• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Title Page
 Abstract
 Executive summary
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Objectives
 Previous research
 Methods
 Data collection
 Data analysis
 Results
 Conclusions
 Further study
 Reference
 Appendices






Group Title: Economic information report - University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; EI 02-2
Title: An analysis of the Indian River Research and Education Center student needs survey
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027246/00001
 Material Information
Title: An analysis of the Indian River Research and Education Center student needs survey
Series Title: Economic information report
Physical Description: vi, 82 p. : charts ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Minton, Tara M
Willett, Lois Schertz
University of Florida -- Food and Resource Economics Dept
Indian River Research Education Center
Publisher: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 2002
 Subjects
Subject: Instructional systems -- Planning -- Statistics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Curriculum evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Market surveys -- Statistics -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural students -- Education -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 37).
Statement of Responsibility: Tara M. Minton and Lois Schertz Willett, Indian River Research and Education Center, University of Florida/IFAS.
General Note: "April 2002."
General Note: Includes IRREC student needs survey questionnaire.
Funding: Economic information report (Gainesville, Fla.) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027246
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 003318447
oclc - 49756552
notis - ANV9969

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Title Page
        Title Page 1
        Title Page 2
    Abstract
        Page i
    Executive summary
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Objectives
        Page 1
    Previous research
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Methods
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Data collection
        Page 5
    Data analysis
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis
            Page 10
        One-sided chi-square analysis
            Page 10
        Two-sided chi-square analysis
            Page 11
    Results
        Page 11
        One-sided chi-square test results
            Page 12
            Page 13
        Two-sided chi-square test results
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
        Statistically significant variables
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
        Other variables
            Page 30
            Page 31
            Page 32
    Conclusions
        Page 33
        Typical responder
            Page 34
        Recommendations for academic content
            Page 34
        Recommendations for academic structure
            Page 35
    Further study
        Page 36
    Reference
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Appendices
        Page 39
        Appendix A: Survey materials
            Page 40
            Cover letter 1
                Page 41
            Cover letter 2
                Page 42
            Survey
                Page 43
                Page 44
                Page 45
                Page 46
                Page 47
                Page 48
                Page 49
            Reminder postcard
                Page 50
        Appendix B: Crosstabulations significantly associated with variables
            Page 51
            Age
                Page 52
                Page 53
            Gender
                Page 54
            Material status
                Page 55
                Page 56
            Income
                Page 57
                Page 58
            County of residence
                Page 59
            Distance from Ft. Pierce
                Page 60
            Urban/Rural
                Page 61
            Employment status
                Page 62
            County of employment
                Page 63
            Type of employment organization
                Page 64
            Employment staff number
                Page 65
            Length of employment
                Page 66
                Page 67
            Current education status
                Page 68
                Page 69
            Internship opportunities
                Page 70
                Page 71
            IRREC subject area
                Page 72
            Agribusiness subject area
                Page 73
            Horticultural science subject area
                Page 74
            Course level
                Page 75
                Page 76
            Course length
                Page 77
            Course season
                Page 78
            Course time
                Page 79
            Testing method
                Page 80
            Funding
                Page 81
                Page 82
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida





"Tara M. Minton
Lois Schertz Willett


Economic Information


Report El 02-2


MAY 0 2 2002

RARSTON SCIENCE LIBRARY

An Analysis of the Indian River Research and
Education Center Student Needs Survey


UNIVERSITY OF
9 FLORIDA
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Food and Resource Economics Department
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Gainesville. Florida 32611


April 2002
















An Analysis of the Indian River Research and
Education Center Student Needs Survey












Tara M. Minton and Lois Schertz Willett *
Indian River Research and Education Center
University of Florida/IFAS
April 2002







UNIVERSITY OF
.FLORIDA
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

SThe authors are Coordinator of Economic Analysis and Professor, respectively, at the Indian River
Research and Education Center of the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
Fort Pierce, Florida. The authors wish to thank the Dean of Academic Programs and the College of
Agricultural and Life Sciences for funding this project. The authors also wish to thank Dori Comer and
Suzanne Thomsbury for reviewing this paper, and Kathy Davis and Linda Smith for their assistance.












An Analysis of the Indian River Research and Education
Center Student Needs Survey






Abstract: The Indian River Research and Education Center (IRREC) of the University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), located in Ft. Pierce, Florida,
conducted a mail survey of potential students in the local geographical area, consisting of
Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin and Okeechobee counties. The purpose of the survey was
to collect information regarding student preferences for academic content and structure.
Demographic information, as well as, data on the employment and educational history of
the potential students were collected. Survey results and related recommendations are
presented.


Key Words:


Academic Content
Academic Structure
Agriculture
Branch Campus
Distance Education
Student Preferences











Executive Summary


The Indian River Research and Education Center (IRREC) of the University of Florida's
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), located in Ft. Pierce, Florida,
conducted a mail survey of potential students in the local geographical area, consisting of
Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin and Okeechobee counties. The purpose of the survey was
to collect information regarding student preferences for academic content and structure.
Demographic information, as well as, data on the employment and educational history of
the potential students were collected. Survey results and related recommendations are
presented below.

Recommendations for Academic Content
* The respondents prefer internship opportunities. Strengthening its internship program
will benefit both IRREC and its students.
* Agribusiness is the preferred subject area offered at IRREC. Promoting agribusiness
will draw additional students.
* Citrus production is the preferred horticultural sciences subject area. IRREC should
strengthen its citrus program.
* Animal science, landscape architecture, and food science and human nutrition were
the preferred IFAS subject areas not currently offered at IRREC. The Center should
carefully determine the demand for these subject areas.

Recommendations for Academic Structure
* The responders prefer coursework at the graduate level. IRREC should promote and
expand its graduate program.
* Most respondents reported having no preference for course length. Of those that did
have a preference, most preferred courses that were eight weeks in length or less. IRREC
should determine exactly who prefers these shorter courses and how they want these
courses structured.
* Most respondents reported having no preference for course season. Of those that did
have a preference, most preferred taking courses in the fall. IRREC should make sure
they offer several fall courses.
* Tuesday and Wednesdays are the preferred days for taking courses. This should be
taken into account when course schedules are made.
* Evenings are the preferred time for taking courses. Mornings are the second
preference. This should be considered when designing the course schedules.
* Live lecture is the preferred method of course delivery. Internet/WWW is the next
preferred method. Courses delivered via distance education should allow time at the
beginning of the term for students to become familiar with the delivery method.
* Face-to-face interaction is the preferred method of communicating with the professor.
Each professor should be available by offering set office hours, time at the beginning of
each class, etc. Email is the second preferred method.
* Take-home tests were the preferred testing method.
" Most respondents anticipate self-funding their education. Some would like to receive
outside funding. IRREC should provide avenues for financial assistance such as
scholarships, assistantships, student loans, etc.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Table of Contents


Executive Summary ................................................................ ii

List of Tables ..................................................... ...................... v

1.0 Introduction ................................................................... 1

2.0 Objectives ................................................................. 1

3.0 Previous Research ............................................ .............. 1

4.0 Methods .............................................................. ........ 3

5.0 Data Collection ............................................................ 5

6.0 D ata A analysis ..................................................................... 6
6.1 Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Analysis ................... 10
6.2 One-Sided Chi-Square Analysis ...................................... 10
6.3 Two-Sided Chi-Square Analysis ...................................... 11

7.0 R results ........................................ ...... ...... ...... ......... 11
7.1 One-Sided Chi-Square Test Results ................................ 12
7.2 Two-Sided Chi-Square Test Results ................................ 14
7.3 Statistically Significant Variables .................................. 17
7.4 Other Variables ........................................ ............ 30

8.0 Conclusions ........................................................................ 33
8.1 Typical Responder ..................................... ............ 34
8.2 Recommendations for Academic Content ........................ 34
8.3 Recommendations for Academic Structure ........................ 35

9.0 Further Study ................................................................. 36

R eferences .................................................................................. 37

Appendix A Survey Materials ........................................................ 40
A.1 Cover Letter 1 ........................................................... 41
A.2 Cover Letter 2 ......................................................... 42
A.3 Survey .................................................................... 43
A.4 Reminder Postcard ................................................. 50

Appendix B Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Variables ......... 51
B.1 Age ...................................................................... 52
B.2 Gender ................................................................ 54


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











B.3 Marital Status .......................................... ............ 55
B.4 Income ............................................................... 57
B.5 County of Residence ...................................... ....... 59
B.6 Distance from Ft. Pierce ...................................... .... 60
B.7 Urban/Rural .......................................... ............. 61
B.8 Employment Status ...................................... .......... 62
B.9 County of Employment ..................................... ....... 63
B.10 Type of Employment Organization ................................... 64
B.11 Employment Staff Number ........................................... 65
B.12 Length of Employment ............................................. 66
B. 13 Current Education Status ..................................... .... 68
B.14 Internship Opportunities ............................................... 70
B.15 IRREC Subject Area ........................................ ....... 72
B.16 Agribusiness Subject Area ....... ........................................ 73
B.17 Horticultural Science Subject Area ................................. 74
B.18 Course Level ........................................................... 75
B.19 Course Length ..................................................... 77
B.20 Course Season ..................................................... 78
B.21 Course Time .......................................... ............ 79
B.22 Testing Method ........ ...................................... ..... 80
B.23 Funding ............................................................ 81


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











List of Tables

Table 1. Mailing List Breakdown ..................................................... 5

Table 2. Survey Sections and Number of Questions ................................ 5

Table 3. Response Rate Summary ................................................. 6

Table 4. Variable Descriptions ............................................................ 7

Table 5. One-Sided Chi-Square Analysis Test Results ............................ 13

Table 6. Two-Sided Chi-Square Analysis Test Results ............................ 15

Table 7. Age Frequency ............................................................. 17

Table 8. Gender Frequency ............................................ ............. 17

Table 9. Marital Status Frequency ......................................... ........ 18

Table 10. Income Frequency ........................................... ............. 18

Table 11. County of Residence Frequency ......................................... 19

Table 12. Distance from Ft. Pierce Frequency ......................................... 20

Table 13. Employment Status Frequency ........................................... 20

Table 14. Type of Employment Organization Frequency ......................... 21

Table 15. Employment Staff Number Frequency ...................................... 21

Table 16. Length of Employment Frequency ......................................... 22

Table 17. Current Education Status Frequency ...................................... 22

Table 18. Internship Opportunities Frequency ......................................... 23

Table 19. IRREC Subject Area Frequency ........................................ 24

Table 20. Agribusiness Subject Area Frequency ...................................... 24

Table 21. Horticultural Sciences Subject Area Frequency ........................ 25

Table 22. Course Level Frequency ..................................... ............ 26


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












Table 23. Course Length Frequency ...................................... ....... 27

Table 24. Course Season Frequency ...................................... ....... 27

Table 25. Course Time Frequency ...................................... ......... 28

Table 26. Testing Method Frequency ............................................... 29

Table 27. Funding Method Frequency .............................................. 29

Table 28. Ethnicity Frequency ......................................................... 30

Table 29. Employment Position Frequency ........................................... 31

Table 30. Education Level Frequency ............................................... 31

Table 31. Other IFAS Area Frequency ................................................ 32

Table 32. Course Day Frequency ........................................................ 32

Table 33. Course Delivery Method Frequency ....................................... 33

Table 34. Interaction with Professor Frequency ..................................... 33


List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Florida ................................................................ 4























An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











1.0 Introduction


As time passes, people change and the world evolves. So too must the field of higher
education. To provide the best education possible to as many students as possible, the
University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) developed a
system of satellite campuses, as well as a distance education system. These two systems,
together, allow the university to serve an increased number of students, including both
non-traditional and place-bound students. There are a number of Research and Education
Centers throughout the state of Florida offering teaching programs and/or distance
education programs. One of these centers, the Indian River Research and Education
Center (IRREC), is located in Fort Pierce, Florida.

The year 1998 marked the beginning of the on-site teaching and distance education
programs at IRREC. IRREC currently offers undergraduate education in two areas:
Agribusiness Management and Horticultural Sciences. Graduate education is also
available in the areas of Agribusiness Management and Agricultural Education and
Communication. As the needs of potential students change, the Center must evolve as
well to better fulfill those needs. In order to know the desires and preferences of these
potential students, the University of Florida's College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
recently conducted a mail survey to capture this information.


