplished.

5. Other items or comments

a. Attrition rate in nursing this semester at highstudents took.advantage of extra day "off.

125

LAKE CITY (IMMUNITY COLLFDEEVALUATION OF THE FOUR-DAY WEER IsYTECHNICAL D/VISIM PROGRAM CHAIRMEN

PARK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMBill Alexander


a. Three-day weekend.


a. Not in phase with other businesses.

b, Night classes make 12 hours.

c. 14-hour work day, sometimes.

3. Problem created by the four-day week:

a. 5-day field trips in question.


a. Like 3-day weekend.

5. Other its or comments

I am for the 5-day work week with a 4-day, hour class schedulefor Clock-Hour Courses.

126

LAKE OITr CCMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOUR -DAY WEEK BY

TECHNICAL DIVISION PROGRAM CHAIRMCN

SIE PRO3RAMWert Long


Days'are long enough to get SIB students worked out, and have timeto visit more students on-job-training and come bank to college toget work dono. For my program it is good.


Days are too short--it ties up Clock-hour instructors so they cannottake many off-outpue courses to up-grade themselves. Students brveto go long hours and instructors are tired in evening.

Problems created by the four-day weeks

only problems were When we began 4-day week. Otherwise it is goodfor my type of work.

4. gstimate of staff attitude toward four-day weeks

Technical Division likes it, but for those who need professionalcourses it could hurt them. (This is from my point of view).

Other items or comments

I believe I can continue the 4-day week and come back on Fridaymornings to work with paper work and such.

127

1.

LAKE CITY communa COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOURDAY WEI BY

TECHNICAL DIVISION PRO3RAM MAINZ

Wf1DING PROGRAMWilliam D. Holt

Advantages of the few-day weeks

a. Allows the student time to work on his part-time jobs.

b. Saves me gas in truck and veer on tires,

c. Not using as muob electricity in building' saves College money.

2. Disadvantages vf the four-day weeks

a. None

Problems created by the fourday weeks

a. None

stimate of staff attitude toward four-day weeks

Most I've talked to prefer it.

128

PART FOUR

EVALUATION BY TRANSFER DIVISION DEPARTMENT HEADS

ti Axe 011`f 011MtINITY 00TALIDEEVALUATION OF THE FOUR -DAY ViEW BYTRANSFER DIVISION DEPARTMENT HEADS

PWLISH DEPARTMENTTerry A. Babb

I am in favor of continuing the four-day week, because Ibelieve that the weaknesses we disoovored this year_can be over-come with better planning. So long as teachers are *Willing todo as much (but no more) work in four days as they normally doin five, then I believo the four-day week should be continued.

130

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY C OLLEOEEVALUATION OF THE FOURDAY WEEK BYTRANSFER DIVISION DEPARTMENT HEADS

HUMANITIES DEPARTMENTCatherine H. Sorensen

The instrustors in all the areas of the Humanities Department--HumanitiesArt-Music,. Humanities Philosophy-Religion, Art, Music, Speech-Theatre, andForeign Languages...re in agreement thaOthe disadvantages of the four-day week outweigh its advantages.

In discussions with students in classes in the department, it had beendetermined:that students in two categories in particular complain of thefour-day weeks students who maintain higher grade averages and work.study students.

Faculty members agree on the following general disadvantages: (1) Thelong class:periods on Tuesday and Thursday have been acceptable forfaculty members may normally be scheduled for two of these periods onthese days, but, with the four -day week it is necessary for facultymembers tobe scheduled for three of these classes on the same day,frequently:with two of the oliirg, back to back, with resultant depletionof the energy to the point that (.2ectiveness is Compromised;(2) StudeMts who have three, or even fou; classes on the some day (thereare five periods in a day) have the same problem of depletion of energy;(3) The early and late hours of the day before and after classes can notbe properly used because students are not available for conferences andbecause faculty members after teaching three long classes are tooexhausted to make proper use of their time.

in addition to these general disadvantages, there are specific disadvantagesevident in. special areas of department activities. The following are themost striking: (1) In classes that emphasize skills requiring concentratedpraotice, 'such as the first two semesters of foreign language or collegechoir, it is much more effective to have students for three shorter periodsa week rather than for two long periods; (2) In classes that requirelibrary research as in preparation of discussion materials for speech andforensics it is difficult for the students to find enough time or energyto use the:library as they go from one class to another with the five-period day (Human nature being what it is, the students fail to come backto the campus to use the library on Friday); (3) In classes such asmusic and theatre that require outside practice and rehearsals it is

132

2

difficult to schedule rehearsals in the late afternoon as faculty and studentsalike Are suffering from fatigue at the end of the long, day,

Instructors in the department in their role as members of the Fine ArtsCommittee of the college have experienced especial difficulty in nohedulingcultural activities since the four-day week does not permit the schedulingof an activity period such as was available in the past two days a weekfor presentation of programs by college or visiting groups in the areaof music, art, and the theatre.

133

I

LAKE CITY CCMMUNITY COLL=EVALUATION OF THE FOUR-DAY WEM BYTRANSFER DIVISION DEPARTMENT HEADS

MATHEMATICS DEPARTHIZITRobert McDonald

The fog 4r members of the Mathematics Department are generally dividedconcerninahe 4-day week. Two instructors are mildly in favor and twoinetruotord are mildly opposed to it. No one is vehemently opposed orenthusiast tally for it. All members of the department have easily ad-jimeted tote 4-day week but oan just as easily readjust to the normal5-day weeki

As an instructor, I can see no educational advantage to the 4-dayweek over 5-day week. Fbr the students in a lower level math course,

tfour days a long time between class meeting (Wednesday, Monday orThursday, eectql. This was also true however with the Ihesday - 'burs-day scheduke in a 5-day week.

Anothati disadvantage of the 4-day week was the difficulty we had inobtaining *tors for the Math Lab. Most of the qualified students didnot have mifficient time to work as tutors. This resulted in fewerstudents using the Math Lab as a study area. Also, I had fewer studentsvisiting met in my office during office hours. One possible reason couldbe that the had no time between 8 and 4 and were unwilling to stay oncampus frort 4-5130.

Prim a ,aching point of view, the same amount of material was pre*sented durthg the 4-day week as was previously presented. Office hoursfrom 4 -5130; were generally free of students so the instructor had more'private's hours for grading, preparation, etc. One teaching disadvantageWAS when an!instruotor bad three day classes and th3..1 was assigned anight classithe same day. This would amount to 71g hours of teaching,which is a 4ather difficult load.

My own personal opinion is that unless there is a significant savingsin fuel, elootrioity, etc., which was the purpose of the 4-day week, thatwe should return to the traditional 5-day week.

t.

1

i.

g

i.

,.

1

i

I 1340

1.4

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLECNEVALUATION OF THE FOUR-DAY WEEK BYTRANSFER DIVISION DEPARTMENT HEADS

PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTBILL MCGILL

Advantages:

1. Permit short courses on Friday.

2. Good for Athletics that have IWiday and weekend contestsaway from Lake City.

3. Permits additional time in activity Physical Educationcourses to develop skills,

Disadvantages:

1. To much time for throe hour lecture classes.

2. Due to the fact that we teach activity courses withtwo hour activity and ono hour credit, it crowds our dayand week where we have only four free planning periodsand no lunch time.

3. Little or no time for planning committee work, or studentadvising.

Impressions:

1. Good students were over worked with little time.

2. Students activities were almost non-existent.

3. Very hard on dorm students, we place them in a very unworkablesituation.

4. Disruption of: food service, mail service, health service.

135

Staff *itudost

1. Staiff completely fatigued at close of day and week.

2. We can't see that advantages over -ride the many dis-advbntagps.

Solutionst

1. Cut; number of contact hours in Physical Education.

2. Return to five day week.

We recommend a return to a five day week.

136

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEvaluation of the Four-Day Week by Transfer

Division Department Heads

READING DEPARTMENT

Herbert Hoffmann

The following observations and judgements are noted relative to the efficacyof the spring term four-day week experiment:

1. Course scheduling for advisees appeared much easier and more mean-ingful for students. Daily times for courses were the same regardlessof the T-Th or M-W offerings.

2. An examination of records indicates that a majority of instructors inthe department met and/or exceeded the hours on campus recommendedby the President.

3. A majority of department instructors used several non-work days(Friday/Saturday) for attendance and/or participation in conferences orother visitation directly related to the area of specialization. This wasa plus factor in that no contact time with students was lost.

4. A comparison of end-of-term departmental course grades indicates nosignificant deviation above or below those issued in previous terms.Student achievement of prescribed skills proficiency was as high as ithad been previously.

5. Student attendance in reading department courses was nol adverselyaffected by the experimental program. No problems directly attributableto the program were noted.

6. A sizeable majority (based on informal departmental survey instrumentand instructor judgement of interaction) indicated a healthy student at-titude for the experiment. There were several students who were in op-position to the program due to time constraints for lab and/or contacthour program requirem ents.

7. Instructor availability for conferences, meetings, advising, counseling,etc.... appeared superior when compared with previous terms. Amajority of department instructors felt student-contact and instructor-student interaction was better than in previous term:.

8. All instructors in the department noted a fatigue factor the first weekor so. This appeared to decline substantially, however, as the termprogressed. It is noted that a majority of instructors appeared morealert and creative on Monday's more eager and desirous of improvingthe existing department, its courses and student programs.

1 37

9, Heading department instructors indicated no adverse affects of theoverall reading program -- rather, the program quality is improvedover that which existed earlier. Instructors attribute the improve-ment to the four-day week and more specifically to the reasons citedin 0 8 above.

10. The resources of the reading center were utilized to about the samedegree as was noted during the conventional 5 day week programs.No reduction in the percentage of student utilization was noted, althoughthe spring term enrollment in reading was lower than the enrollmentfor spring 1973 terms.

11. Instructors indicated that Friday became a day for a wide assortmentof things to do -- shopping, cleaning, conferences, personal business,etc... They welcomed the opportunity to transact business and dc'whatneeded doing".

12. It is recognized that some departments or some activities and/or programswould experience difficulties and require modification to a greater degreethan we experienced, A majority of department instructors support thefour-day week concept. Change is as inevitable as taxes. Some educatorsact as though educational progress can be made or achieved without change.They cheer educational progress as long as it doesn't really change theirways of doing things.

In education, too often, we "progress" by changing the name and keepingthe practice the same. Educators must learn to learr. -- to change somepractices -- to do things differently -- to do things better. We canchange -- we can progress -- when and if we master the skill of change.

138

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLIDEEVALUATION OF THE FOURDAY WEEK BYTRANSFER DIVISION DEPARTMENT READS

SCIENCE DEPARTMENTTbm Rowand

The overall reaction by faculty and students has been good. The

has been an overall reduction of overload of students. The oleos

sessions function well. There has been some cramp in laboratory

scheduling.

I feel the stress that has oocurrol has been primarily with non-

class activities. The student must do more preparation on the week-

end rather than between classes. It has been harder for work-study

students to schedule as many hours of work.

The faculty has expressed being more exhausted at night and being

involved with more take-home work on weekends.

I am personally concerned about a means being developed so that

physical facilities may be used on seven-day basis.

139

LAKE OITY 0Q4M1MITf COLLIDEEVALUATION OF THE FaIR-DAY WSW BYMUSTER DIVISTON DEPARTMENT HEADS

SOOXAL 80111103 DEPARTMENTBill Buck

As an academic issue, the Social Sciences Department faculty believe

that the four-day week bad far more negative aspects than positive. We be-

lieve that our particular student body would benefit from additional contact

with us and the college environment rather than less. Though we can place

the responsibility for this contact on the student, nonetheless we realise

that in most instances, many of our students will reduce their time on Immixs

to an absolute minimum for a variety of reasons. As we presented our ideas

to the Transfer Division we came to find that it seemed reasonable that, In

fact, our students might benefit from a type of quarter system where they

took fewer courses each term, but were in more constant contact with each

of their instructors' thus a student might enroll in three courses and meet

with the instructor five days a week.

in terms of benefits, one faculty member believes that be is able to

handle his material in blocks of one and one-half hours more effectively.

Dy the same token he believes with other departmental faculty that the stu-

dents do not care for classes that long in duration. We all agree that in

terms of continuity the two day a week classes were very poor. We simply

believe there is a greater degree of continuity three days a week than two.

In classes where discussion is a major feature, the two day a week classes

were all but impossible to conduct.

Though not responsible for the LEO and English Lab, we are distressed

at the decreased use of these facilities and are convinced this is due to

the fourday week and the students view that the less time on campus

the better,

140

PART FIVE

EVALUATION BY STUDENT SERVICES PERSONNEL

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OP THE POUR-DAY WEEK BY

STUDENT SERVICES PERSONNEL

ADMISSIONSMartha B. Brown

The fo'pr-day week has worked satisfactorily in this office.There have been no complaints from the staff; although towardthe end of the semester we began to feel very tired. We alsoheard Foments from other staff members complaining of fatigue.

The only disadvantage directly related to this office washaving no one on campus on Friday when out of town prospectivestudents wished to visit. These instances were rare, and whenwe knew of the intended visit, we arranged to meet thestudent on campus on Friday or Saturday.

ThereiWere no real problems ashave not heard any significantor hardships. We did notice aportation.

for as we were concerned, and wecomment, regarding inconveniencessavingS in gasoline for trans-

142


Evaluation of the Four Day Week

By

Student Services Personnel

Financial Aid

LaVon Wright

I personally enjoyed having Friday off. However, I do notfeel that this schedule should be pursued in the future forthe following reasons:

(1) I did not get as much work done as I did when wewere on the 5 day week. During the last hour ofthe day, because of long hours, my mind was notalert.

(2) Most of my financial aid meetings are held duringthe early part of the week. In many instances Iwould only be accessible to students for two days,during those weeks when I had to attend meetings.

(3) Students had difficulty in putting in CollegeWork Study hours. The commuting students andstudents working on campus, with their class'schedule, putting in more than ten hours was animpossible task.

(4) in my talking with students the four day week didnot meet their needs - no time for extra activities,no time during the day for the library, no timeto work etd.

LW/nb

143

LAKE CITY COMMIT! COLLEGEEVALUATION OF THE FaIR-DAr WEEK Bt

SMUT SERVICES PEISCNNEL

GUIDANCE&Ward F. Brunner

Advantages Three-day weekend

More outside work hours available to working students

Disadvantages Students unable to utilize services because of compressedechedulei (1) Alton; (2) Learning laboratories; (3) LBO;(4) Career Center; (5) 93A Meetings; (6) Ihtramurals;(7) Student Activities; and (8) Daytime campus shows.

Problems: Boredom effecting dorm students

Fatigue of personnel after 4100 p.m. limiting efficiency

Est. of Staff Attitudes If this is the way we are supposed to do it,we'll giNs it a try.

144


EVALUATION OF THE FOUR-DAY WEEK BY

STUDENT SERVICES PERSONNEL

Health ServiceDiane Aiken, R.N.

Generally, my opinion of the four-day week is negative.

From the Faculty and Staff standpoints Many expressed the

opinion that they became tired around 4-4130 and past this

time not able to work as efficiently. I found this true of

myself. Others expressed that they enjoyed the 3 day week-

end but really were exausted at the end of 4 days and needed

it. As a club sponsor, I found it interferred with the

activity of our olub(BCM). Many members could not meet.

Communication was also a problem. The club felt they weren't

as effective last semester and blamed it on not having a

convenient meeting time.

Many students (except those involved in extra-curricular

activities) seemed pleased with the four day week expeoially

those that were able to go home more often due to the longer

week-end, and those who work on weekends.

145

LAKE arm atm= COLLIDEEVALUATION OF FCUR-DAY WEEK BYSTUDENT SERVICES PERSONNEL

REGISTRARAl Dana

ADVANTAGES of the 4.!Day.sugg...11001184,.....alet

1, Monday through Thursday we were open longer to the pablio forvisitors, telephone calls and our current students for servioinguntil 500 p.m. instead of the previous dosing time of 4130 p.m.

2. In the registration process the Schedule of Courses seemed easierfor the student to intrepret T- h) over the traditionalschedule (fit -W-P, T-Th). Students completed registration inletstime.

3. Schedule Changes (Add/Dxope) were less. Classes seemed to settledown quicker than previous terms.

Total student Withdrawalst

Spring 174 Headcount u 1950Spring 174 Withdraws mg 2

% VD1s 10.46

Spring '73 Headcount . 1815Spring '73 Withdraws * 161

ma %wDis . 8.87

5. Work production in the office seemed to me to be the same.

6. Employees were on time to work at WO and were often late on thes-day week and bad to remain after hours to make up their work time.

7. Student traffic coming to the office seemed less. Telephone in-quiries from students sealed more.

8. Over the four month period, I believe students and staff commentsreflected they liked the 4-day schedule better than the previous5-day schedule.

DISADVANTAGES of the 4-day Qass/Wcrk Schedules

I. Fatigue, work performance and staff morale appeared toward theend of the week in late afternoon.

2. Our office work-study students indicated they liked the 4-day

146

sdhedule but had difficulty scheduling all their work hours eachweek. They caught-up or made*up work hours during the break afterthe term was over. From the student's point of view this is adisadvantage but was an advantage for our office.

3. Closing the Administration Building and our office preventedreceiving telephone calls and walk-in traffic on hiday.

Summa[:

1. I would prefer a to=day class schedule but allowing our office theflexibility to have soke staff work the 10'hour/4*day week andothers work the 8 hour/5.day week.

147

LAKE CITY CCIVUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF THE Fd1R-DAY WEEK BY

STUDENT SERVIO1r3 PERSONNEL

SPECIAL SERVIOESLamar J. Williams

It is my considered opinion,

that the four-day week was de-sirable. However, I feel the evaluation of the system fry& thestudents' point of view, should carry more weight than from thestaff's evaluations.

The staff's viewpoints are mixed toward the four-day week.These viewpoints ranged from most desirable to totally time con-suming. I guess the biggest dimension of consideration on thefour-day week was lack of time to see students for counseling.In the opinion of the staff, scheduling of classes hour afterhour without a break almost made it impossible to see studentsthat we wanted to see for various reasons. This resulted inour having one of two problems in seeing various students. One,they were either in classes one after another; second, theywere not on campus because they did not have classes at all thatday. That was a real problem in seeing needed students forregular scheduled activities via Special Services.

The four-day week presented us with another problem, that offinding tutors. For many of those students who served as studenttutors the fall semester, ultimately had to discontinue tutoringdue to their class scheduling.

If I might make 4 recommendation, I mould like to see abreak in the class schedule around mid -day. I sincerely feelthat this would break the monotony of long class hours; it wouldalso give those students who want a lunch break to have one, butdue to class scheduling could not work one in. This would alsogive the advisors a chance to see their advisees for a scheduledappointment, and give the students an opportunity for some studentactivities. I would strongly encourage the break, if we are toimplement the four-day week again.

148

LAKE PITT COMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF THE mum WEEK Rf

STUDENT SERV= MOM

STUDENT ACTIVITIESaward Honter

Regarding,the issue of theAeday week, it is my opinion that the

majority of people, both students and staff, fall into one of two

categories. They are extremely fond of the 40day week or they bate

it. Personally, 1 feel that I get more work done on the 5day edhe-

dule. With the 4-day week you are very tired by late afternoon and

this reduces the amount of work you will gat done near the end of the

day.