2.0 Objectives

Ascertaining information from potential students regarding their educational needs and
preferences was the main objective in conducting this mail survey. Demographic
information was collected along with employment and educational history. Preferences
for subject areas and course structure were also gathered. The researchers hoped to
answer questions such as, "Would the respondents prefer to receive a certificate, college
credit, or a degree?" and "What time of day would the respondents prefer to take courses:
morning, afternoon, or evening?" The faculty and staff in the teaching program at IRREC
plan to use the information acquired from this survey to examine their current procedures
and alter them wherever appropriate to better fulfill the needs of its students.


3.0 Previous Research

The history of higher education in America has been characterized by frequent change. In
its early years, the system was made up of small, private colleges for the well-to-do. Over
time, public-supported universities arose to provide education to all economic groups.
The need for higher education continues to grow with the expanding population of this
nation and change in structure is inherent with this growth (Telg and Cheek 1998).

Distance education, a new and developing educational delivery system, is a new direction
on the traditional method of course delivery, which predominantly uses classroom
teaching. Telg and Cheek (1998) define distance education as two-way communication


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











1.0 Introduction


As time passes, people change and the world evolves. So too must the field of higher
education. To provide the best education possible to as many students as possible, the
University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) developed a
system of satellite campuses, as well as a distance education system. These two systems,
together, allow the university to serve an increased number of students, including both
non-traditional and place-bound students. There are a number of Research and Education
Centers throughout the state of Florida offering teaching programs and/or distance
education programs. One of these centers, the Indian River Research and Education
Center (IRREC), is located in Fort Pierce, Florida.

The year 1998 marked the beginning of the on-site teaching and distance education
programs at IRREC. IRREC currently offers undergraduate education in two areas:
Agribusiness Management and Horticultural Sciences. Graduate education is also
available in the areas of Agribusiness Management and Agricultural Education and
Communication. As the needs of potential students change, the Center must evolve as
well to better fulfill those needs. In order to know the desires and preferences of these
potential students, the University of Florida's College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
recently conducted a mail survey to capture this information.


2.0 Objectives

Ascertaining information from potential students regarding their educational needs and
preferences was the main objective in conducting this mail survey. Demographic
information was collected along with employment and educational history. Preferences
for subject areas and course structure were also gathered. The researchers hoped to
answer questions such as, "Would the respondents prefer to receive a certificate, college
credit, or a degree?" and "What time of day would the respondents prefer to take courses:
morning, afternoon, or evening?" The faculty and staff in the teaching program at IRREC
plan to use the information acquired from this survey to examine their current procedures
and alter them wherever appropriate to better fulfill the needs of its students.


3.0 Previous Research

The history of higher education in America has been characterized by frequent change. In
its early years, the system was made up of small, private colleges for the well-to-do. Over
time, public-supported universities arose to provide education to all economic groups.
The need for higher education continues to grow with the expanding population of this
nation and change in structure is inherent with this growth (Telg and Cheek 1998).

Distance education, a new and developing educational delivery system, is a new direction
on the traditional method of course delivery, which predominantly uses classroom
teaching. Telg and Cheek (1998) define distance education as two-way communication


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











1.0 Introduction


As time passes, people change and the world evolves. So too must the field of higher
education. To provide the best education possible to as many students as possible, the
University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) developed a
system of satellite campuses, as well as a distance education system. These two systems,
together, allow the university to serve an increased number of students, including both
non-traditional and place-bound students. There are a number of Research and Education
Centers throughout the state of Florida offering teaching programs and/or distance
education programs. One of these centers, the Indian River Research and Education
Center (IRREC), is located in Fort Pierce, Florida.

The year 1998 marked the beginning of the on-site teaching and distance education
programs at IRREC. IRREC currently offers undergraduate education in two areas:
Agribusiness Management and Horticultural Sciences. Graduate education is also
available in the areas of Agribusiness Management and Agricultural Education and
Communication. As the needs of potential students change, the Center must evolve as
well to better fulfill those needs. In order to know the desires and preferences of these
potential students, the University of Florida's College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
recently conducted a mail survey to capture this information.


2.0 Objectives

Ascertaining information from potential students regarding their educational needs and
preferences was the main objective in conducting this mail survey. Demographic
information was collected along with employment and educational history. Preferences
for subject areas and course structure were also gathered. The researchers hoped to
answer questions such as, "Would the respondents prefer to receive a certificate, college
credit, or a degree?" and "What time of day would the respondents prefer to take courses:
morning, afternoon, or evening?" The faculty and staff in the teaching program at IRREC
plan to use the information acquired from this survey to examine their current procedures
and alter them wherever appropriate to better fulfill the needs of its students.


3.0 Previous Research

The history of higher education in America has been characterized by frequent change. In
its early years, the system was made up of small, private colleges for the well-to-do. Over
time, public-supported universities arose to provide education to all economic groups.
The need for higher education continues to grow with the expanding population of this
nation and change in structure is inherent with this growth (Telg and Cheek 1998).

Distance education, a new and developing educational delivery system, is a new direction
on the traditional method of course delivery, which predominantly uses classroom
teaching. Telg and Cheek (1998) define distance education as two-way communication


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












between teacher and students) who are separated by a geographical distance and/or time,
where the communication is mediated by technology to support the educational process.
As distance education programs in agriculture continue to gain in popularity, much is
being learned about the typical student attracted to these programs (Miller 1997). Miller
(1997) suggests that distance students prefer to control the pace of their learning and
prefer independent study. They may also have less need for structured learning
experiences and less need for interaction with the professor or other students.

Previous studies have shown that teaching courses at a distance requires considerable
adjustments by both the instructor and the distance students (Hamilton 1999). Some
distance educators will be required to develop new skills in course planning and delivery
(Jackson 1995). Teaching styles must be adjusted to fit the distance requirements, while
technology adds new challenges that require modifications be made by both the instructor
and the students (Batte et al. 2001). This technology requires instructors to be aware of an
audience that is not physically present (Diebel et al. 1998). Instructors need to ensure that
students, while not physically there, still remain filly integrated members of the
classroom (Fenwick et al. 1998). These deterrents may keep professors from teaching
distance courses. A study by h lurphrey and Dooley (2000) suggests that adequate
administrative support together with proper training and incentives may encourage
instructors to enter the realm of distance education.

Research and education centers, branch campuses, or educational locations other than a
main university campus provide a niche market approach to education. A study by Miller
and Pilcher (2000) found that off-campus courses fulfill important educational needs.
Students at these off-campus locations have unique characteristics such as increased age
and more real-world experience, which they bring to the classroom (M miller and Pilcher
2001). This study also found evidence to disagree with the common faculty perception
that off-campus courses reach a lower level of co gniti\ e outcomes than on-campus
courses. These off-campus locations face numerous obstacles and challenges that are
unique to their location, including recruitment, enrollment, and retention of students.

A study conducted by DesJardins, Dundar and Hendel (1999) found a significant link
between institutional policies and the behavior of students in the college application and
enrollment process. DesJardins, Dundar and Hendel (1999) found that recruitment efforts
tend to be ineffective and retention problems can occur when the goals of an individual
student and the practices of the institution are not congruent. A research and education
center or branch campus of a university that caters to place-bound or non-traditional
students has a more unique pool of potential applicants than a main campus of a large
university. This suggests it is very important for the research and education center to
carefully consider its policies in relation to the goals of its students. Identifying students'
goals is necessary for a successful relationship between the institution and the student

A sur, ev on student recruitment and retention conducted by lark-way and Borgelt (1996)
found the following to be the top methods of recruitment: contact with the college
through scholarship interviews, etc., recruitment literature on the general field of study
and on the specific college, visitation programs that encourage students to visit the


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











department, and personal contact with students at high schools and community colleges.
The study suggests using high school teachers and advisors as recruiters and recommends
keeping them updated on current research, etc. Distribution of literature at high schools,
community colleges, and special events in the local area is a key method of reaching
these potential students. Offering scholarships is a good way to reward performance and
recruit top students.

The study by Markway and Borgelt (1996) also discovered a number of reasons for
attrition or problems with retention of students. The study found students were concerned
with employment opportunities in their field of study and often perceived other fields as
having better opportunities. Some were concerned that the number of courses offered
was too small, while others found the curriculum to be more difficult than expected.
Inadequate hands-on experience and loss of interest in the field were other reasons cited
for attrition. The study suggests taking students' concerns into account may help an
institution increase retention of its students.

Another study of recruitment strategies conducted by Rudmann, et al., (1992) found the
most common reasons for unsuccessful recruitment efforts to be limited time and
resources. Many of the programs studied did not have an individual designated with the
responsibilities of recruitment. In cases where there was a designated individual, they
found that little time was actually spent on recruiting. Many of the programs did not have
a recruitment committee and those that did met at a frequency of every six months or
longer. Very few of the programs studied reported having a budget line item designated
for recruitment. They found that many programs did not evaluate the effectiveness of
their recruitment strategies and they suggest that doing so could help target efforts to
more effective techniques.

Continued evaluation of its educational programs allows an institution to remain
competitive (Osmond and Hoover 1995). The University of Florida regularly supports
efforts for evaluation and improvement of the programs it offers to ensure its ability to
provide a high quality education to each of its students. Evidence of this can be found in
the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences' desire to support the evaluation of the
educational programs at the Indian River Research and Education Center. The results of
this evaluation will enable the Center to tailor its programs and recruitment efforts toward
the desires of their potential students as suggested by the studies conducted by Markway
and Borgelt (1996), and Rudmann, et al., (1992).


4.0 Methods

The initial step in this research process was determining exactly which persons to survey.
Three groups were targeted: 1) undergraduate students studying agriculture at the
University of Florida with hometowns in the Treasure Coast area, 2) Treasure Coast
community college students, and 3) agricultural business owners in the Treasure Coast
region. For this study, the Treasure Coast region is comprised of the following four
Florida counties: Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Okeechobee.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey






















* Indian River County
I St. Lucie County
0 Martin County
SJ Okeechobee County


-x


Figure 1. Map of Florida

The researchers felt each of the three targeted groups would contribute valuable and
varied information to the results of the survey. The University of Florida students have
been exposed to upper level education at a major university. They know what they like
and dislike about their experience and can provide insight into the structure of programs
at IRREC. The local community college students have fresh expectations for their upper
level college experience. Sharing these expectations will help the university tailor its
programs at IRREC to better fulfill their expectations. The local agricultural business
owners employ a number of potential students of the Center and anticipate hiring IRREC
graduates. These business owners know precisely what skills and knowledge they expect
from their employees.

The University of Florida (UF) provided the names and addresses of its current College
of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS) students with hometowns on the Treasure
Coast. Of the 150 students on the UF list, all 150 (100%) were surveyed. A list of names
and addresses was acquired from Indian River Community College (IRCC) representing
the community college students in the Treasure Coast area. This list of students who had
applied for graduation in December of 2000 included 180 students of which all 180
(100%) were surveyed. The industry list was assembled from membership directories
from the Chamber of Commerce offices in each of the four counties. Of the 1,582
agriculture-related names on the Chamber list, 530 (34%) were randomly selected and
surveyed. The three lists were compiled to produce an overall mailing list of 860 targeted
individuals. (Table 1.)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey









Table 1. Mailing List Breakdown
Mailing List as %
Entire List Mailing List of Entire List
UF-CALS Students 150 150 100%
Community College Students 180 180 100%
Chamber of Commerce 1,582 530 34%
St. Lucie County 475 155 33%
Indian River County 452 116 27%
Martin County 337 153 45%
Okeechobee County 318 106 33%
Totals 1,912 860 45%

Following initial survey design, the University of Florida's Institutional Review Board
along with associated colleagues reviewed the survey instrument.' The 42 survey
questions were targeted to six different survey sections: demographics, employment,
education, academic content, academic structure, and other comments. (Table 2.) Survey
materials can be found in Appendix A of this report.

Table 2. Survey Sections and Number of Questions
Survey Section Number of Questions
1 Demographics 8 Questions
2 Employment 7 Questions
3 Education 6 Questions
4 Academic Content 9 Questions
5 Academic Structure 12 Questions
6 Other Comments Space provided for responder's comments

A pretest survey (mailed February 2, 2001) of 44 or 5% of the overall mailing list was
conducted. Responses were such that no significant changes to the survey instrument
were required. All materials were printed and prepared for mailing with assistance from
the Print Shop and the Mail Center within the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(IFAS). The initial mailing of the survey occurred on March 6, 2001. Reminder postcards
were sent on March 20, 2001. The survey was mailed a second time on April 3, 2001 to
those individuals who had not responded to the survey.


5.0 Data Collection

Upon return, the surveys were dated and incorrect addresses were noted. A Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet was designed allowing data entry to occur as the surveys were
returned. Common responses to many of the questions were coded and tracked
throughout the data entry process. May 3, 2001 marked the end of the data collection
period. Response rates were then calculated and summarized for the various mailing lists.
(Table 3.)

' University of Florida Institutional Review Board #2001-17.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Table 3. Response Rate Summary
Number Incorrect Responses Response
Mailed Addresses Rate
UF/CALS Students 150 3 67 46%
Community College Students 179 4 60 34%
Chambers of Commerce 531 39 123 25%
St. Lucie County 156 9 39 27%
Indian River County 116 12 24 23%
Martin County 153 6 34 23%
Okeechobee County 106 12 26 28%
Overall 860 46(5%) 250 31%

The IRREC Student Needs Survey gleaned an overall response rate of 31%. The
UF/CALS students showed the highest response rate with 46%. Thirty-four percent of the
community college students that were surveyed responded. The Chambers of Commerce
provided the lowest response rate with an average of 25%. Since the survey instrument
was tailored more directly to students, this is not a surprising figure. The Chambers of
Commerce members are not a pool of actual students, but more likely are employers of
students with some members coincidentally being students themselves. A survey written
specifically for the Chamber members would likely have received a higher rate of
response.


6.0 Data Analysis

The data analysis process began by importing the data into SPSS, a statistical analysis
software package used for analyzing data (Norusis 2000). Prior to undergoing data
analysis, a number of variable response categories were regrouped into fewer categories
(Weisberg et al. 1996). To clarify this regrouping process, an example is provided.
Following this example, Table 4 is presented which provides a definition of each variable
and all the possible responses associated with that variable. Responses for the following
10 variables were regrouped: age, income, distance of residence from Ft. Pierce,
employment status, employment staff number, length of employment, preferred
agribusiness subject area, course level, course length, and funding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey



























Table 4. Variable Descriptions
Variable Name Variable Description Responses
Age Age of respondent 1=0-25 Years
2=26-50 Years
3=51+ Years
Gender Sex of respondent l=Male
2=Female
Ethnicity Ethnic background of l=Caucasian (white)
respondent 2=African American
3=Hispanic
4=Asian
5=Indian
6=Native American
7=Other
Marital Status Marital status of l=Single
respondent 2=Married
Income Respondent's current 1=$0-$40,000
household income 2=$41,000-$80,000
3=$81,000+
County of Residence County in which l=Indian River
respondent resides 2=St. Lucie
3=Martin
4=Okeechobee
5=Alachua (UF main campus)
6=Other
Distance from Ft. Distance of respondent's 1=0-20 Miles
Pierce residence from Ft. Pierce 2=20+ Miles
Urban/Rural Classification of =In the City
respondent's residence 2=Outskirts of Town
3=In Farming Area


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


Variable Regrouping Example: The Age Variable

The original age variable has the following six age groups:
(1)0-18 (4)41-50
(2) 19-25 (5)51-65
(3) 26-40 (6) 65+

The regrouped age variable has the following three age groups:
(1)0-25
(2) 26-50
(3)51+












Employment Status

County of
Employment


Respondent's current
employment status
County in which
respondent works


1=Employed
2=Unemployed
l=Indian River
2=St. Lucie
3=Martin
4=Okeechobee
5=Alachua (UF main campus)
6=Other Location
7=Combination of Above


Type of Type of organization 1=Gov't/Public-Educational
Employment employing respondent 2=Gov't/Public-Non-Educational
Organization 3=Business-Agricultural
4=Business-Non-Agricultural
5=Not-for-Profit
Employment Staff Number of employees at 1=0-50 Employees
Number respondent's place of 2=51 + Employees
employment
Employment Classification of =Owner/CEO/Agency Head
Position respondent's employment 2=Executive Manager
position 3=Professional/Technical
4=Sales/Outreach
5=Clerical
6=Staff
7=Farm Crew Member
8=Other
Length of Length of time respondent 1=0-5 Years
Employment has been employed at 2= 6-10 years
current organization 3=11+ Years
Education Level Highest level of education 1=High School Diploma
respondent has received 2=Some College Courses
3=Associates Degree
4=Bachelors Degree
5=Some Graduate Courses
6=Graduate Degree
Current Education Courses currently being 1=No
Status taken by respondent 2=Yes
Internships Gauges respondent's l=Yes
interest in internship 2=No
opportunities 3=Don't Know
IRREC Subject Area Respondent's preferred 1=Agribusiness
subject area offered at 2=Horticultural Sciences
IRREC 3=Ag Education & Communication
Agribusiness Subject Respondent's preferred l=Human Resources & Sales
Area agribusiness subject area 2=Trade, Policy, & Marketing
3=Quantitative, Finance, & Theory


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


--











Horticulture Subject Respondent's preferred l=Vegetable Production
Area horticultural science 2=Environmental Horticulture
subject area 3=Citrus Production
4=PostHarvest Physiology
Other IFAS Area Respondent's preferred l=Ag Ed & Communication
subject area offered by 2=Ag & Biological Engineering
IFAS but not at IRREC 3=Ag Operations Management
4=Animal Sciences
5=Entomology & Nematology
6=Fisheries/Aquatic Sciences
7=Landscape Architecture
8=Food Science/Human Nutrition
9=Forestry
10=Natural Resources
1 l=Soil & Water Sciences
12=Turfgrass Science
13=Wildlife Ecology
Course Level Respondent's preferred l=Audit or Certification
level of coursework 2=Undergraduate
3=Graduate
4=Not Interested in Coursework
Course Length Respondent's preferred 1=16 Weeks
length of courses 2=8 Weeks or Less
3=No Preference
Course Season Respondent's preferred l=Spring
time of the year for taking 2=Summer
courses 3=Fall
4=Winter
5=No Preference
Course Day Respondent's preferred day l=Monday
of the week for taking 2=Tuesday
courses 3=Wednesday
4=Thursday
5=Friday
6=Saturday
7=Sunday
8=No Preference
Course Time Respondent's preferred l=Moming
time of day for taking 2=Afternoon
courses 3=Evening
4=No Preference


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Course Delivery
Method


Respondent's preferred
method of course delivery


1=Internet/WWW
2=Videoconference
3=Video Tape
4=Local Television
5=Lab
6=Live Lecture


Method of Respondent's preferred l=Chat Room
Interacting with method of interacting with 2=Email
Professor the professor 3=Fax
4=Telephone
5=Face to Face
Testing Method Respondent's preferred l=Proctored, Classroom
testing method 2=Proctored, Not Classroom
3=Take Home Exam
Funding Method Respondent's anticipated I=Self-Funded
method of funding the 2=Outside Funding
education 3=Combination of Above


6.1 Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Analysis

Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis were conducted for all variables. The
descriptive statistics provide data on the number of valid responses, the minimum,
maximum, and mean values of the responses, and the standard deviation of the responses.
Frequency analysis provides the number of responses for each possible answer for each
question along with the percentage that particular response represents of the total number
of responses for that question. It also gives a reporting of the invalid responses.

6.2 One-Sided Chi-Square Analysis

The survey variables were tested using one-sided chi-square analysis. The one-sided chi-
square analysis is described below:


Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis:
Level of Significance:

Assumptions:



Conclusions:


Ho: Each response is equally likely to occur.
Ha: Each response is not equally likely to occur.
a =.05

(1) No more than 20% of expected counts have values less
than 5.
(2) No expected counts have values less than 1.

Reject Hoifp < a.
Do not reject Ho ifp > a.


The one-sided chi-square analysis testing procedure has two assumptions. No more than
20% of the expected counts should be less than five, and not one of the expected counts


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Course Delivery
Method


Respondent's preferred
method of course delivery


1=Internet/WWW
2=Videoconference
3=Video Tape
4=Local Television
5=Lab
6=Live Lecture


Method of Respondent's preferred l=Chat Room
Interacting with method of interacting with 2=Email
Professor the professor 3=Fax
4=Telephone
5=Face to Face
Testing Method Respondent's preferred l=Proctored, Classroom
testing method 2=Proctored, Not Classroom
3=Take Home Exam
Funding Method Respondent's anticipated I=Self-Funded
method of funding the 2=Outside Funding
education 3=Combination of Above


6.1 Descriptive Statistics and Frequency Analysis

Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis were conducted for all variables. The
descriptive statistics provide data on the number of valid responses, the minimum,
maximum, and mean values of the responses, and the standard deviation of the responses.
Frequency analysis provides the number of responses for each possible answer for each
question along with the percentage that particular response represents of the total number
of responses for that question. It also gives a reporting of the invalid responses.

6.2 One-Sided Chi-Square Analysis

The survey variables were tested using one-sided chi-square analysis. The one-sided chi-
square analysis is described below:


Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis:
Level of Significance:

Assumptions:



Conclusions:


Ho: Each response is equally likely to occur.
Ha: Each response is not equally likely to occur.
a =.05

(1) No more than 20% of expected counts have values less
than 5.
(2) No expected counts have values less than 1.

Reject Hoifp < a.
Do not reject Ho ifp > a.


The one-sided chi-square analysis testing procedure has two assumptions. No more than
20% of the expected counts should be less than five, and not one of the expected counts


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












should be less than one. The expected count is the value one would plan to receive should
each response be independent from the other responses of the variable. Rejecting Ho of
the one-sided chi-square test indicates that the responses were not evenly distributed over
the potential answers for that particular question; there was a statistically significant
difference between the responses to the question at hand. Failure to reject Ho of the one-
sided chi-square test suggests the differences between the responses to the question were
not statistically significant, and the responses were evenly distributed.2

6.3 Two-Sided Chi-Square Analysis

The survey variables were also tested using two-sided chi-square analysis. The two-sided
chi-square analysis is described below:

Null Hypothesis: Ho: Two variables are independent.
Alternative Hypothesis: Ha: Two variables are not independent.
Level of Significance: a = .05

Assumptions: (1) No more than 20% of expected counts have values less
than 5.
(2) No expected counts have values less than 1.

Conclusions: Reject Ho ifp < ca.
Do not reject Ho ifp > a.

In the two-sided chi-square analysis testing procedure, all observations are assumed to be
independent. The two-sided chi-square analysis testing procedure has two assumptions.
No more than 20% of the expected counts should be less than five, and not one of the
expected counts should be less than one. The expected count is the value one would plan
to receive should the responses of one variable be independent from the responses of the
other variable. Rejecting the null hypothesis for the two-sided chi-square test indicates
that the two variables tested are not independent. This suggests that a relationship exists
between the two variables. Failure to reject the null hypothesis for the two-sided chi-
square test suggests the two variables are independent and a statistically significant
relationship does not exist.


7.0 Results

The data analysis procedures described above provide the researchers with extensive
information regarding the variables in the study. This information is presented here.
Results of the one-sided chi-square analysis are presented first. Followed by the two-
sided chi-square analysis results. Then frequency tables are included for each of the
variables followed by a brief discussion of the results of the two-sided chi-square analysis


2 For a more detailed explanation of Chi-Square analysis see Statistical Methods and Data Analysis (Ott
and Longnecker 2001).


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












should be less than one. The expected count is the value one would plan to receive should
each response be independent from the other responses of the variable. Rejecting Ho of
the one-sided chi-square test indicates that the responses were not evenly distributed over
the potential answers for that particular question; there was a statistically significant
difference between the responses to the question at hand. Failure to reject Ho of the one-
sided chi-square test suggests the differences between the responses to the question were
not statistically significant, and the responses were evenly distributed.2

6.3 Two-Sided Chi-Square Analysis

The survey variables were also tested using two-sided chi-square analysis. The two-sided
chi-square analysis is described below:

Null Hypothesis: Ho: Two variables are independent.
Alternative Hypothesis: Ha: Two variables are not independent.
Level of Significance: a = .05

Assumptions: (1) No more than 20% of expected counts have values less
than 5.
(2) No expected counts have values less than 1.