The 4.day week hie been a very hard blow to many of our students

involved in extra curricular activities. Students do not have time

to spend on activities outside of the olaseroom that require inter.

action in group activities. Intramuralri does not offer team sports

due to scheduling. The SGA has suffered tremendously from a laok of

time.

It would appear that the college would give thought to the fact

that in educating an individual we must concern ourselves with their

over-all development. People continue to have more and more free time.

We must concern ourselves with developing leadership and a sense of

well-being along with their classroom experiences. We must expose

students to activities that will encourage their interest in sports,

cultural activities, and appreciation for getting along and under-

standing other people.

149

If we are going to say that we are interested in the over-all

education of our students, we rust provide time and activities for

social as well as educational developrent

150

PART SIX

EVALUATION OY THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION BY THE LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

METHOD

Mrs. Ella Francis prepared the evaluation by the Learning ResourcesCenter from LRC date.

RESULTS

The Learning Resources Center experienced a decline in use of allfacilities. The best comparison is between the 1973 and 1974 periods.The January through April 1974 circulation of books was 3,596 comparedto 5,000 for the same period 1973 or 71.9% of the 1973 circulation.Faculty use was 85.6% of the 1973 use. Reserves usage in 1974 was55.7% of the 1973 usage. The LRC also experienced difficulties inscheduling to fit both usage and the needs of the various programs.

152

AN'ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE FOUR-DAYACADEMIC WEEK ON STUDENT USE OF THE

LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

ELLA FRANCISDIRECTOR LEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

The attached statistical material shows that the circulation ofbooks and materials declined by approximately 50% from the previousyear during the period of operating on the four-day week. The LRCstaff believe that this decline In the circulation of materials Isa serious threat to the academic and intellectual development ofthe student population. It is also thought that the number of studentswho used the LRC as a place to study decreased significantly duringthe period of the four-day week: statistics on attendance are notavailable for the 1972-73 academic year, but the staff believe onlyabout half of the usual number of students were studying in the LRCduring the period In question.

The four-day week caused many commuting students to have solittle free time on days they were on campus that they had to doall their studying nt home, after school. This problem was especiallyvocalized by the LRC work study students. They were quite limitedIn the number of free hours during which they could work, which meantthat at some times, when they were most needed, all were In class.The work study students complained of poor studying conditions athome and said thet they preferred to study at school.

Although the LRC tries to maintain a strong collection of booksand media which will both support the College's curriculum and meetthe information needs of the faculty and staff, it Is recognized-that the collection can not meet all the needs of all the faculty.However, it is believed that more faculty use of the LRC occurredprior to the four-day week than during that period.

Although hesitant to attempt to establish a direct causal rela-ttionship between the four-day week and declines in weekend use, theLRC staff would+like to point out that during the period of the four-day academic week, It first became necessary to close on Thursdayevenings and Sunday afternoons due to lack of attendance. The hoursthe LRC was then open were below the minimum set by the SouthernAssociation.

The LRC staff believe that unless the area's energy situationbecomes much worse than in the past, that any energy savings effectedby the four-day week are far outweighed by the disservice it doesto the student who sincerely wants to learn.

153

Due to the fact that not all departments on the four-day weekwere using the same four days, it was determined that the LRC shouldcontinue on the five-day week In order to provide equal accessibilityof materials to all students, faculty, and staff. Mrs. Francis,director, Mr. McCracken, media specialist, and Mr. French, referencelibrarian, personally preferred the five-day week, and, as statisticaldata became available, became less enthusiastic about the four-dayweek.

The clerical/secretarial staff all preferred the five-day week,citing personal inconvenience, transportation problems, and difficultyof meshing the longer working day Into their families' lives as reasonsfor their preference. The LRC staff also had the responsibility ofanswering the telephone, which rang constantly on Fridays. Theypointed out that transacting business is much less' complicated whenall parties work the same hours.' Additionally, the four-day weekslowed down newspaper and periodical delivery to the LRC tremendously.Some newspapers were as much as five days late being put out forpublic use.

The only person preferring the four-day week based his prefer7once on personal convenience.

Conclusions based on the experience of this department may bestated as followst

1. All departments should be on the same schedule.2. The four-day week caused much lost staff time.3. The five-day week Is demonstrably superior.

154

TABLE 45. LEARM113 ttescuaars CENTER BOOK OIRCUL ATIONJANUAFX THRCIKIH APRIL 1971 MUM 1974

StudmAUso

1971RemodelingMa .-Deo.

1972RemodelingJan.-Feb.

January 793 1,186

February 1,015 1,236

Maroh 1,568 896

April 1,161 737

Total 4,537111011.1.1MOMMIM 4,066.1

Faculty Use

January 30 194

February 152 103

March .172 90

April 84 58

Total 438 356

Reserves

January 17 140

February 107 134

March '128 106

April 120 102

Total 372 482

155

1973 1974

1,269 782

1,165 779

1,340 1,132

1,226 903

kaa $2590_

203 163

93 89

96 106

6651

478 409

367 139

317 79

280 233

207 205

11_177_ 656

TABLE 46.

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEKLEARNING RESOURCES CENTER

EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES USE OF THE LRCFALL 1973 AND SPRING 1974 TERMS

ITEM Aug. through Dec.

1973

Jan. to May 7,1974

Equipment

16MM Projector 42 43Take-up-reel 29 35Slide Projector 12 16Filmstrip Projector 10 30Overhead Projector 9 138MM Projector 2 7Opaque Projector 1 4

Projection Stand 9 4Screen 14 21Reel-to-reel Tape Recorder 4Cassette Tape Recorder 14 26Cassette Playback Unit 1

AdapterMicrophone 9 5Record Player 9 14

Extension Cord 26 31Other 64 64

Expendables

Bulb 30 16Cassette 317 983Film 157 133Transparencies 341 136Other 179 311

Job Order Requests

Services 99 114Materials 157 135Equipment 159 172Photographic 100 98

156

PART SEVEN

ENROLLMENT DATA'

MARY OF FULL-T110 ENROLLMENT DATA BY SEMESTER1969.70 THROUGH 1973-74

METHOD

The registrar supplied enrollment data on fhll-time (not PTOstudents for the first and second semesters from the school year1969.70 through the 1573-74 term.

RESULTS

The full -time enrollment trend over this period has been arather steady increase with a sharper increase between the 1972-73and 1973-74 terms. The second semester normally runs a lower en-rollment than the first. When these enrollments are plotted ona graph the curves are essentially parallel for the total suggest-ing that no unusual faotor is operating. This holds true also forthe technical and transfer division breakdowns except 1973-74second semester enrollment for the technical division is slightlyhigher than the first semester and the transfer division for thesame period shows a slightly greater decrease in enrollment thannormal.

158

LAKE OIT Oammumr OOLLBORVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY Wggit

MOMENT

Fig. 37. Total FV11-time Enrollment (not PM at theBeginning of the Term 1969-70 %rough 1973-74.

1400

1 300

H

U 1 200

1100

n 1000

0F 900

U

D

Boo

700

600

500

. II Olo .41.6.............. . .....46

... .. ........44.4... .. tI, I

.... .... .ft. ., .......... .........,

I. .. . .4 ....

."....illr

I, ft. .... ........

4. 1. .....I... .

0# i 1...

60

...

lift ..

............................... w a - ,. ........

. km.- so... ....4..............

................

. .... ..........................

69-70 70-71 71-72 72-73

SCHOOL YEAR

159

aftworftanftlinfto

73-74

Pall Semester

- Spring Semester

LAKE our COMMUNITY COLL=EVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

ENROLLMENT

TABLE 47. TOTAL FULL-TXME ENROLLMENT (not FTE) AT THEIMINNING OF THE TERM 1969.70 TERMS 1973-74

NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLEDSCHOOL

YEAR FallSemester

SPringSemester Difference

1969-70 702 700 . 2

1970-71 857 741 -116

1971-72 942 880 62

1972-73 975 896 77

1973-74 1416 1297 -119

16o

N

24

Ci

0

D

P3

LAX CITY COMMUNITY COLLBOBEVALUATION OP FOUR -DAY

ENROLL/MT

Pig. 38. Technical OlvIslon Full-time Enrollment (not PTE) atthe Beginning of the Term 1969-70 Through 1973614.

1000

900

800

700

600

5

14

4 o 4 Oro 0400........ .. M..... a. o .i 0

41.........1 }i ...a. g ... .. ........... a . 0.2. . . ....44.1.40.0.4 .4.1..... 1 I

a.... ' .,

. 6. e . 1 o 4 04141.yam 4 1.4

00./Wray6,4 . . 4.0...a.... err.

error. .1a.. . 4 or O.. or r 110 Or

...4

orrorr

) .44 ..... .....N o 0 0 4 0 44

WO ....

*Woo

4r. r .aro**

, r ,

.4

%Aro 4 0 4 11

441414.

44. ...roar*

W.M..

o ror4.4 r

roo. ao

100

69.70 70-71 71.72 72-73

161

SCHOOL TUB

7344

Sensitte

0 04 Si Sprang Sesseter.

LAO art OMNI?" COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FCUR.DAT WPM

ENROLLMENTTABLE 48.

TECHNICAL DIVISION FULL.T3242 1:2Q1OLLKENT (not F11) AT MBBEGINNING OF TO Tat 1969.70 THROUGH 1973-714

...11111MMISINIIWIWINAMIIMMINIMINNIOMMINNINIMMIIIMMUNINAMMOINNOINIONIMOWNIIIIMINININIMIle

SCHOOL

TEAR

NUMBED OF STUDENTS St4ROLLED

WaIMIftwowaamm~.~.ftlawawaalloolIONWa00~ammariame.m10

Fall SpringSemester ' Semester Different).

1969-70 304 301 3

1970-71 402 323 791971-72 436 431 -35

1972.73 449 4i4 - 35

1973-714 563 +14

162

LAKE OITY caNurrn 0011938EVALUATION OF FaiR-DAY IC&

EHROLLMNIT

Fig. 39. Transfer Division Full-time Enrollment (not FTE) atthe Beginning of the Term 1969-70 Through 1973-74.

N

M

B

0

D

1000

900

800

700

600

5

14

3

N

3100

. 4 4 .00.

. 4 pkk

' 4 404

.

4,

A 4 6.

MMO

4 01 41111

-.

4 .1,4 4 41 . 40 4 r r 0

k

I

I

k roar

rem. 1.44 a Ark

.1.........44. ..44.4 ..........a 4.

**owor

r .

r

r or ...

akorral ---

ik ...area

k . ar.4.

so I

.I. . 0 0 r AWarr.

.

.1 a yr... .........

)1I , .r

......

. - , . 04111 H

. . . .1 4 . ... , ...4

1.... I .14.141....4.0 04, 0 , 4411. r.. krr

.

raa...... .

4 r

rkka Am

r r . a

69 -70 70-71 71-72 7273

SCHOOL YEAR

163

73-74

Saoseater

Spring Setiestar

LAX OITI OtCHVNITT COMMVALUATION OF PCUR-DAY W1SK

SHROLLONT

TABLE 49.

TRANSPERDIVIS/CR FULL-TTKR MROLLIOOff (not ITS) AT MRMHO* OF THE TI 1969-70 THROUGH 1973-74

.0111~11101~~1,100~011101~1~101,011MowarawarmIaMsewwmarsom~i~W~MINNOYMINIONVIOWINIMON111.1101141111111001001010110110111.~11.1.

SCHOOL

TEAR

HUMOR OF STUDENTS MULLED

wwwwarrarorwertmokosmmaroarommer~~~irlomawswamos*rommoftwaisiaaniamSe

PalSemester

SpringSemester Difteg enoe

1969-70 39e 399

1970-71 1455 41

1971-72 506 479

1972-73 526 484

1973-74 867 734

4

3?

-

- 42

133

164

PART EIGHT

QUANTITY OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

SUMMARY OF QUANTITY OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICES1971-72 THROUGH 1973-74

METHOD

The number of sections on the printed schedules were counted foreach of thb six semesters 1971-72 through 1973-74.

Total's by major subject area and program for the three terms spring1973, fa11!1973 and spring, 1974 were also determined. No attempt wasmade to acpount for additions to the schedule or sections.that weredropped.

V

RESULTS

The maximum range of the total number of sections is 53 sectionswith fewest number of sections during the fall 1971-72 semester and thegreatest number of sections in the spring semester of 1974 with thefour-day week. The total number of sections for the second semester1973-74 (fOur-day week) is 48 sections greater than the second semester

1972-73. The breakdown into major subject areas and programs showedvery little variation across the three terms spring 1973, fall 1973and spring 1974 except the increase noted above.

Luc* orn own= comamums OP POURDAYQUANTITY or RDCOATICOAL SERVICES

Fig, 40, Total timber of Maas Sootiona 1971.72 Through 1973.74,

0F

200Sa0TI 1000N

P Strt isn ,72 '73

TERM

TABLE 50.



NUMBER OF TRANSFER DIVISION CLASS SECTIONS BY SUBJECT AREA

SubjectNumbbr of Sections

Spring 1973 Fall 1973 Spring 1974

Eng)ish 101 6 102 16 16 15

Other English 11 8 9

Speech 110 8 8 9

Other Speech 2 8 9

Math 102 6 121 6 7 6

Other Math 21 23 17

81o., Sot., Zoo., Ana. 13 14 14

Physical Science 10 10 11

Chemistry S Physics 14 12 13

SSS 101 6 102, Nis 101 6 102 11 13 12

Other Social Science 15 13 12

Humanities 201. 6 202 4 6 6

Philosophy & Religion 2 2 2

Art & Music 11 13 19

Foreign Language 7 6 7

Physical Education 29 28 27

Reading 8 10 17

Education 1 1 1

IDS 2 2 2

Orientation 2 1 2

TOTAL DAY SECTIONS 193 201 210

Off Campus 10 13 10Night (On Campus) 26 33 33

TOTAL NIGHT AND OFF CAMPUS 36

TOTAL SECTIONS 229

168

46

247

43

253

TABLE 51,



NUMBER OF TECHNICAL DIVISION CLASS SECTIONS BY PROGRAM

Program

Auto Body

Number of Sections

Spring 1973 Fail 1973 SprIng 1974

1

Auto Mechanics 4 6 2

Aviation 2 2 2

Business Related 29 28 30

Cosmetology 1 1 1

Engineering 3 3

Forestry 8 11 8

Golf Course.Mechanics 4,

Golf Course Operations 9 10 12

'Landscape Operations 8 10 .9

Law Enforcement & arrections 2 2 2 ,

Masonry 1 1

r.

2

Nursing 3 2 3

Park Management 5 5 6

Timber Harvesting 2 2 f 2

Welding 1 A 3

TOTAL DAY SECTIONS 79 85 88

Off Campus 4 4 10,Night 15 18 24

TOTAL NIGHT AND OFF-CAMPUS 15 22 34

TOTAL SECTIONS 98 107 122

169

PART NINE

ANALYSIS OF GRADES

GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS TOTALS

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF GRADE

MISISOD

Two sets of computer data were available. The most useful ofthese was a print-out of the grade distributions by major subjectareas for the second semester 1972-73 and the first and second semester1973-74. Most desired distributions could be obtained from thisdata including a total and breakdowns by division. Grade dts-tributions for selected subjeots were investigated. These distri.butions inoluded the required subjects of the transfer division andthe larger elements of the technical division.

The second set of data was grade point averages by major fieldin the transfer division and program for the technical division.The number of reported students in many of these major fields andprograms is too small for the comparative data to be of value.

RESULTS

The total grade distribution data shows a maximum variationof three percent for any gride across the three terms spring sem-ester 1973, fall semester 1973 and spring semester 1974 (four-dAYweek). The maximiks percent in grade variation in the technical di-vision is 4.5 per cent and in the transfer diVision fire per eat. ,

These grade matiudm variations are for F in the total distributionand the transfer division distribution and A grades (an increase)in the technical division, In both of the F situation the.slightincrease. in F mdes is en.inoreale each term, i.e. an inereatie*F percentage for the fall term 1973 over the spring term 1913 and anincrease in P grades for the spring term 1974 over the fall term 1973.This consistent and progressive change strongly suggests some faptOr,other than the four-day week is operating.

The selected subject grade distributions show a wide-variationin pattern between subjects and across the three terms. The 'data

here is insufficient to establish a normal expected grade variationas a basis for interpreting with reference to the four-day week.

, . ,

The grade-point oversee differences for the larger majori'AndprograMii,fall:Within 04000 of,p1U0 or minas .3, it, the14(110 Ofnermal.veriskien cannot be ii0h"e4

all OXTf OCHRTNIV OOLLIORSWAMI? OF FOUR-DAT WM

CMOS DZSTIMITIONS FOR $3111101111) SUBJECOIS

&LI

,

......4

1

i

.

, i

4 LILO+ 1.I 4

I

I

. ,

Li.

:

...............

1....di 4.

. .

1.0

MR,

Ii.4.

Aois lb

elm. orw.esA..

I

v 1,.....4L1.4

t ,

,

.. t

V41, ti

11-IM IIIIIIIINIMIIIIIIINMI ONMENNINMON IIIMMINIIIII

*71L 4

- 44.

' . 1 I,,:,

4. .I.

.Lot .. .4.

.

,

I

LL,....4

e

.

I IN.

444-

..

...

N.

.

.

.4

, I 1

i. I '

.:

IINSIPIIMINIMMINIIIIIIIIIMIllwommiilug sorwpmeMI limph

1 ,

1.

h

1

.. ...--

.4

.

Mi.ditrA.

rCrA.WIISI

oarI woo

1

r

1 I

o.

.. ...1.f.-1.

-. , -...........4.

..,......_,...

h . .t.

'

.

,

.

. 4

t

....

1

. 4

.4.. 4.

. - e.

. :

-

0

.,....1.

.., . .

L. .

....4. .

I.-

r 4 ., ! I

, 4

i

4 largatIONr

IMWIWImilow.

111.0111111111111111111111111111

INIONINON1.1~111111MNIIMwastawomMOM. WWI

111111111111111111111111114111111111111111P11

sliNNONo11.1011.

IMMINNIM

IINIMMIMMINMOOI1...W71MM.

ININORMNI,I 1.

I

i f. 4,

esseiassSPINNOMalwv.01.

a.,..... , ...... .... :1.1

,..:,4 ...

-

. .--...e...., .

MIMI-.. .., .

.

-4 I.

LI

.

... ..

..... 6.

.

.

..' 4.4.-.......

'

:.

,

.........4.

. . .4.

..............p.-L......

-... .....1....L.4.4i

.4r.. ow 4...4-

....6

....,_

.L.

IMMINIRMMOMS

annalia...4110.1111 INNS/ Mai 111111111M.111

=8OWN

6I10A.A*11041°A

ONNIONNO

KIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIINu EssmioNeolloNal

Nummoo

moNommoNEEPOINININNIOMM.M011111110

ournmININNONIONNENNONIONIENNomilm

lommiN

omoomm

NNENNNON

omoNNNE

.46. L.

. 4.HI.

I '. ,

I

I

+

. I

4 -,......

6.- . ,NI

Fjp12111101122NNONINNI INNIMMINIF

IINNINNONEMEM

ONONNINN. smoonamoIiiiiiiimiliftwliIMPIMMOINO

mr.6.....IIIIMMININei mogoomp

ammoammommielliiiilmwsioramot.....114111.~waFriprinr.1

0414 PI 0 til M 1-4

172

A

TABLE 52.


GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SUBJECTS

Total Grads DistributionsTabhapal plus Transfer Divisions

Grade

Sprit4 Semester

1973.