Conclusions: Reject Ho ifp < ca.
Do not reject Ho ifp > a.

In the two-sided chi-square analysis testing procedure, all observations are assumed to be
independent. The two-sided chi-square analysis testing procedure has two assumptions.
No more than 20% of the expected counts should be less than five, and not one of the
expected counts should be less than one. The expected count is the value one would plan
to receive should the responses of one variable be independent from the responses of the
other variable. Rejecting the null hypothesis for the two-sided chi-square test indicates
that the two variables tested are not independent. This suggests that a relationship exists
between the two variables. Failure to reject the null hypothesis for the two-sided chi-
square test suggests the two variables are independent and a statistically significant
relationship does not exist.


7.0 Results

The data analysis procedures described above provide the researchers with extensive
information regarding the variables in the study. This information is presented here.
Results of the one-sided chi-square analysis are presented first. Followed by the two-
sided chi-square analysis results. Then frequency tables are included for each of the
variables followed by a brief discussion of the results of the two-sided chi-square analysis


2 For a more detailed explanation of Chi-Square analysis see Statistical Methods and Data Analysis (Ott
and Longnecker 2001).


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey













for each of the statistically significant variables. Other variables that were not found to be
statistically significant are briefly discussed at the end of the results section.

7.1 One-Sided Chi Square Test Results

The one-sided chi-square analysis was conducted for the overall mailing list, as well as,
the lists for each of the three targeted groups. Table 5 shows the level of significance (p-
value) for each hypothesis tested using these variables. An asterisk (*) indicates the null
hypothesis was rejected at the 95% confidence level, indicating a statistically significant
difference between the responses to the question. Two asterisks (**) indicate one or both
of the assumptions were violated and the test was not run.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Table 5. One-Sided Chi-Square Analysis Test Results (
Maili
Variable Overall UF-CALS


Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Marital Status
Income
Reside County
Distance from Ft. Pierce
Urban/Rural
Employment Status
County of Employment
Type of Employment Org
Employment Staff Number
Employment Position
Length of Employment
Education Level
Current Education Status
Internships
IRREC Subject Area
Agribusiness Subject Area
Horticulture Subject Area
Other IFAS Area
Course Level
Course Length
Course Season
Course Day
Course Time
Course Delivery
Interaction w/ Professor
Testing Method
Funding Method
* Reject Ho at a = .05.
** Violated assumptionss.


.001*
.519
.000*
.897
.077
.000*
.362
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.003*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.008*
.000*
.002*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*


.000*
.272
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.535
.000*
.004*
.000*
.006*
.343
.001*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.008*
.000*
.011*
.000*
.000*
.065
.000*
.000*
.001*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*


p-values)
ng List


Community
College
.001*
.024*
.000*
.047*
.000*
.000*
.691
.000*
.000*
.001*
.000*
.238
.001*
.000*
.000*
.233
.000*
.584
**
.007*
**
.000*
.003*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.003*


For four of the variables tested for the overall mailing list, Ho could not be rejected for
the one-sided chi-square analysis. This suggests the responses to these questions were
fairly evenly distributed over all possible responses for that question. The possible
responses to the gender question, for example, were male and female. 115 responders
answered male while 125 responders answered female. The one-sided chi-square test of
this hypothesis reveals that this is not a significant difference (0.519>0.05). Other
variables for which Ho was not rejected for this test for the overall mailing list include
marital status, income, and distance of residence from Ft. Pierce.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


Chambers

.000*
.137
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.261
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.003*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.055
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*
.000*











When the mailing list is broken down into the three targeted groups, a number of
hypotheses could not be rejected. The hypotheses for the gender, distance from Ft. Pierce,
employment staff number, and course length variables could not be rejected for the UF-
CALS list. The hypotheses for the distance from Ft. Pierce, employment staff number,
current education status, and IRREC subject area variables could not be rejected for the
Community College list. Two of the hypotheses could not be tested for the Community
College list, since they violated one or both of the required assumptions. The hypotheses
for the gender, distance from Ft. Pierce, and IRREC subject area variables could not be
rejected for the Chambers list. The hypotheses for all of the other tests on the variables
were rejected for the one-sided chi-square tests for each of the three lists. The responses
for these variables were varied enough to be statistically significant.

7.2 Two-Sided Chi-Square Test Results

Two-sided chi-square analysis was conducted on each of the variables studied. Table 6
shows the level of significance (p-value) for each hypothesis tested using these variables.
Due to the small sample size of the survey, the two-sided chi-square analysis was
conducted on the overall mailing list. Ninety-seven of the 332 hypotheses tested (29%)
were rejected at the 95% confidence level. One hundred thirteen hypotheses could not be
tested since they violated one or both of the required assumptions.

Frequency tables are included for each of the variables followed by a brief discussion of
the results of the two-sided chi-square analysis for each of the statistically significant
variables. The frequency tables include the number of participants choosing each
response, the number of invalid responses, the percent of total responses, and the percent
of valid responses. Percent reported in the discussion following each frequency table are
based on valid responses only and do not include invalid responses. Invalid responses
include questions that were not answered, as well as, questions that were answered
incorrectly. Crosstabulation data for statistically significant variables are presented in
table format in Appendix B.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey










Table 6. Two-Sided Chi-Square Analysis Test Results 7,r-uked

Marital Countyof Distance from
Age Gender Ethnicity Status Income Residence Ft Pierce


Age
Gender

Ethnicity
Marital Status

Income
County of Residence
Distance from Ft. Pierce

Urban/Rural

Employment Status
County of Employment

Type of Employment Organization
Employment Staff Number

Employment Position
Length of Employment

Education Level

Current Education Status

Internships
IRREC Subject Area

Agribusiness Subject Area
Horticulture Subject Area

Other IFAS Area

Course Level

Course Length
Course Season

Course Day

Course Time

Course Delivery Method

Method of Interaction with Professor

Testing Method

Funding Method


Employment County of Type of Employment Employment Length of Education
abrU n/Rural Status Emplo l


1.000 0.093 0.139 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.736 0.482 0.000* ** 0.143 0.014* ** 0.000* **
0.093 1.000 0.203 0.071 0.011* 0.829 0.184 0.180 0.775 0.637 0.000* 0.195 ** 0.048* **

0.139 0.203 1.000 0.225 0.330 0.367 0.656 0.763 0.118 ** 0.441 0.192 0.140 0.394 0.293
0.000* 0.071 0.225 1.000 0.000* 0.023* 0.788 0.011* 0.000* 0.000* 0.753 0.573 ** 0.000* **

0.000* 0.011* 0.330 0.000* 1.000 ** 0.118 0.121 0.002* ** 0.189 0.811 ** 0.000* **
0.000* 0.829 0.367 0.023* ** 1.000 0.000* ** 0.059 ** 0.095 0.927 0.232 ** 0.093

0.736 0.184 0.656 0.788 0.118 0.000* 1.000 0.235 0.363 0.000* 0.095 0.383 0.768 0.441 0.523

0.482 0.180 0.763 0.011* 0.121 ** 0.235 1.000 0.996 ** ** 0.287 0.190 0.173 0.247

0.000* 0.775 0.118 0.000* 0.002* 0.059 0.363 0.996 1.000 0.681 0.942 0.419 0.766 0.611 **
** 0.637 ** 0.000 ** 0.000* ** 0.681 1.000 ** 0.799 ** ** **

0.143 0.000* 0.441 0.753 0.189 0.095 0.095 ** 0.942 ** 1.000 0.000 ** 0.329 **

0.014* 0.195 0.192 0.573 0.811 0.927 0.383 0.287 0.419 0.799 0.000* 1.000 ** 0.115 0.058
** ** 0.140 ** ** 0.232 0.768 0.190 0.766 ** ** ** 1.000 ** **

0,000* 0.048* 0.394 0.000* 0.000* ** 0.441 0.173 0.611 ** 0.329 0.115 ** 1.000 **
** ** 0.293 ** ** 0.093 0.523 0.247 ** ** ** 0.058 ** ** 1.000

0.000* 0.097 0.224 0.000* 0.000* 0.000* 0.805 0.112 0.000* ** 0.000* 0.309 ** 0.000* **
0.000* 0.004* 0.657 0.000* 0.000* 0.056 0.954 0.404 0.001* ** 0.073 0.015* ** 0.000* **

0.012* 0.001* 0.418 0.469 0.689 0.411 0.294 0.144 0.233 0.561 ** 0.228 0.519 0.019* 0.284
0.477 0.007* 0.292 0.327 0.098 0.524 0.431 0.423 0.423 0.897 0.186 0.010* 0.436 0.551 0.580

0.535 0.162 0.057 0.694 0.074 ** 0.013* 0.145 0.693 0.334 0.057 0.472 0.218 ** 0.063
** ** 0.105 ** ** 0.085 0.391 0.356 ** ** ** ** ** 0.265 0.505

0.000* 0.347 0.080 0.000* 0.000* 0,692 0.562 0.692 0.000* ** 0.001* ** 0.000* **
0.000* 0.288 0.887 0.000* 0.033* 0.652 0.471 0.652 0.011* ** ** 0.082 ** 0.005* **

** 0.109 0.441 0.004 0.105 0.934 0.849 0.535 0.644 0.236 0.293 0.562 ** 0.811 **

0.113 0.653 ** 0.561 0.400 0.444 0.765 0.258 0.894 ** 0.575 0.406 0.523 0.692 0.490

0.000* 0.118 0.725 0.000* 0.001* ** 0.042* 0.232 0.000* ** 0.512 0.348 ** 0.002* 0.092
** 0.724 ** 0.376 0.349 0.515 0.750 0.730 0.157 0.215 0.330 0.189 0.574 ** 0.089

0.135 0.538 0.940 0.833 0.501 0.762 0.875 0.630 0.291 0.959 0.448 0.140 0.079 0.190 0.905

** 0.407 0.523 0.020* 0.973 0.858 0.978 ** 0.733 0.251 ** 0.334 0.232 0.094 0.558

0.000* 0.006* 0.772 0.000* 0.000* 0.443 0.926 0.291 0.044* 0.081 ** 0.062 0.000* **

* Reject null hypothesis at .05 level.

** Violates assumptionss.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey










Age
Gender

Ethnicity

Marital Status

Income

County of Residence

Distance from Ft. Pierce

Urban/Rural

Employment Status

County of Employment

Type of Employment Organization

Employment Staff Number

Employment Position

Length of Employment

Education Level
Current Education Status

Internships

IRREC Subject Area

Agribusiness Subject Area

Horticulture Subject Area

Other IFAS Area

Course Level

Course Length

Course Seasor

Course Day

Course Time

Course Delivery Method

Method of Interaction with Professol

Testing Method

Funding Method


Current
Education
I... nternshios


IRREC Agribusiness Horticulture Other Course Course Course Course Course Course Delivery Method of interaction Testing Funding
Subject Area Subject Area Subject Ar d


0.000* 0.000* 0.012* 0.477 0.535 ** 0.000* 0.000* ** 0.113 0.000* ** 0.135 ** 0.000*
0.097 0.004* 0.001* 0.007* 0.162 ** 0.347 0.288 0.109 0.653 0.118 0.724 0.538 0.407 0.006*

0.224 0.657 0.418 0.292 0.057 0.105 0.080 0.887 0.441 ** 0.725 ** 0.940 0.523 0.772

0.000* 0.000* 0.469 0.327 0.694 ** 0.000* 0.000* 0.004 0.561 0.000* 0.376 0.833 0.020* 0.000*

0.000* 0.000* 0.689 0.098 0.074 ** 0.000* 0.033* 0.105 0.400 0.001* 0.349 0.501 0.973 0.000*

0.000* 0.056 0.411 0.524 ** 0.085 0.692 0.652 0.934 0.444 ** 0.515 0.762 0.858 0.443

0.805 0.954 0.294 0.431 0.013* 0.391 0.562 0.471 0.849 0.765 0.042* 0.750 0.875 0.978 0.926

0.112 0.404 0.144 0.423 0.145 0.356 0.692 0.652 0.535 0.258 0.232 0.730 0.630 ** 0.291