Fall Semester

1973

Spring Semester

1974

No. % No. NoA'/7// 0a5'1/9 .2.073 ?6,47 /14,2, ..m67B ae.26 ,?fig4 2_27/ .2%,?z4/05 ,2,,,02,

/5-3e 44, 6.5- /6 77 ,?/.51 /47Y ,t2.9.t,

SW 09,03 Z/4

F .W $ ,4.5" 374 79/ ,0 'il,,S)1 /9', 0.?,,W ,g3 $1O7 J 9,-/,

S /0/ /,/y -23 Jo' 9y o

/.2 I/1 0 0,0e,

490' 1,53 4.23 -?sge7 /7/ 4.

3, ,54 4/9 .57 g, ,51Total 79/ i'eo 777.2 /00 7:3!0'Y /ee),

173

LAKE OX?! OCHMIMITir COLLE:13KUWAITI; OF FCXJR.DA.11 MIRK

MUDS DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SPLROTRO SUBJZOIS

..... i. -I 1

1

-

,,......,........

- .-

4 4.44

b..

i ,

,........... 4.-4,-.

....

, 1111.1.1.11 MUla........

I

,

, , , ,,*,fllolmilliiiiiiilI1110MIN1111II

I

,

,i.4. p...4........-

.4, .. 4...0

,

---1

, ,

11111111111111111

Illehmum

4 ....0,...e

, ,4

: I

, 0-4

44*.! ! : '

....

111

112

I

I .i.,

.4.

........... I.

/

t ,

r

I. .. '

4..,...,e.......rMtNIIle

imimemiIMINNSINIII111~011111MMO/

1 :

..... ....-

imPo

,

tr

rid

,

, .

, .....-

IIIP.O.*

I.... .

... 4......,.......4.......

I .1.4

;450.

111211121112SWUMam01111MINIPIP

leaterusuoillin !ammo es11111111M1011811111011an

'

, {

M. 4....

) .

,...y. .4... ....I/p.a.

/

I

4.

~1110111141M1MiNlido IImars

WIWIalial

g1N17417401741ibb.-

IMMIIIMIN

oesamuse011111111111111M1111111111

HMO

Aili.

flateleilitt

ssiwrermi

IMMO

411..

11111111

Inswillimi11111111111111411

Nolliiilu

At,

1111NOMAN

WNWODOM

Atibt.

,

!44 .1.. 7.

IIMMOSIgia111111maim glagarms

simmusiiMOMS

.

.

....

......,

h-...."...** 4".'

......4

I

'" '"'"

I....*

..... 4.. .

r - usNIMNMoserwsmemmisar1................eriPrilarAbilniardilarAITAC

1111111111111111111111110/10111.11MIllialliliginine

StrA

......:.-

I

'

MMONAIMMIN

Li I I 2MeMOBSminimsimormi.........

012

INNIMINIISlinnil.MidKiP2

MoilmitsiiiMMOmoserormon.RI Pa

wiffismoiwino,.al "A567.

111111111.111/0/0211

ilil........i/MMISOINIIIIIIMIE11060161111onoNumRIMMO

monirou assemisallimilluallIINNIMMIIINIMININ110111111111111111111M111.1111111111111111m1. boomMM

emilimmi

INIPIIIIIIIIISonemoi

. .

. ..

1- ..-...-4.-

.

......... i

,....-6,........

1111101111101111mommille.t........../.....r........

itihh.700p1r#14

a 2

a

ot

o


GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SUBJECTS'

TABLE 53, Technical Diyieion Total (wade Diatributione

Grade

Spring' Semester

1973

Fall Semester1973

Spring Semester

1974

No. % No. % No. *

'1/44 .200 7,1 1 2-23,1 44,91 IS?..(B 73 34'47 /42/ 3491 J' 33 73C 4/9f ,u,s/ i,3i 023,a7 579 .2.2.7/

D /JO S4 /73 1,.26- //f (342, 9, /3 /Y3 ,5',/7 '3,Z9

1 49 ,1,9, /$'3 4527 /63 6,..3 /

S

, 0i Y 11,45 .-?2 f0 9 /3-7

9 4/ 0 d.oe 3 42,

N 3i / 9. l , 0,/ w A de)

5' 14-5' 7 ,...?5, Y i 3/Total /977 /do ,274 / a a 25-,5-o /Do

175

I

p V

M.

.MI

P.m

,Ig

. 111

11k.

EM

II

AII

II16

.ill

il21

1111

1611

111

6111

1161

1111

.'I

NII

III

el11

11O

HM

Ria

u,1

:....t

illi

I14

1111

101

1111

N >

+61

11C

1111

1ki

llill

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOURDAY WEEK


TABLE s4. Transfer Division Total Grade Distributions

Grade

Spring Semester

1973

Fall Semester1973

Spring. emester1974

No. % No. % No.

.

/30/ ,27e3 /9-55-.29.47 iAci ..W.34

13 aio-3' 27oz_4.5'd 1.fr,97 42y.3', 241/9

C /e 93 ,22,20 /039 ,,2e,74 /0 9s' .210.9

'''.............4..................................

F;

93_5"

-3 41-2-'

Yooy........4....................

6,)7

.31f

913

d,97 .1/41.

Cl/e'

.,g,52,................--ef,14.5' 1/.34

I' /oz #, oWe .9,3, r/*/_3 8,0/

/7 ,3.5 / , oz, , 9 , at' 3 , et o ,4,6'd. 0 0,o0

oe.z ,-2.0 4.2-2, 4 $/3 /30 .2,73

33 00 37 I '79 3 1 ,Z2.

Totaii d 4//1 /4e C'4 6 /de .7,5"L' /e°

177

II

TECHNICAL DIVISION SELECTED GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS

LIIII7

111111u111111

kh. 111111111

L1111101.

11111M

IMI

,

11111n11111

NI

111110M

rk

all11 ioL E

n111-11.1

1- 1,

1112

,

r1,1

. -.

' r-

ela

I "

TABLE 55.



AUM (Auto mechanics) Grade Distributions

11MINOANIII...MIONIMMOOINOINVINIO111MMOOM/0644....--------r----.

Grade

.......----....................

A ......,./LZ.557

B

Spring Semester

1973

No.

Fall Semester

1973

Spring Semester1974

% No. No.

5'i I/75X

9 ?sib/ /Z&J14 a1,23 97 53,6T

c ,,9,..5 pa,e7 53 .35(/9' , J1.7?D 2 Aoy /9 9/43 i 3,30F

/,Iy

s

u

W 12 /, /Dx

Total 4.2,2 /6,96 /35 /ao 9/ /DD

180

I1111IPA

4Ili ilo

I"-M

ilr"-v47111

elf:(I-1

,it.r.

al* .

III

11111411111161

6.111191IIIII

IMO

MIN

A,

rirl111I11k1

1.alk

Milo

1111116M

imi

wii

Lim

iEm

ual--IFY

on

TABLE 56



BUSINESS RELATED COURSES

oniserma..0.010110.11.1Nlaiwor00.

Grade

Spring Semester

1973

Fall Semester

1973

Spring Semester

1974

No. No. No. ' %

A " /"4 //9,3 0?3. 4C4 al J'a, w,/

.

8//5,3 ile .4 6 /54 ,?,$71g71g ,/ d si- ,2A. 14 Ss

C ? /9.0 /92 alvy /44 Ito0 /a ,J'9 34 ,..2/

F 11 9,G3 77 42.7d S7 9,13

1 42 .2,34 ,24 3 j0 S $

S56. XefY e o oo p D, 00

u

7 / 7;7---------..------........

0 I 0.60

/ , / 7

4)

4

6 a0

.2,7'4W / 9

1

3 . 73

3 , ,5 9 / , /7 7 /, 2

Total J>J /de 01 6 /DDi

5 al 0 /D e9

182

$



TABLE 57. co p (corrections) Grads Distrfbilt'ione

Grade

Spring Semester

3973

Fall Semester.

1973

Spring Semester1974

No. % No. No.

A

GU' /1):63 f /0?i gi /42 ? 7yy

B 17 ,7/ 3/ 347 75,,/ //ei 311040/

5 y,/ 9 // 9,Sd it 02,?,15

0 /e7F

I

17 022 0/ to?,C s 77S

U

x

Total /,2 oZ m 5a2 joo ,3es /eiss

184

mill1110

1111111111

Si.

1.1

1111111"11TO

. C.

iii

Men

TABLE 18.

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OP FOUR-DAY WEEK

GRAOC DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SUBJECTS

FOR (Forestry) Grade DistributionsCourses with Fon prefix

V.I.........0~1~0*Me...10~111/*/

Gradp

Spring Semester

1973Fall Semester

1973Spring Semester

1974

No. % No. % No.

/e' // 77 oeS MO 3 07' AA

B .5:2 2/74 35 .S.32- SO 33.33

#4.2. 3139

o,z

3Y

/2,

2gs7

9,0.2,1

32/3

24,00

67yF I ..6',97 // S!,21 .3_ -?iee

S 3.73 /4 752, 3 ,,?,00

S 3 .2, oe

U i a,oe+4, l 75- 2 1.5-4

To., ? /3 /,,,, / 33 /e0o J$© /00

186

TABLE 59.



NUR (Nursing) Drabs Distributions

Vrt.lowitm/w.

Grade

Spring Semester

)973

Fall Semester1973

Spring Semester

1974

No. % No.

........................--................

% No.

//%

4,7A

42.. /-?,94B

17,Y4 // ?95/ 3/ 3 ,90c

02 .2,,d3 ..29 X-33` 02 3-pi/19O.

cot 6.2, 'c' 0 .41,06 /F 0 0,00. / /, ,2' 6.2,38'

I

._3 .S 3I 4 9g3 f 953s

U

W

X /,0,5) 3 02 / .._Z,1

ledTotal P /oo / /,4, ifr/

188

LAKE CITE COMMUNITY COLLIDEEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

ORAN DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SUBJECTS

.. .