0.000* 0.001* 0.233 0.423 0.693 ** 0.000* 0.011* 0.644 0.894 0.000* 0.157 0.291 0.733 0.044*
** ** 0.561 0.897 0.334 ** ** ** 0.236 ** ** 0.215 0.959 0.251 0.081

0.000* 0.073 ** 0.186 0.057 ** ** ** 0.293 0.575 0.512 0.330 0.448 ** **

0.309 0.015* 0.228 0.010* 0.472 ** 0.001* 0.082 0.562 0.406 0.348 0.189 0.140 0.334 0.062
** ** 0.519 0.436 0.218 ** ** ** ** 0.523 ** 0.574 0.079 0.232 **

0.000* 0.000* 0.019* 0.551 ** 0.265 0.000* 0.005* 0.811 0.692 0.002* ** 0.190 0.094 0.000*
** ** 0.284 0.580 0.063 0.505 ** ** ** 0.490 0.092 0.089 0.905 0.558 **

1.000 0.000* 0.064 0.606 0.660 ** 0.000* 0.000* 0.001* 0.317 0.000* 0.339 ** 0.809 0.000*

0.000* 1.000 0.507 0.399 0.633 ** 0.000 0.002* 0.095 0.376 0.001* ** ** 0.674 0.000

0.064 0.507 1.000 0.015 0.001* ** 0.078 0.896 0.396 0.302 0.679 0.781 ** 0.063 0.038

0.606 0.399 0.015 1.000 0.218 0.272 0.902 0.634 0.442 0.862 0.720 0.865 0.636 0.371 0.382

0.660 0.633 0.001* 0.218 1.000 ** 0.319 0.138 0.069 0.428 0.925 0.483 0.785 0.836 **
** ** ** 0.272 ** 1.000 0.071 0.284 0.209 0.060 ** 0.126 ** 0.676 0.777

0.000* 0.000 0.078 0.902 0.319 0.071 1.000 0.000 ** ** 0.000* 0.307 0.256 0.256 0.000

0.000* 0.002* 0.896 0.634 0.138 0.284 0.000 1.000 ** ** 0.000* 0.372 0.739 ** 0.003

0.001* 0.095 0.396 0.442 0.069 0.209 ** ** 1.000 ** ** 0.741 0.954 0.219 0.017

0.317 0.376 0.302 0.862 0.428 0.060 ** ** ** 1.000 ** 0.731 0.863 0.588 0.874

0.000* 0.001* 0.679 0.720 0.925 ** 0.000* 0.000* ** ** 1.000 0.655 0.499 0.293 0.052

0.339 ** 0.781 0.865 0.483 0.126 0.307 0.372 0.741 0.731 0.655 1.000 ** ** 0.265
** ** ** 0.636 0.785 ** 0.256 0.739 0.954 0.863 0.499 ** 1.000 ** 0.621

0.809 0.674 0.063 0.371 0.836 0.676 0.256 ** 0.219 0.588 0.293 ** ** 1.000 0.097

0.000* 0.000 0.038 0.382 ** 0.777 0.000 0.003 0.017 0.874 0.052 0.265 0.621 0.097 1.000

* Reject null hypothesis at .05 level.

** Violates assumptionss.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey










7.3 Statistically Significant Variables


Table 7. Age Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
0-25 79 31.9 32.9
26-50 104 41.9 43.3
51+ 57 23.0 23.8
Invalid 8 3.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders in the 0-25 Age Group -Eighty-seven percent are currently taking courses.
Most (81%) prefer internship opportunities. They equally prefer agribusiness and
agricultural education and communication to horticultural science. Most (55%) prefer to
take classes in the mornings. Forty-three percent prefer taking courses at the
undergraduate level, while 46% prefer courses at the graduate level. Forty-two percent
prefer the standard 16-week semester. Forty-four percent anticipate funding their
education with outside support.

Responders in the 26-50 Age Group -Seventy-five percent are not currently taking
courses. No strong preference for or against internship opportunities is shown. Forty-six
percent prefer the subject area of agribusiness. Most (62%) prefer evening classes. No
strong preference for the level of coursework is reported. Forty-two percent of the
respondents have no preference for course length. Of those that have a preference, 69%
prefer courses that are eight weeks or less. Forty-three percent anticipate self-funding
their educational experiences.

Responders in the 51 + Age Group -Ninety-one percent are not currently taking courses.
Most (63%) do not prefer internship opportunities. Fifty-five percent prefer the subject
area of agribusiness. Forty-six percent prefer evening classes. Most responders (51%) are
not interested in coursework at any level. Most responders (60%) do not report a
preference for course length. Most (88%) anticipate self-funding their educational
experiences.

Table 8. Gender Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Male 115 46.4 47.9
Female 125 50.4 52.1
Invalid 8 3.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Male Responders -Equal numbers are interested in internship opportunities (42%), as are
not interested in internship opportunities (42%). Fifty-six percent of men prefer the
subject of agribusiness to horticultural sciences or agricultural education and
communication. Forty-seven percent are interested in trade, policy, and marketing
courses in agribusiness. Fifty-four percent anticipate self-funding their education.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Female Responders -Fifty-two percent report a preference for internship opportunities.
Forty-four percent of females prefer the subject of agricultural education and
communication while 37% prefer the subject of agribusiness. Of the agribusiness courses,
most females (53%) prefer quantitative, financial, and theory courses. When asked about
their anticipated funding methods, females are fairly evenly divided between self-funding
(33%), receiving outside funding (35%), or a combination of both (32%).

Table 9. Marital Status Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Single 121 48.8 50.4
Married 119 48.0 49.6
Invalid 8 3.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Single Responders -Most single responders (60%) are currently taking courses. Most
(63%) strongly prefer internship opportunities. Single responders having a preference
(55%) chose fall as their preferred time of year for taking courses. Forty percent of the
single participants prefer to take courses in the morning. Sixty-three percent state that
they prefer take home tests. Some single responders (36%) are interested in taking
courses at the undergraduate level, while 41% preferred coursework at the graduate level.
Single participants (36%) prefer standard 16-week semesters. Thirty-eight percent of the
single responders anticipate receiving outside funding, while 36% anticipate a
combination of outside funding and self-funding.

Married Responders -Most married responders (77%) are not currently taking any
courses. Forty-nine percent are not interested in internship opportunities. Most of the
married responders (60%) do not have a preference for time of year for taking courses. Of
those that do have a preference, 45% chose the summer as their preferred time of year for
taking courses. Fifty-four percent of the married participants prefer to take courses in the
evenings. Half (50%) prefer proctored exams in a classroom setting. Thirty-four percent
of the married responders are not interested in coursework. Of those that are interested,
39% prefer to audit courses, while 38% prefer graduate courses. Fifty-three percent have
no preference for course length. Sixty-three percent anticipate self-funding their
education.

Table 10. Income Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
$0-$40,000 91 36.7 39.6
$41,000-$80,000 63 25.4 27.4
$81,000+ 76 30.6 33.0
Invalid 18 7.3
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders in the $0-$40,000 Income Group -Sixty-six percent are currently taking
courses. Two-thirds prefer internship opportunities. Thirty-nine percent prefer morning
courses, while 34% prefer evening courses. Thirty-eight percent prefer taking courses at


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











the undergraduate level, while 43% prefer taking graduate courses. Thirty-nine percent
have no preference for course length. Of those with a preference, 57% prefer the standard
16-week semester. Forty-one percent anticipate receiving outside funding, while 39%
anticipate using a combination of outside funding and self-funding to pay for their
education.

Responders in the $41,000-$80,000 Income Group -Sixty-five percent are not currently
taking courses. Forty-four percent prefer internship opportunities. Fifty-two percent
prefer evening courses. Twenty-eight percent of the responders do not have a preference
for course level. Of those with a preference, 40% prefer taking classes at the graduate
level. Forty-three percent do not report a preference for course length. Forty-four percent
anticipate self-funding their education.

Responders in the $81,000 + Income Group -Eighty-one percent are not currently taking
courses. Most (56%) do not prefer to have internship opportunities. Forty-nine percent
prefer evening courses. Many responders (31%) do not have a preference for course
level. Of those with a preference, 45% prefer auditing classes or receiving a certificate.
Forty-seven percent do not report a preference for course length. Most (75%) anticipate
self-funding their education.

Table 11. County of Residence Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Indian River 44 17.7 18.3
St. Lucie 86 34.7 35.8
Martin 52 21.0 21.7
Okeechobee 28 11.3 11.7
Alachua 18 7.3 7.5
Other 12 4.8 5.0
Invalid 8 3.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Respondents who live in Indian River County Fifty-eight percent are not currently
taking courses.

Respondents who live in St. Lucie County -Fifty-two percent are not currently taking
courses.

Respondents who live in Martin County -Seventy-three percent are not currently taking
courses.

Respondents who live in Okeechobee County -Eighty-two percent are not currently
taking courses.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Table 12. Distance from Ft. Pierce Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
0-20 miles 125 50.4 53.0
20+ miles 111 44.8 47.0
Invalid 12 4.8
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Respondents who live within 20 miles of Ft. Pierce Evening courses are preferred by
49% of the responders. Most (54%) reply that citrus production is their preferred
horticultural sciences subject area.

Respondents who live more than 20 miles from Ft. Pierce -Morning courses are preferred
by 39% of the responders. Thirty-six percent state that environmental horticulture is their
preferred horticultural sciences subject area.

Table 13. Employment Status Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Employed 203 81.9 84.6
Unemployed 37 14.9 15.4
Invalid 8 3.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Respondents who are employed -Two-thirds (67%) are not currently taking courses.
Internships are preferred by 43% of the responders and not preferred by 37%. Graduate
courses are preferred by 34% of the responders. Forty-four percent do not report a
preference for course length. Of those with a preference, 63% prefer courses that are
eight weeks or less. Evening courses are preferred by 48% of the responders. Forty-seven
percent anticipate self-funding their education.

Respondents who are unemployed -Eighty-one percent are currently taking courses.
Internships are preferred by 75% of the responders. Undergraduate courses are preferred
by 56% of the responders. Standard 16-week semesters are preferred by 43% of the
responders. Half (50%) of the responders prefer morning courses. Forty-two percent
anticipate using a combination of self-funding and outside funding for their education.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey









Table 14. Type of Employment Organization Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Gov't/Public 30 12.1 14.8
Educational
Gov't/Public 17 6.9 8.4
Non-Educational
Business Agricultural 39 15.7 19.2
Business 114 46.0 56.2
Non-Agricultural
Not-For-Profit 3 1.2 1.5
Invalid 45 18.1
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders who work for Gov't/Public Educational Organizations -Two-thirds (67%)
are currently taking courses.

Responders who work for Gov't/Public Non-Educational Organizations -Fifty-three
percent are not currently taking courses.

Responders who work for Business Agricultural Organizations -Two-thirds (67%) are
not currently taking courses.

Responders who work for Business Non-Agricultural Organizations -Seventy-seven
percent are not currently taking courses.

Responders who work for Not-For-Profit Organizations -Two-thirds (67%) are not
currently taking courses.

Table 15. Employment Staff Number Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
0-50 Employees 120 48.4 60.6
50+ Employees 78 31.5 39.4
Invalid 50 20.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Respondents who work for companies employing 50 people or less Internships are not
preferred by 45% of the responders. Forty-five percent report their preferred agribusiness
subject area to be quantitative, financial, or theoretical in nature. There is no significant
preference for level of coursework for these responders.

Respondents who work for companies employing 50 people or more Internship
opportunities are preferred by 52% of the responders. Thirty-nine percent report human
resources and sales as their preferred agribusiness subject area. Half of these responders
report being interested in coursework at the graduate level.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey










Table 16. Work Long Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
0-5 years 103 41.5 50.5
6-10 years 37 14.9 18.1
11+ years 64 25.8 31.4
Invalid 44 17.7
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Respondents who have worked for their current company for 0-5 years -Fifty-one percent
are currently taking courses. Internship opportunities are preferred by 61% of these
responders. Agricultural education and communication is the preferred IRREC subject
area of 43% of these respondents. Forty-four percent of these respondents prefer to take
courses at the graduate level. Forty-six percent prefer to take evening courses, while 36%
prefer morning classes. Respondents report no significant anticipated method of funding
for their education.

Respondents who have worked for their current company for 6-10 years -Eighty-one
percent are not currently taking courses. Forty-nine percent of these responders are not
interested in internship opportunities. Agribusiness is the preferred IRREC subject area
for 52% of these respondents. Thirty-four percent of these respondents do not report a
preference for course level. Evening courses are preferred by 56% of these responders.
Of those with a preference, 48% prefer to take courses at the graduate level. Forty percent
anticipate self-funding their education.

Respondents who have worked for their current company for 11 + years -Eighty-eight
percent are not currently taking courses. Internship opportunities are not preferred by
60% of these responders. Agribusiness is the preferred IRREC subject area for 60% of
these respondents. Auditing courses is preferred by 38% of these respondents. Evening
courses are preferred by 46% of these respondents. Seventy-nine percent anticipate self-
funding their education.

Table 17. Current Education Status Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
No 141 56.9 58.5
Yes 100 40.3 41.5
Invalid 7 2.8
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders Currently Taking Courses Most (69%) are 25 years old or younger.
Seventy-three percent are single. Most (63%) report an annual household income of less
than $40,000. Forty-one percent report St. Lucie as their county of residence. Most (69%)
are employed. Thirty-eight percent describe their place of employment as a non-
agricultural business, while 29% report working for educational organizations in the
public or governmental sector. Most (78%) report they have worked for this current
organization for less than five years. Many (73%) report an interest in internship
opportunities. Fifty-four percent do not report having a preference for course season. Of


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











those that have a preference, 52% report fall as their preferred time of year for taking
courses. Morning is the preferred time of the day for taking courses for 44% of the
responders. Forty-five percent are taking courses at the undergraduate level, while 48%
are taking courses at the graduate level. Forty-five percent prefer the standard 16-week
semester. Forty-three percent anticipate receiving outside funding while earning their
education.

Responders Not Currently Taking Courses Most (55%) are between the ages of 26 and
50. Sixty-five percent are married. Forty-six percent report an annual household income
of more than $81,000. Thirty-three percent report St. Lucie as their county of residence.
Most (95%) report being employed. Most (65%) describe their place of employment as a
non-agricultural business. Forty-one percent have worked for this current organization for
eleven years or more. Many (48%) are not interested in internship opportunities. Fifty-six
percent do not report a preference for course season. Of those that report a preference,
38% prefer summer for taking courses. Fifty percent prefer taking classes in the evenings.
Thirty-six percent are not interested in taking courses. Most (52%) have no preference for
course length. Most (62%) anticipate self-funding their educational endeavors.

Table 18. Internship Opportunities Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Yes 114 46.0 47.9
No 77 31.0 32.4
Don't Know 47 19.0 19.7
Invalid 10 4.0
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders who are interested in internship opportunities -Fifty-seven percent of these
responders are female. Fifty-seven percent are age 0-25. Sixty-eight percent are single.
Fifty-six percent have annual household incomes of $40,000 or less. Most (76%) are
employed. Most responders (53%) work for companies that employ 50 people or less.
Most (71%) have worked for their current companies for five years or less. Sixty-three
percent are currently taking courses. Forty-four percent of responders prefer to take
courses at the graduate level. Thirty-eight percent indicate "no preference" for course
length; of those with a preference, fifty-four percent prefer the standard 16-week
semester. Preference for course time is equally split between morning and evening
courses with 38% preferring each. Thirty-nine percent anticipate using a combination of
self-funding and outside funding to pay for their education.

Responders who are not interested in internship opportunities Sixty-three percent of
these responders are male. Fifty percent of these responders are age 26-50, while 46% are
age 51 or more. Seventy-four percent are married. Fifty-seven percent have annual
household incomes of $81,000 or more. Most (95%) are employed. Most responders
(75%) work for companies that employ 50 people or less. Most (51%) have worked for
their current companies for eleven years or more. Eighty-six percent are not currently
taking courses. Many responders (49%) are not interested in coursework at any level.
Fifty-six percent do not indicate a preference for course length; of those with a


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












preference, eighty-two percent prefer a course that is eight weeks or less. Forty-one
percent prefer to take evening courses. Most (73%) anticipate self-funding their
education.

Table 19. IRREC Subject Area Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Agribusiness 74 29.8 45.7
Horticultural Sciences 38 15.3 23.5
Ag Education & 50 20.2 30.9
Communication
Invalid 86 34.7
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders whose preferred IRREC area is Agribusiness Sixty percent of these
responders are male. Forty-one percent have worked for their current company for five
years or less. Forty-five percent choose trade, policy and marketing as their preferred
agribusiness subject areas. Fifty-six percent of these individuals respond that they are
most interested in the horticultural sciences subject area of citrus production. Forty-five
percent anticipate self-funding their education.

Responders whose preferred IRREC area is Horticultural Sciences Fifty-seven percent
of these responders are male. Most (56%) have worked for their current company for five
years or less. Thirty-nine percent choose quantitative analysis, finance and theory as their
preferred agribusiness subject areas. Forty-five percent reply that environmental
horticulture is the horticultural sciences subject area in which they are most interested.
Forty-three percent are equally likely to anticipate self-funding their education as to
receive outside funding.

Responders whose preferred IRREC area is AEC Seventy-three percent of these
responders are female. Most (73%) have worked for their current company for five years
or less. Forty-three percent choose human resources (HR) and sales as their preferred
agribusiness subject areas. Forty-two percent of these individuals report citrus production
as the horticultural sciences area in which they are most interested. Thirty-eight percent
anticipate using a combination of self-funding and outside funding to pay for their
education.

Table 20. Agribusiness Subject Area Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
HR and Sales 46 18.5 27.1
Trade, Policy, & 62 25.0 36.5
Marketing
Quant, Finance, & 62 25.0 36.5
Theory
Invalid 78 31.5
Total 248 100.0 100.0


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Respondents whose preferred Agribusiness areas are Human Resources and Sales -
Sixty-four percent of these respondents are female. Sixty-three percent work for
companies that employ 50 or more people. Fifty-one percent of these responders report
their preferred IRREC subject area to be agricultural education and communication.

Respondents whose preferred Agribusiness areas are Trade. Policy, and Marketing -
Sixty-six percent of these respondents are male. Two-thirds of these respondents work for
companies that employ 50 people or less. Fifty-five percent of these respondents report
agribusiness as their preferred IRREC subject area.

Respondents whose preferred Agribusiness areas are Ouant, Finance, and Theory Fifty-
three percent of these respondents are female. Sixty-six percent work for companies that
employ 50 people or less. Agribusiness is reported as the preferred IRREC subject area
for 53% of these respondents.

Table 21. Horticultural Sciences Subject Area Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Vegetable Production 29 11.7 22.1
Environmental 35 14.1 26.7
Horticulture
Citrus Production 55 22.2 42.0
Post-Harvest 12 4.8 9.2
Physiology
Invalid 117 47.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Preferred Horticultural Sciences Area is Vegetable Production -Fifty-four percent of the
respondents live more than 20 miles from Ft. Pierce. Forty-one percent state horticultural
sciences as their preferred subject area offered at IRREC.

Preferred Horticultural Sciences Area is Environmental Horticulture -Fifty-seven percent
of the respondents live more than 20 miles from Ft. Pierce. Forty-five percent state that of
the subject areas offered at IRREC they are most interested in the horticultural sciences.

Preferred Horticultural Sciences Area is Citrus Production -Seventy-four percent of the
respondents live within 20 miles of Ft. Pierce. Sixty-two percent of these individuals
reply that of the subject areas offered at IRREC they are most interested in agribusiness.

Preferred Horticultural Sciences Area is Post-Harvest Physiology -Half of the
respondents (50%) live more than 20 miles from Ft. Pierce, while the other half live
within 20 miles of Ft. Pierce. Fifty-eight percent of these respondents state they are most
interested in the IRREC subject area of agribusiness.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey













Table 22. Course Level Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Audit or Certification 42 16.9 18.8
Undergraduate 58 23.4 26.0
Graduate 74 29.8 33.2
Not Interested in 49 19.8 22.0
Coursework
Invalid 25 10.1
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders who prefer taking courses for audit or certificate Fifty-five percent are age
26-50. Two-thirds of these responders (67%) are married. Forty-nine percent of the
responders have annual household incomes of $81,000 or more. Forty-six percent of
responders are not interested in internship opportunities. Most (95%) are employed. Most
responders (69%) work for companies that employ 50 people or less. Most (53%) have
worked for their current companies for eleven years or more. Ninety percent are not
currently taking courses. Most respondents (66%) prefer courses that are eight weeks or
less. Fifty-four percent prefer evening courses. Most (60%) anticipate self-funding their
education.

Responders who prefer taking courses for undergraduate credit or degree Sixty percent
are age 0-25. Fifty-eight percent have annual household incomes of $40,000 or less.
Seventy-two percent are single. Most responders (69%) are interested in internship
opportunities. Two-thirds are employed. Most responders (62%) work for companies that
employ 50 people or less. Most (71%) have worked for their current companies for less
than five years. Seventy-six percent are currently taking courses. Thirty-eight percent of
the responders prefer the standard 16-week semester, while 36% report having no
preference. Forty-three percent prefer morning courses. Forty-one percent anticipate
receiving outside funding, while another 41% anticipate using a combination of self-
funding and outside funding.

Responders who prefer taking courses for graduate credit or degree Forty-nine percent
are age 0-25. Fifty-three percent have an annual household income of $40,000 or less.
Sixty-three percent of these responders are single. Most responders (64%) are interested
in internship opportunities. Most (88%) are employed. Most responders (62%) work for
companies that employ 50 people or more. Most (68%) have worked for their current
companies for less than five years. Sixty-three percent are currently taking courses. Forty
percent prefer the standard 16-week semester. Forty-two percent prefer evening courses.
Thirty-seven percent of the responders anticipate self-funding while another 37%
anticipate receiving outside funding to finance their education.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey









Table 23. Course Length Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
16 weeks 52 21.0 23.9
8 weeks or less 72 29.0 33.0
No Preference 94 37.9 43.1
Invalid 30 12.1
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Respondents who prefer 16-week semester Sixty-three percent are age 0-25. Seventy-
nine percent of these responders are single. Sixty percent have annual household incomes
of $40,000 or less. Most (72%) are employed. Most have worked for their current
company for five years or less. Eighty-two percent are currently taking courses. Seventy-
three percent are interested in internship opportunities. Fifty-six percent of the
respondents prefer coursework at the graduate level. Fifty-two percent prefer morning
courses. Forty-seven percent anticipate receiving outside funding while earning their
education.

Respondents who prefer classes that are 8 weeks or less Fifty-one percent are age 26-
50. Fifty-three percent of these responders are married. Respondents are fairly evenly
dispersed over the three income brackets. Most (92%) are employed. Most have worked
for their current company for five years or less. Sixty-eight percent are not currently
taking courses. Forty-five percent are interested in internship, opportunities. Audited
courses are preferred by 39% of the respondents while courses at the graduate level are
preferred by 37% of the respondents. Fifty-nine percent prefer evening courses. Fifty-one
percent of these respondents anticipate self-funding their education.

Table 24. Course Season Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Spring 18 7.3 8.4
Summer 28 11.3 13.0
Fall 40 16.1 18.6
Winter 10 4.0 4.7
No Preference 119 48.0 55.3
Invalid 33 13.3
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders who prefer taking courses in the spring Sixty-one percent of these
responders are single. Seventy-two percent are currently taking courses.

Responders who prefer taking courses in the summer -Sixty-four percent of these
responders are married. Seventy-one percent are not currently taking courses.

Responders who prefer taking courses in the fall -Seventy-eight percent of these
responders are single. Fifty-eight percent are currently taking courses.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey










Responders who prefer taking courses in the winter -Sixty percent of these responders
are married. One hundred percent are not currently taking courses.

Table 25. Course Time Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Morning 66 26.6 29.7
Afternoon 23 9.3 10.4
Evening 94 37.9 42.3
No Preference 39 15.7 17.6
Invalid 26 10.5
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders who prefer morning courses Sixty-four percent are age 0-25. Seventy
percent of these responders are single. Fifty-four percent have annual household incomes
of $40,000 or less. Most (62%) live 20 or more miles from Ft. Pierce. Most (75%) are
employed. Most (73%) have worked for their current company for five years or less.
Courses are currently being taken by 64% of the responders. Sixty-two percent are
interested in internship opportunities. Undergraduate and graduate courses are equally
preferred with 39% reporting they are most interested in each of these levels. Forty
percent prefer standard 16-week courses.