Ir.

r, .-.... . r. , ..y. 4r.... .. wyer.r. r r. . .. .. r.. r.,-

..-. r4,

rr,............ r-

NO

ir2

rwr

, tu .

,

.

.

=MONIMINIMII

...

I. r.1....«..6.-......r.+. 0-.. 0...-....4.......-.-.... ...

.......

... 4.-

u .

...., ,,.-

...

..

N

11111

MOM.

. .. ,

,

.....- .....- .........-.-1.-4-....4-4.r--

A- 1-..1.*NOIMiiiii Minn

r rAd

111111111111MINIIIIMPINNINII

teslirinis

or

._ _____._...,.._..._.._._....._._..._.......

Jr.i PrAiPrAii

.,...,_,...................,........go

...........Ap.,-monssw.a raangm0 r, r

aw

.

.

otierivi- mpr+AorO

04 04 0:1 0 Cifl

189

ic4

/m-



TABLE 60. ORH (Golf and Landscape) Grads DistributionsCourses with ORH prefix Inm

Grade

Spring Semester

1973

Fall Semester1973

Spring Semester1974

No. % No. % No. %

A /AZ. .5-424 7 5e,o0 ._.6 q 4.279

B 0 ._940,/, 3/ #27/x e?(C! / 7/c o? l /3, 04 023 /.3 .951 .2,1,2.

D 3,62, X2, /d Y2:e.

/ 9. ZF

6 .2. /, 93 i1 2 / e d / 7/ 02 ,'SS -------. ......-----u

W 3 /-57

---, -

X

Total / id() //o' /4e) .2_// /(34'

190

III

TRANSFER DIVISION SELECTED GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS

LAKE CITf CCMMUNITT COMMIEEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK

GRADS DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SUBJECTS

,." ..

O. .

... .

...I

.................

_ , ...._

vo .. ro.

11111111111r

...a...a .......m. 1111,11111~0

,I 111111110111111111111.11111111110111.1i 1101111=1.111 OPIMMINIII 111111111111111MINIMai owilimm amosimi

.....

___

INION11111111111111.1.......111

44

VS

r

..,...

il, ...4. - .

.

S..

..... .. .

.

....,.....

.

MAL

- ...

_.....

_.......

.

um

___

_____.. ....._

Ardi ADORN

..........IN

..__.._,. _______.

_ _

Rw.........=.....17

amermi imiresiiiimm wawaammow ammo1111111111011111111111111.111

IMMIUM MININNI

IrAMMINONI II

GO14611411

,. haPmpromirrom ummumme Impormilam lesImilailliiiiinlIMON11110MO 00111111111

iAVIA Li7al'kler IF.AllMI MI

C

$1/4 o asxH192

Ml

0



TABLE 61. CM (Biology) Grade pletributions.Does Not Include BOT and Mo.

Grade

Spring Semester

1973

Fall Semester1973

Spring Semester1974

No. % No. % No.

A SY /s. 517 1/439 /7/0 96 7.33B /30 021#12- /O 30#72 /66 Jo. /3c 4 3 7 ..2.5. y.2. 7 /?,v.2, /y .30,0o .59 D.'S 52. As-,O7 hX 42.4.6.-

F 97 y. 12 sy /- Y 7 / 3,/ 4, ?7 3 . Psi 3'- 6 ,/S

U

wE.-C. /,.04 7 /,?

x / // iii 44 .2,,, ,31

Total J3, /0e) 3 X.5-- /o e 6-3/ /oo

193

LAKE ern CC *UNITY COLLEGE&VALUATION OF FOURDAT 14

GRADS DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SRLROTED SUBJECTS

1.1* .

..

. ........ _. .... 1.1111111111111111111111111

MEM___

.....4_,.....

...

1111

_.

1111. ..... .. .

Bo

PAM.. ........

.........

.... ._

.............

Ea°NE.

1............

1111 _ 1111.

.

..

.. J.-

. . .-..

......

.

.......

.

.

.....- .

.

._

,....

_____

;;,,,........====_.........,........................irr,,,TALpyrrAprAm

. 5,21116.'%11117

..--

.

..-

......i...___

.....

Witrall11212

_ III 1

...._

.

...

III

1111_.....

1................111111111111111111111111111111111MININIIIIIIIIIIIIisomiummummirosommo

numP4II.. 41116. All.A..

NMOIIIIIIIIIINIIIMIIIIIINIIMIIIII11111111111111111111111MMENNEMiliiiiiiN011 MINIMO..............................wasome

lril.11."4,41r4i."444116.

. 111616

iill-NIowIwome

...16..L.

IMINEMIN

munmsom

41116.NIS_

404c4 0114WC1

194

O



TABLE 624 ENO (English) Grade DistributionsAll ENG courses including ENG 160 (Reading) But Not LIT and 00U.

Grade

Spring Semester

1973

Fall Semester1973

Spring Semester1974

No. % No. No.

A/ 6 2, / 7 3.5 /..?e. /I. /G.33

B /.3a. 22,9.5 /5/ azel /'?.L .u./V2 /3 36,,23 ,.2d3 36 a /c/V 3/99

0 75/

5.2

/2 51

1...

..0

73

9,oG

Ad537 5 "

911d3

/.9,4./

I Y / ,34 LU ,..<0.2 // 4.?,ao

s / . //U

W 7 / /,9 6.26 3.G3

X .2- ..28' 3 .3-3,

Total 511, /00 7/7 /DO 35/ i Aao

195

Lai ern cam= commaEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY W2Str

GRADS DISTRIBUITONS 1?OR SPICTRO BOTUROTS

L.

I

. ...

__;___. ....,_ IIIIIIIIIIIglp111111N11

- .r.

. .

mom......0le1

IIIIMIIIIIIIII

am?

.....,..............._...

..

. ,.._.

,.

...

.

.....______

I-

ci... 41...

-

4- .,-.4-.

..._,_._._.

_ .

......_.

. .-..J."..

1

.....-.-.

.

RIMrlenoormlIF=

.

a 4..

Y ....

raINOMPAIIIIIsomas

MI. ,

.._

isamirlommiwi:assumue

niiiiiIMOMIIIII41111111111111111111111MININII

1102033r..6 . .

...._.,...,

.. .. _.. _

-

. -

...

..

............_

,... lNOM N liellimini= iiiii"n"."w7e11=1I

onnessmorsalfinams=es sisimmor

..insomme

IMMOit,

=.........===.....m-mmum-

MaLliren«. .1111111111111111111111111111111111111

14611104 0,011E4

196

O4r.

0

C4

cy



TABLE 63, HIS (History) Grade Distributions, HIS Spring 1973 andHIS Plus SSS (Survey of Social Science) Fall 1973 and Spring 1974,

Grade

Spring Semester Fall Semester Spring Semester1973 1973 1974

No. No.

A

B

F

/V

YS /e1/2/ ow,pzy

a/,53 y .30, /7

Y,37 7.75

4.9y GV ,P,o/

3,35 3,34S

w

X

Total

451

94 3_5-7 /e 387 /DO

197

LAIC& arr OCHMUNITI CO FOREVALUATION OF FOUR -DAY WM

GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SELBOTED SUBMIOTS

- L

......- 4--

.d..

V4-4-.-

I

4 .` .. OEM00..I

t 'V

ON 11.011.1.lil NM=MIimi

01.11111.1111111111111111

MIMEMM.MIMI siimin

MIN=

low imolowill

aimte%

.I I

ri 6

.

DSO1.11=1..m..1.Ie

.

tittilig

amp

Aquil

oNisnommeaMIN=

ANIONrAl

1

WM2.---

..._

..........._._...____.

i

....,... _ , ........_,

ille

IIIIMINalilismazioneom

INIIMINNIMIIMINIMMINIIIII

11011101NOsomposinomosaulamo

1444.4616.1.INNNM I

.

EMINOMIMPIIIIIIIIIINIIININIIIIIIIIIMININNINIMOS11.1.161111111111111111$1111111111111111MON

_ MaIMINIMININI OIMIIIIMMPIP

RIM__s .0111.11

1,16164,=III

04.

Cie MI WI 0 Oil Z F-1

198

.4

TABLE 64,



HUM (Humanities) Grade Distributions

Grade

Spring.Semester

1973Fall Semester

1973Spring Semester

1974

No. % No. % No. %

A

36 1/51 9/ /9, eS 3..5 /3- 70L

40

Y °

.23,7.2

gif " -

7_c_f?1,4

53 Vo3

3Y

5.23 ,1i

25',9?,c

3/49 /52/ 31 1, ,3o 40 /CieF ,Z3 9- O'7 Y02 4 ,0 7 N.57I 4 237 02- ;7y . J-/ / mS

.39U

/3 5/9 ...5-,/0X J ,37 j ,Yo

Total ,,?53 me 45-z /o,, 55 /DD

199

LAKE 0IT 'Tr COLLIGESVALVATION OF FOUR-DAT WM

WADE DI3TRIBUTIONS FOR SELECTED SUBJECTS

44 1

-

4.4 ...A.-4

:-

-M.-

...

-

4.-L.

+

1111.1111111111111111111111111111

SOON61.1111111111111 Paiiiiiiiiiilaii.....1101.01.1.11XSONSPOOMMOIMili~111 01.11101.111111.1101111110111.1101101111MIOWIIIMID MeNN..

O

04 Mt IA UWZH

200

g

C4

1

4

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOUR -OAY WEEK


TABLE 65, pH9 (phi/sawn Science) era& Distributions

G'rade

Spring Semester

1973

Fall Semester

197)Spring SemeAter

1974

No.

..................---.......-

No No

A

49-3 /9/9 9g /3,43 93 /.?./.3

8 Q244 aM /0 .?4,9,( /5i ao,4e)

c /9.5 02get /7-2 017Y3 .03 0?4,17

77 //a 7$ /:i,9Y 42..0 4.3e4....

F 33 742 5 N..36 /3?, /si,h2

I 3 I.) a .43, // /93S

U .

w

,24' -4.5 3.5' ..c

X 5 ,ge 3 ,35

Total /d0 ,,?7 /4'.4 717 /4e

201

WE OM OCW/NITZ COLLIDE

GRADE DLV'Mittqlr0}17FFORUTsla 'm sois

P.I ,

6.44

..4.4.

4..

4..

IPANMI

4444 .4

I-

.

- - -

-.

,--4

4--,1

.I. -- " -

p

....4."-,.

.4 4/44.

-.._.

4 .-"I.4 -

44.414

.....

ri.1a4-4- :=

111=

_ ...

......

.

.

...._

44 . 4

.

.4 4 444.4-

4.44. 4 4.

.4 4

.... amons.___.....:.,

__4 +.44

=.........4,74174FIFIVIlaElla

1. .. iillEMES

4.

4 ..-

... ErIMPONINAri

BREMENiii=l1.14111.11111.111111.1111.1115

L a GE*20p.

4011(4 OrilMt-1202

ca

0

43



TABLE 66, SPE (Speech) Grade Distributions

Grade

Spring Semester

1973

Fall Semester

1973

Spring Semester

1974

No. No. No.

A 90 47,711 3/ .2e,9, 01 _2457B 73 3,/,,? / 3134 --- 0?7ac io ,2g,/,.7 J:2 -241',73 5/ e.,?-?,711

D 020 913. / z.,ok /o (14

i0.?,(7,2, 7 3,f7 /3 fje

S

U

W

4, oe. ($7,2 , `,,,t4" 7 . 3.42

I .97 / 9sTotal :'1.3 /4d a/ leo 02.,W /DC)

203

I

GRADE-PO I NT AVERAGES


MEAN GRADE-POINT AVERAGES BY PROGRAM

TABLE 67.

TECHNICAL DIVISION MEAN GRADE-POINT AVERAGES BY CLOCK-HOUR PROGRAM

Fall Semester 1973 Spring Semester 1974C.P.A.Differences

Program

C.P.A. No.

StudentsG.P.A. No.

Students

ABF Auto-Bodyor, 33 /3 a, // 02/ , -2'

AIM Aviation .?, V /e ,,2,I.Z /X 4,AUM Auto-Mech.

?, -2- #7 .2,7/ 53, e),7

COY COSMETOLOGY 2 IV /.2.- cZOO 02 0.

-

MAY Masonry'?' 7 ii ,27,o 27 o3

WEL Welding a. 73 /f (,,g() 33 ,e7* grading system.

205

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOUR -DAY WEEK


TABLE 68.

TECHNICAL DIVISION MEAN GRADE -POINT AVERAGES BY SEMESTER-HOUR PROGRAM

Program

-

Fall Semester 1973 Sprinj Semester 197404P.A,DifferenceG P,A, No.

StudentsC.P.A. No.

Studen,ts.........30 Business 4,-.5.1 1 7 a, 0 ...?..5- -1-. .2733 Data Proc. ..1Yd, ,5" ,,,2 37 4 .'Si/

36 Exec. Secy. J 17 ,// .2 / _22-

1 .2_, - o 638 Golf ez k3 .2. 76

40 Landscape 2 72 2 .2_ ,2 Se' / 7 --...2.-2-

42 Le:al Sec 4 6 7 a- .,2 SO J ÷ /344 Med. Sec . 02,0 .- .2. 6 .2i .2- - . a 446 Mark. t4agL__48 Nursin 4,?,/, 3i, 2,3.2_, ...;. ,3 5/

50 Park Mans . ....?, 9 7 tira d, 3 7 + , /4Si Police\ Scl. .,,?,70 .5- .2.3./ 4 ,.?;.52 Forestr .2,32 2 2_, 2,1,____ z2 : , ?..4.)._

67......2::___

i ,3 3

53 Real Estate /i ..1-4 / _____Pc__L_L___,t/.!6 1,57 780 Clerical 1, 9°

83 Data Proc. / 0e .2 *788 Forestr ..2 6 & .2

90 St. Sci. .0f:5'9 ..?, 5l4 / 992 Timber Harv.

206



TABLE 69.

TRANSFER DIVISION MEAN GRADE-POINT AVERAGES BY PROGRAM

Fall Semester 1973 Spring Semester 1974G.P.A.Difference

Program

NoStudents

MeanC.P.A.

No.

StudentsMeanC.P.A.

00 Unclassified 46 1,S.5 pe 4,4-?--- + 4702 General Course J9_4_ 5,3' /17 02,31 /705 Pre-Agriculture ,P 3, 0.5.- 7 J./7 -t- /---

06 Pre-Buildtng ,.5' At)/ s 3,05 -t- el

08 Pre-Business JO 4,513 A 0g10 Pre-Educatton 5J az fd 4/1 i,.?,.57 .,2?11 Pre-Da t a-Proc . 3 Ay .3 0? 3 51/

,12 Pro- Engineering

14 Pro-Forestry / , 4,9y ou .2, +'66

16 Pre -Dent, Med.

18 Pre - Police Science /7

4,..,?e)

.5,o9

/.1_,

7a, .2 y

-,7o4 0/

#35120 Pro-1,aw

22 Pre-Pharmacy 9 3,7.5- 3"ji

3,313,fA of

,V.

,--- /3.

6

24 Pre-Ministry.2_ 13/

26 Pre-Corrections 35 412. 9

29 Other '/ 0 36 e,.//,5'& +

207

PART TEN

ENERGY CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS


ENERGY

SUMMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION ANALYSIS

METHOD

Dean Sparkman, office oflusiness Services, preparod thetables of energy costs and savings and energy consumption for theyears 1970:through 1974. Mean temperatures were secured from theNational Climatic Center.'

RESULTS

The total energy saving program including the four-day weekdid save energy. The actual decrease In energy used comparedwith 1973 was 107,204 Kw of electricity, 36,303 gallons of fueloil, 3,064 gallons of LP gas and 1,705 gallons of gasoline. Theproportion.of these savings that should be attributed to the four-day week cannot be, determined. The use of a factor of one-fifthmore attributed to the faur-day week-has hazards and amounts onlyto a guesst As a matteeWhindsight, in order to establish a reason-able estimate of the proportion of the total energy saved by thedeletion of one day would require careful advance planning andrecording on a weekly (four-day) and the single day basis. It

would almoit certainly require a change In some of our meteringdevices eta. This writer'doesn't like to even think about thevariables and details of this problem.

Electrical usage Is further confused by the addition of newbuildings that were heated and cooled by electricity. This ob-viously means an increased amount of electricity consumed and afactor in the total consumption of electricity.

Unfortunately, for comparative purposes, the mean tempera-ture for January was much warmer than normal. Actually the meanJanuary temperature for 1974 was 14.5 degrees higher than themean January temperature for 1973. The mean temperature'for theentire quarter 19/4 was 4.5 degrees above 1973. A compitisonof mean quarterly temperatures and amount of fuel oil consumedsuggests that'a five degree variation in mean temperature makesa difference of approximately' 10000 gallons. As noted abovethe'mean temperature'difference between-1973 and 19/4 was 4.5'degrees'. The fuel 611 savings was 36,303 gallops, Roughly onethird of the'f6el.saving'can be attributed to the warmer weitlier.We can reasonably extend this to othertheating as a gOoa,guesiof the variation of energy consumption dOe to different teirper-

_atureS.

LAKE CITY COMMUNITf COLL013MEW CONSERVATION PLAN

December 12, 1973

REATINO, VINTILATIM AND AIR CONDITIONIA1

AC-1 Lower thermostats to 68 degrees for winter operation and raise to78 degrees for awirer operation. Calibrate all thermostats foroperational accuracy and only maintenance personnel be allowed tochange setting.

AC-2 Cut off all air handling units in corridors, lobbies and lounges.Operate manually when temperature in these areas fall below 60degrees.

AC-3 Make use of outdoor air during comfortable weather at which timeheating/cooling equipment will be turned off,

AC-4 Put all buildings on time dock operation where possible. Clockswill be set to turn equipment on 2 to 3 hours (depending on outsidetemperature) prior to buildings being occupied and 1 to 2 hours priorto close of student schedule of class day. Buildings that oantt beput on time clock will be operated manually according to scheduleof building Use.

AC-5 No electric heaters maybe used at anytime except as maybe autho-rized by the president.

AC-6 Main entrance to Administration Building be closed when outsidetemperature is 45 degrees or below. And a sign be placed to directtraffic to enter at side entrance, This will allow bettor tempera-ture balance and control in the main lobby area.

AC-7 All ventilating fans be operated only when necessary for healthreasons and then under direction of program director.

AC-8 All cooling unite to drinking fountains be disconnected. All hotwater heaters be disconnected except where needed to meet statehealth regulations.

AC-9 All heating equipment be checked daily to insure most efficient op-eration. Including setting of combustion and using fuel oil addi-tive for cleaner burn.

Ac-10 All door closures be checked and sot for accurate operation. Cheekbe made for any leakage in doors, windows and ceiling, Repair wherenecessary.

210

MOTOR VSRIOLS OPERATION

MA Set maximum speed limit for all college owned "(Aides 50 MM.

141.2 Assignment of vehicles will be wade according to need, distance andfanotion to insure most efficient operation.

MV..) All motor vehicles will be pat on a strict service schedalt., Car-buretor, pOints, Pito and timing will be set and closely chockedto insure most efficient operation economically.

MV.h triorities will be set for use of all college vehicles and effortswill be made to curtail duplication of travel where poSsible.