Responders who prefer afternoon courses Seventy percent are age 0-25. Eighty-seven
percent are single or not married. Seventy-four percent have annual household incomes
of $40,000 or less. Fifty-five percent live within 20 miles of Ft. Pierce. Most (65%) are
employed. Most (60%) have worked for their current company for five years or less.
Courses are currently being taken by 70% of the responders. Seventy percent are
interested in internship opportunities. Forty-three percent are most interested in
coursework at the undergraduate level. Preference for course length is equally split
between a standard 16-week semester and a shorter course of eight weeks or less with
35% preferring each.

Responders who prefer evening courses Sixty-three percent of these responders are age
26-50. Sixty-one percent are married. Thirty-six percent have annual household incomes
of $81,000 or more. Most (61%) live within 20 miles of Ft. Pierce. Most (96%) are
employed. Fifty-one percent have worked for their current company for five years or less.
Sixty-seven percent of the responders are not currently taking courses. Forty-five percent
are interested in internship opportunities. Thirty-four percent are most interested in
coursework at the graduate level. Forty-nine percent prefer a course that is eight weeks or
less.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Table 26. Testing Method Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Proctored, in a 70 28.2 39.5
Classroom
Proctored, Not in a 12 4.8 6.8
Classroom
Take Home 95 38.3 53.7
Invalid 71 28.6
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders who prefer a Proctored Exam in a Classroom Setting Fifty-one percent of
these responders are married, while 49% are single.

Responders who prefer a Proctored Exam not in a Classroom Setting Half (50%) of
these responders are single.

Responders who prefer Take Home Exams Sixty-nine percent of these responders are
single.

Table 27. Funding Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Self-Funded 93 37.5 43.3
Outside Funding 60 24.2 27.9
Combination 62 25.0 28.8
Invalid 33 13.3
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Responders who prefer to self-fund their education Sixty percent of these responders
are male. Forty-three percent are age 0-25. Sixty-seven percent of these responders are
married. Fifty-four percent of the responders have annual household incomes of $81,000
or more. Most (91%) are employed. Forty-five percent have worked for their current
company for eleven years or more. Fifty-one percent are not interested in internship
opportunities. Seventy-eight percent are not currently taking courses. Fifty-three percent
of the respondents report their preferred IRREC area is agribusiness. One-third of the
respondents are not interested in coursework at any level. Of those that are interested,
41% would like to audit courses, and another 41% want to take them at the graduate
level. Forty-eight percent have no preference for course length.

Responders who prefer to receive outside funding Sixty-five percent of these
responders are female. Fifty-six percent are age 0-25. Seventy-two percent of these
responders are single. Sixty-one percent of the responders have annual household
incomes of $40,000 or less. Most (81%) are employed. Two-thirds of these responders
have worked for their current company for five years or less. Most (66%) are interested in
internship opportunities. Sixty-eight percent are currently taking courses. Respondents
who prefer to receive outside funding for their education are fairly evenly interested in all
IRREC areas and do not show evidence of a preferred subject area. Forty-two percent of


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












these respondents want to take courses at the graduate level, while 41% want classes at
the undergraduate level. Thirty-nine percent of the responders report no preference for
course length. Of those that do report a preference, 64% prefer the standard 16-week
semester.

Responders who prefer to receive a combination of self-funding and outside funding -
Fifty-nine percent of these responders are female. Forty-eight percent of the respondents
are age 0-25, while another 48% are age 26-50. Sixty-seven percent of these responders
are not married. Fifty-six percent of the responders have annual household incomes of
$40,000 or less. Most (77%) are employed. Most (69%) have worked for their current
company for five years or less. Most (69%) are interested in internship opportunities.
Fifty-seven percent are currently taking courses. Fifty-one percent of these responders
report agribusiness as their preferred IRREC subject area. Forty-one percent of these
responders would like to take courses at the undergraduate level. Thirty-seven percent
have no preference for course length. Of those that do report a preference, 57% prefer
course lengths of eight weeks or less.

7.4 Other Variables

Due to the small sample size, seven variables could not be tested for statistical
significance. These variables include ethnicity, employment position, education level,
other IFAS area, course day, course delivery method, and method of interaction with
professor. The researchers felt the frequency analysis of these variables might still be of
interest to the reader. This analysis is presented below.

Table 28. Ethnicity Frequency
# of Responses % of Total % of Valid
Responses Responses
Caucasian (white) 215 86.7 90.0
African American 5 2.0 2.1
Hispanic 10 4.0 4.2
Asian 4 1.6 1.7
Native American 3 1.2 1.3
Other 2 0.8 0.8
Invalid 9 3.6
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Ethnicity This variable reports the respondents' ethnic background. According to the
frequency analysis, 90% of the respondents report a Caucasian background.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












Table 29. Employment Position Frequency
# of Responses


Owner/CEO/Agency Head
Executive Manager
Professional/Technical
Sales/Outreach
Clerical
Staff
Farm Crew Member
Other
Invalid
Total


60
40
34
9
19
34
.3
5
44
248


% of Total
Responses
24.2
16.1
13.7
3.6
7.7
13.7
1.2
2.0
17.7
100.0


% of Valid
Responses
29.4
19.6
16.7
4.4
9.3
16.7
1.5
2.5

100.0


Employment Position This variable describes the respondents' current employment
position at the time of the survey. According to the frequency analysis, 29% report being
an owner, chief executive officer, or agency head. The second highest group in the
frequency analysis representing 20% of the respondents report they were executive
managers.

Table 30. Education Level Frequency
# of Responses % of Total % of Valid
Responses Responses
High School Diploma or less 8 3.2 3.4
Some College Courses 54 21.8 22.8
Associates Degree 99 39.9 41.8
Bachelors Degree 32 12.9 13.5
Some Graduate Courses 10 4.0 4.2
Graduate Degree 34 13.7 14.3
Invalid 11 4.4
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Education Level This variable reports the respondents' highest level of education
attained at the time of the survey. According to the frequency analysis, most report
having achieved an associate's degree. The second highest group in the frequency
analysis report they have received "some college courses."


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












Table 31. Other IFAS Area Frequency
# of Responses


Ag Education &
Communication
Ag & Biological
Engineering
Ag Operations
Management
Animal Science
Entomology &
Nematology
Fisheries/ Aquatic
Science
Landscape
Architecture
Food Science &
Human Nutrition
Forestry
Natural Resources
Soil & Water
Science
Turfgrass Science
Wildlife Ecology
Invalid
Total


22


% of Total Responses % of Valid Responses


% of Total Responses
8.9

2.4

8.1

11.3
1.2


11.3

10.5


2
14
70
248


0.8
5.6
28.2
100.0


% of Valid Responses
12.4

3.4

11.2

15.7
1.7


15.7

14.6


100.0


Other IFAS Area This variable reports respondents' preferences for subject areas
offered by the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences but not offered at the Indian
River Research and Education Center. The frequency analysis indicates that Animal
Science and Landscape Architecture are the preferred other IFAS subject areas of the
respondents. Food Science and Human Nutrition is reported as the next favored subject
area.


Table 32. Course Day Frequency
# of Responses
Monday 20
Tuesday 36
Wednesday 29
Thursday 17


Friday
Saturday
Sunday
No Preference
Invalid
Total


2
8
2
105
29
248


% of Total Responses
8.1
14.5
11.7
6.9
0.8
3.2
0.8
42.3
11.7
100.0


% of Valid Responses
9.1
16.4
13.2
7.8
0.9
3.7
0.9
47.9

100.0


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Course Day This variable reports the respondents' preferences for day of the week to
take courses. The frequency analysis implies that Tuesday is the preferred day for taking
classes and Wednesday is the second preferred day. Friday, Saturday, and Sunday are the
least preferred days of the week for taking classes.

Table 33. Course Delivery Method Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Internet/WWW 26 10.5 13.9
Videoconference 6 2.4 3.2
Video Tape 2 0.8 1.1
Local TV 5 2.0 2.7
Lab 15 6.0 8.0
Live Lecture 133 53.6 71.1
Invalid 61 24.6
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Course Delivery Method This variable reports the participants' preferences for course
delivery method. According to the frequency analysis, live lecture is strongly preferred
by the respondents. It represents 71% of the valid responses. The Internet/World Wide
Web, representing 14% of the responses, is the second preferred course delivery method.

Table 34. Interaction with Professor Frequency
# of Responses % of Total Responses % of Valid Responses
Chat Room 8 3.2 4.3
Email 35 14.1 18.6
Fax 1 0.4 0.5
Telephone 3 1.2 1.6
Face-to-Face 141 56.9 75.0
Invalid 60 24.2
Total 248 100.0 100.0

Interaction with Professor This variable determines the participants' preferred method
of interacting with their professor. The frequency analysis implies that face-to-face
interaction is the preferred method. This method is strongly preferred as it represents 75%
of the valid responses. Email is the second preferred method and represents 19% of the
valid responses.


8.0 Conclusions

The results of this survey enable the researchers to draw conclusions concerning a
number of student preferences at a research and education center of a land grant
university. The most frequent responses to survey questions allow the researchers to
compose a list of preferences characteristic of the typical responder described below.
Recommendations for academic content and structure follow this description.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












8.1 Typical Responder


By conducting this survey the researchers have found that the typical responder falls
between the ages of 26 and 50 and has an annual household income of less than $40,000.
He or she lives within 20 miles of Ft. Pierce, in St. Lucie County, Florida (the location of
the center). S/he is currently employed, typically works for a non-agricultural business,
and has worked there for less than five years. This business employs less than 50 people.
The typical responder is not currently taking courses, but would be interested in
internship opportunities. This individual's preferred subject area offered at IRREC is
agribusiness, with trade, policy and marketing and quantitative methods, finance, and
theory tied as preferred agribusiness subject areas. Citrus production is his/her preferred
horticultural sciences area. The individual's preferred IFAS subject area outside of those
offered at IRREC is either animal science or landscape architecture. This person prefers
to take coursework at the graduate level and does not have a preference for course length
or season. Tuesday are this person's preferred day for taking classes. Evening classes
and take home tests are other preferences of this individual. The individual prefers live
lectures and face-to-face interaction with his/her professor. This individual anticipates
self-funding his/her education.

Taking this information into account will help IRREC establish policies and procedures
that fit the needs and preferences of its students. A program that caters to the needs of its
potential students is easier to promote and has higher rates of enrollment and retention.
These responder preferences for academic content and academic structure are discussed
briefly and examples of how they may affect IRREC policies are provided below.

8.2 Recommendations for Academic Content

(1) This study shows that the respondents prefer internship opportunities.
Strengthening its internship program by establishing good industry contacts with
firms that typically hire interns will benefit both IRREC and its students.
(2) Agribusiness is the preferred subject area offered at IRREC. Promoting
agribusiness in its recruitment efforts will draw additional students and increase
IRREC's rates of enrollment. Advertising the other subject areas it offers would
help IRREC increase student interest in these areas.
(3) Citrus production is the preferred horticultural sciences subject area. IRREC
should strengthen its citrus program to attract these students and boost
enrollment. IRREC should promote the other horticulture subject areas such as
environmental horticulture, vegetable production, and postharvest physiology to
increase awareness and interest in these other areas.
(4) Animal science, landscape architecture, and food science and human nutrition
were the preferred IFAS subject areas not currently offered at IRREC. The Center
should more carefully determine the demand for these subject areas and compare
that to the demand for the current subject areas offered. Perhaps a change in
subject areas would better serve the potential students in this area.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












8.1 Typical Responder


By conducting this survey the researchers have found that the typical responder falls
between the ages of 26 and 50 and has an annual household income of less than $40,000.
He or she lives within 20 miles of Ft. Pierce, in St. Lucie County, Florida (the location of
the center). S/he is currently employed, typically works for a non-agricultural business,
and has worked there for less than five years. This business employs less than 50 people.
The typical responder is not currently taking courses, but would be interested in
internship opportunities. This individual's preferred subject area offered at IRREC is
agribusiness, with trade, policy and marketing and quantitative methods, finance, and
theory tied as preferred agribusiness subject areas. Citrus production is his/her preferred
horticultural sciences area. The individual's preferred IFAS subject area outside of those
offered at IRREC is either animal science or landscape architecture. This person prefers
to take coursework at the graduate level and does not have a preference for course length
or season. Tuesday are this person's preferred day for taking classes. Evening classes
and take home tests are other preferences of this individual. The individual prefers live
lectures and face-to-face interaction with his/her professor. This individual anticipates
self-funding his/her education.