MV.. A list of driving practices will be developed in an effort to con-serve fuel consumption through correct and precise operating pro-cedures. A copy of these practices will be given to each operatorof a vehicle with trip ticket. Strict Adherence will be requested.

MV-6 Tires on all vehicles'will be checked each time it is refueled andpressure to within one pound of maximum rating, as printOd on tireby mahafactuter, be maintained to prevent rolling resistance.

tiv..7 Request that all personnel limit their travel to amount traveledsame month last year where possible in the instructional areas.Request that all non-instruotional travel be 0.0,25% from amount,traveled each month,of last year if at all possible.

MV-8 Recptest all credit Cards be listed with trip ticket on each re.TIOst for vebicle,and recorde be kept in vehicle cost 41.10 on allfuel conOmption'

.

MOTRIOAL

MA Diecontinue toe of lighting in halls, corridors and lounges by'50%.tachinstractor be instructed to turn lights ott at the ol.oesOitieamts.

34 All ode*, lighting be discontinued, except where neode4;foi'600-ty'and soot city

E.3 Tennis court lights be used only in accordance with schedule etablisted and approved by the preeident.

FA Service check" all equi tone preventive schedule to -Pre:vent'Sower 1 6 and burnott

5 Air filters scheatile'be-stepped up by 25% to

II0m0:tA64001tAd 141000! w44.6111-44W4 air

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION

MO-1 Survey will be made and schedule established where custodial per-sonnel working at night will finish within two hours after classesare finished if possible.

MO.2 Procedure will be established charging custodial personnel to havelights on only in immediate areas they are working.

MO-3 Charge security officers with responsibility of enforcing policyof lights out program and indicating on daily report of areas bybuilding and room nuMber where policy is being violated

MO-4 Established schedule for maintenance personnel so equipment notpot on time olook will be ()prated mutually. And a preventivemaintenance service program can be maintained to insure most effic-ient operation.

ADMINISTRATIVE

A.1 Relax traditional dress requirements to accommodate temperatures inworking areas. Advise all personnel to wear warmer clothing inwinter and cooler in summer.

A.2 Centralize all office personnel who must work beyond normal hours,holidays and weekends to one building and one zone if possible sothat minimum heat, cooling and lights will be used.

A -3 Encourage all personnel, employees and students to form ear poolsas much as possible.

A.4 Present work week of five -day (eight hours a day) be changed tofour-day (ten hours a day) Monday-Thursday,

A.5 Request be made to all personnel, staff and students, via staffnotes and other college publications for strict adherence to energyconservation plan,

A-6 All requests be made for vehicles at least one week prior to need,so priorities can be followed in accordance with gasoline available.

ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY REMISED: (March 20, 1974) Upon the recommendationo.,ornrlertypprovo the Board of Trustees, the followingchanges will be made in the L000 Energy Oonservation Pblialt (1) Set allthermostats to 72 degrees effective immediately. (2) Set maximum speedlimit on all college vehicles at 55 M111 instead of 0 MPH, to &amide withFlorida laws. (3) Ae-connect eleotric water fountains for coolink ofwater (effective when 70% of the school clay is above 65 degrees).

212


ENERGY

TABLE 70. SUMMARY OF ENERGY COSTS AND SAVINGSJANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1974

TypeEnergy

AveragePer Unit CostIncrease Over 1973

1.11...wismoror.......11......Actual KW or Actual DollarGallons Savings Savings or LossOver 1973 Over 1973

Electricity 60.83% 107,204 KW (S5928.72)

Fuel Oil 113.80% 36,303 Gals. $ 603.71

LP Gas 99.06% 3,064 Gals. (S- 423.21)

Gasoline 40.58% 1,705 Gals. (S 203.09)

($5,951.31)

Note: Figures in parentheses represent Increased costs. Dean Sparkmanpoints out "that the average per unit cost on all of these items didincrease considerably from the 1973 cost. Also in 1974 we added'buildings that increased the net assignable square feet by 5.508 %. ralso might point out that this percentage Increase would not be a trueguide in determining amount of electrical increase since all thesebuildings are actually heated and cooled by electricity, whereas mastof our buildings are not heated and cooled by electricity."

0

213


ENERGY

TABLE '71. ELECTRICITY CONSUMED JANUARY THROUGH APRIL1970 THROUGH 1974

YEAR

ormak. Jan.MONTH

Feb., March April

KW used 141,197 232,1981970

Total cost $2,032.76 2,509,47

214,818 237,154'

MY.* .411e

TOTAL

$2,239.24 $2,634.32

KW used 244,601 232,7611971

222,629 232,409

Total cost $2,826.22 x2,737.91

827,367

59,415.79

932,400

$2,705.18 32,815.93

KW used 235,855 260,5554111 1972

Total Cost $3,077.07 3,163,25

206,628 234,508

$2,966.36 03,033.43

1973KW used 20,029 190,536

Total cost $3,652.70 2,958.63

271,3141 '2321657

$3,804.62 C3,520.97

KW used 181,439 209,334

1974 Total cost $4,345.82 5,1214.87

Price per kw 2.39510 2.141484

243,950 2000636

$5,486.47 14,908.68,

2.24900 2.44650

e11,o85.214

937,546drama 1.0.0.0.4

$12,240,11

942,561

$13,937.12

B35,359

4190865,84

2.37810

214

TABLE 72.


ENERGY

FUEL OIL CONSUMED JANUARY THROUGH APRIL1970 THROUGH 1974

YEAR MONTH TOTALJan. Feb. March Aprif--

Gallons used

Total cost

26,131 13,720---------

12,994 7,178 60,023

$2,866.57 $1,503.10 $1.425.44 3 787.43 $6,02.54

Gallons used1971

Total dost

24,102 22 289 14,914 6,793 68,098

$2,786.45 $20529.86 '11,687.41 , 757.42 $7,761.14

Gallons used1972

Total cost

22,284 24.919 Z3, 566 305 58,071E

$2 586.76 42,545.12 $1,547.88 3 42.70 36,722.46

Gallons used1973

Total cost

20,688 21 046 8,527 13,552 63,813

A 21473.4842 541.0 $1,47.96 $1,61.6.75 S7,67567

Gallons used

1974 Total cost

Price per gal.

7,164 13,553 -6,793 27,510

t 1,542.43 $3,636.27 $1,897.28 - 0 - $7,075.96

21.53ye 26.830 27.93? - 0 - 25.720

215

LAKE CITY COMMUNITY COLLEGEEVALUATION OF FOUR-DAY WEEK.

ENERGY

TABLE 73. PROPANE GAS CONSUMED JANUARY THROUGH APRIL1970 THROUGH 1974

YEAR MONTH TOTALIan. Feb. March April

p

Gallons used1970

1871 273/ 2114 2327 9043 gals.

Total cost 5260.09 5379.61 5293.85 $323.47 $1,257.02

Gallons used1971

Total lost

i

2252 2381 2295 1906 8834 gala.

$313.01! $330.97 5319.01 $264.95 81,227.97

Gallons used1972

Total cost

2147L

2619 2070 1300

-

8136 gals.

5298.44 64.04 t287.73 $180.70 $1,130.91

Gallons used1973

Total cost

2e43 2421 1499 2267 9030 gals.

$395.22 !.%336.52 $210.56 092.43 $1,344173

Gallons used

1974 Total cost

Price per gai.

-,... ...------------.....--

1766 1052 1646 1502 5966 gals,

+$48.37 $332.76 $512.5 $474.27 41,767.94

25.390 . )1.630 3i.130. 31.570' 29.640

216


ENERGY

TABLE 74. GASOLINE CONSUMED JANUARY THROUGH APRIL1970 THROUGH 1974

YEAR MONTH TOTAL,..-----. San. Feb. March April

Gallons used 1783 1899 2386 2115 81831970Total cNit 91173.13 $451.94 .0597 57 .1553.98 92,076.62

Gallons used 1245 2070 2078 1783 71761971Total cost W0.85 ,,452441. 04.08 ..415,41 $1,751.15

Gallons used1972

Total cost

1267 2139 1186 2145 6737

S3o2469 $627.41 $312.70 4505.99 10-;748:61:

. Gallons used1973

TOtal cost

1870 1771. 2195 1966 7802

$535!51 456.02 $559.07 55o8.03 j2,058.63

Gallons used

1974 Total cost

Piice per gal.

1056 177b 1364 1907 6007

00.95 i61o.oz 5557.77 $7141,96 $21261.72

35.330 34.46t 14,00 38.94 racy.'

217


ENERGY

TABLE 75. MEAN TEMPERATURES FOR NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDAJANUARY THROUGH APRIL 1970 THROUGH 1974

YEAR

Mean Temperatures

Mean Temperatures

Jan. Feb. March AprilFor QuArter

1970 46.0 49.6 60.7 69.1 56.4

1971 51.2 53.3 54.6 62.9 55.5

1972 59.0 53.4 59.8 68.2 60.1

1973 52.1 50.7 64.7 64.1 57.9

1974 66.6 53.7 64.2 64.9 62.4

Note: These mean temperatures are for Tallahassee. Such meantemperatures can be expected to run very close to the Lake Citymean temperatures.

218

" -


ENERGY

TABLE 76. MEAN QUARTERLY TEMPERATURES IN RANK ORDERAND FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION 1970 - 1793

YEAR TEMPERATURE GALLONS

1971 55.5 68,098

1970 56.4 60,023

-1973 57.9 63,813

1972 60.1 58,074

UNIVERSITY OF CALIF.

LOS ANGELES

JUL 26 1974

CLEARINGHOUSEFORJUNIOR COLLEGE

INFORMATION

219

Documents

DOCUUENT MOHR. - ERIC - Education Resources ... MOHR. ED 093 397 JC 740 210 AUTHOR Hardman, Clark TITLE Evaluation of Experimental Pour-Day Week Class Schedule, January Through April