Taking this information into account will help IRREC establish policies and procedures
that fit the needs and preferences of its students. A program that caters to the needs of its
potential students is easier to promote and has higher rates of enrollment and retention.
These responder preferences for academic content and academic structure are discussed
briefly and examples of how they may affect IRREC policies are provided below.

8.2 Recommendations for Academic Content

(1) This study shows that the respondents prefer internship opportunities.
Strengthening its internship program by establishing good industry contacts with
firms that typically hire interns will benefit both IRREC and its students.
(2) Agribusiness is the preferred subject area offered at IRREC. Promoting
agribusiness in its recruitment efforts will draw additional students and increase
IRREC's rates of enrollment. Advertising the other subject areas it offers would
help IRREC increase student interest in these areas.
(3) Citrus production is the preferred horticultural sciences subject area. IRREC
should strengthen its citrus program to attract these students and boost
enrollment. IRREC should promote the other horticulture subject areas such as
environmental horticulture, vegetable production, and postharvest physiology to
increase awareness and interest in these other areas.
(4) Animal science, landscape architecture, and food science and human nutrition
were the preferred IFAS subject areas not currently offered at IRREC. The Center
should more carefully determine the demand for these subject areas and compare
that to the demand for the current subject areas offered. Perhaps a change in
subject areas would better serve the potential students in this area.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












8.3 Recommendations for Academic Structure


(1) The responders prefer coursework at the graduate level. IRREC should promote
its graduate program and entertain the idea of offering coursework in other
subject areas at the graduate level. Specific demand analysis should be conducted
before any changes are made.
(2) Most of the responders reported having no preference for course length. Of those
that did have a preference, most indicated that they preferred courses that were
eight weeks in length or less. IRREC should determine exactly who prefers these
shorter courses, undergraduate or graduate students, traditional or distance
education students. How do they want these courses structured? Do they want one
to two week intensive courses, or one month of intensive weekends, etc.?
(3) Most of the responders reported having no preference for course season. Of those
that did have a preference, most indicated that they preferred taking courses in the
fall. The second preferred time of the year for taking courses was the summer.
IRREC should make sure they offer plenty of courses in the fall. It is also
important that ample courses be available during the summer months.
(4) Tuesdays and Wednesdays are the preferred days of the week for taking courses.
This should be considered when course schedules are being made.
(5) Evenings are the preferred time of day for taking courses. Mornings are the
second preference. Again, this should be considered when designing the course
schedules.
(6) Live lecture is by far the preferred method of course delivery. Internet/WWW is
the next preferred method. Courses delivered via distance education should allow
time at the beginning of the term for students to become familiar with the
delivery method.
(7) Face-to-face interaction with the professor is the preferred method of
communication. Each professor should keep this in mind and make themselves
available to their students by offering set office hours, time at the beginning or
end of each class, etc. Email is the second preferred method.
(8) Take-home tests were the preferred testing method of the responders. Proctored
exams in a classroom setting were the second preference. Professors should keep
this in mind when preparing the testing structure of their courses.
(9) Most of the responders anticipate self-funding their education. Many would like
to receive some form of outside funding. IRREC should provide their students
with avenues for financial assistance when necessary such as scholarships,
assistantships, student loans, etc.

This information together with the previous research cited will help the faculty and staff
at the Indian River Research and Education Center with a number of issues that have
plagued educational institutions for many years such as student recruitment, enrollment,
and retention as well as newer issues like distance education. Taking into account student
preferences will enable the center to attract greater numbers of new students and provide
a better educational experience to its current students.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












9.0 Further Study


Since the field of distance education is growing so rapidly, the researchers feel an entire
survey could be devoted specifically to the preferences of distance education students.
Very specific questions could be asked targeting such distance education topics as course
level, course length, and course delivery. As the number of distance students increases so
too does the pool of potential survey participants.

The researchers suggest surveying a larger population. This will ensure a greater portion
of the results will be statistically significant. Tapping into the vast pool of University of
Florida alumni is one suggestion. Including other community colleges around the state is
another source of additional participants. A greater portion of Chamber of Commerce
members could be surveyed as well.

This particular survey provided very detailed information specific to the Indian River
Research and Education Center of the University of Florida. The researchers feel this
study could be repeated on a broader scale. Future studies could broaden their focus in a
number of ways. These studies could include other research and education centers of the
University of Florida. The study could be expanded further to compare findings from
various other land grant institutions. Findings could also be compared at a regional level.

While this study answered a number of questions for the Indian River Research and
Education Center, it also brings to mind additional questions that need answering. For
instance, should IRREC offer other subject areas? Which ones and at what level? Should
IRREC offer shorter, more compact courses? If so, how should they be structured? How
should IRREC increase awareness and interest in its distance education program?
Perhaps another study is required to answer some of these more targeted programmatic
questions. The teaching program at IRREC will benefit from the information provided by
a study of this nature.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











References


Batte, Marvin T., D. Lynn Forster, and Donald W. Larson. "Distance Education in
Agricultural Economics: An Assessment of Student Acceptance and
Performance." American Agricultural Economics Association. Chicago, Illinois.
2001.

DesJardins, Stephen L., Halil Dundar, and Darwin D. Hendel. "Modeling the College
Application Decision Process in a Land-Grant University." Economics of
Education Review. 1999. Vol. 18, 117-132.

Diebel, Penelope L., Michael L. McInnis, and W. Daniel Edge. "Student Use and
Perceptions of Distance Education Technologies." NACTA Journal. 1998. Vol. 42
(1), 24-31.

Fenwick, J. R., M. A. Brick, R. Delaney, and L. Hicks. "Student Perceptions About a
Live Interactive Telecommunications Course." Journal of Natural Resources and
Life Sciences Education. 1998. Vol. 27, 97-100.

Hamilton, Lynn. "An Education in Distance Learning: The Case of Agribusiness 101."
American Agricultural Economics Association. Nashville, Tennessee. 1999.

Jackson, Gary B., "A Planning Model for Teaching Agricultural Distance Education
Courses and Programs." NACTA Journal. 1995. Vol. 34 (1), 39-43.

Markway, S.E., and S. C. Borgelt. "A Student Survey for Recruiting, Retention, and
Program Development." Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 1996.
Vol. 12 (1), 7-13.

Miller, Greg. "Cognitive Style Preferences of Agricultural Distant Learners." NACTA
Journal. 1997. Vol. 41 (4), 23-28.

Miller, Greg, and Carol L. Pilcher. "Do Off-Campus Courses Possess a Level of Quality
Comparable to that of On-Campus Courses?" Journal ofAgricultural Education.
2000. Vol. 41 (3), 60-69.

Miller, Greg, and Carol L. Pilcher. "Levels of Cognition Reached in Agricultural
Distance Education Courses in Comparison to On-Campus Courses and to Faculty
Perceptions Concerning an Appropriate Level." Journal ofAgricultural
Education. 2001. Vol. 42 (1), 20-27.

Murphrey, Theresa Pesl, and Kim E. Dooley. "Perceived Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, and Threats Impacting the Diffusion of Distance Education
Technologies in a College of Agriculture and Life Sciences." Journal of
Agricultural Education. 2000. Vol. 41 (4), 39-50.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Norusis, Marija J. SPSS 10.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 2000.

Osmond, J., and T. Hoover. "Follow-up Study of Graduates from the College of
Agriculture, University of Florida." Journal ofAgricultural Education and
Extension. 1995. Vol. 2 (2), 41-48.

Ott, R. Lyman, and Michael Longnecker. An Introduction to Statistical Methods and
Data Analysis. Fifth Edition. Duxbury. 2001.

Rudmann, Sally V., Kory M Ward, and Daniel M. Arnold. "Student Recruitment
Strategies: A National Survey of University-Based Clinical Laboratory Science
Programs." Clinical Laboratory Science. 1992. Vol. 5 (2), 104-105.

Telg, Ricky W., and Jimmy G. Cheek. "A Case Study of Distance Education
Programming in a College of Agriculture." NACTA Journal. 1998. Vol. 42 (3),
31-37.

Weisberg, Herbert F., Jon A. Krosnick, and Bruce D. Bowen. An Introduction to Survey
Research, Polling, and Data Analysis. Third Edition. Sage Publications, Inc.
1996.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey











Appendices


Appendix A
A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4

Appendix B
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8
B.9
B.10
B.11
B.12
B.13
B.14
B.15
B.16
B.17
B.18
B.19
B.20
B.21
B.22
B.23


Survey Materials .......................................... .........
Cover Letter 1 ...................................... ..............
Cover Letter 2 ............................................... .......
Survey ......................................................... ..........
Reminder Postcard ...................................................

Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Variables .........
Age ........................... .... ....... .... .................... ..
Gender .................................................................
Marital Status ........................................ ...........
Income ...............................................................
County of Residence ..............................................
Distance from Ft. Pierce ............................................
Urban/Rural ......................................... ...........
Employment Status ...................................................
County of Employment .............................................
Type of Employment Organization ...................................
Employment Staff Number ..........................................
Length of Employment ..............................................
Current Education Status ...........................................
Internship Opportunities .............................................
IRREC Subject Area ..............................................
Agribusiness Subject Area ..........................................
Horticultural Science Subject Area .................................
Course Level ............................................... .......
Course Length ............................................. ........
Course Season ..................................... ..............
Course Time ............................................................
Testing Method ..................................... ............
Funding ...........................................................


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey



































Appendix A


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey













Appendix A.1 Cover Letter 1


March 5, 2001


Greetings,

The University of Florida's Indian River Research and Education Center is conducting a survey.
Our teaching program is relatively new so we are trying to find out what you want and need in the
way of higher education.

To better meet your needs and preferences, we ask that you take a few minutes to complete our
anonymous questionnaire. Your responses will remain completely confidential.

Currently the teaching program supports undergraduate course work in Agribusiness
Management and Horticultural Sciences, and is designed for both degree-seeking and non-degree-
seeking students. Graduate course work is also available from our Distance Education Masters
Program in Agribusiness Management and Agricultural Education and Communication.

Your answers will help us structure our teaching program to better fit your needs and those of the
local community. We appreciate your willingness to help by filling out our questionnaire.

If you would like to receive more information about the teaching programs at the Indian River
Research and Education Center, contact us or our Program Assistant, Kim Wilson, at (561) 468-
3922.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,


Lois Schertz Willett, Professor
University of Florida


Tara M Minton, Coordinator of Economic Analysis
University of Florida


Enclosures: one survey booklet with postage-paid return envelope


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












Appendix A.2 Cover Letter 2


April 2, 2001


Greetings,

The University of Florida's Indian River Research and Education Center is conducting a survey.
We recently sent you a copy of our questionnaire, and we have not heard from you. Your answers
are very important to us so we have sent you a second copy.

We ask that you take a few minutes to complete our anonymous questionnaire, so we can better
meet your needs and preferences for higher education. Your responses will remain completely
confidential.

Currently the teaching program supports undergraduate course work in the areas of Agribusiness
Management and Horticultural Sciences, and the program is designed for both degree-seeking
and non-degree-seeking students. Graduate course work is also available from our Distance
Education Masters Program in Agribusiness Management and Agricultural Education and
Communication.

Your answers will help us structure our teaching program to better fit your needs and those of the
local community. We appreciate your willingness to help by filling out our questionnaire.

If you would like to receive more information about the teaching programs at the Indian River
Research and Education Center, contact us, or our Program Assistant, Kim Wilson, at (561) 468-
3922.

Again, thank you for your participation.

Sincerely,



Lois Schertz Willett, Professor Tara M Minton, Coordinator of Economic Analysis
University of Florida University of Florida

Enclosures: one survey booklet with postage-paid return envelope


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey









UF/IRREC Student Needs Survey


The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine the demand
for classes and degrees offered at the University of Florida's
Indian River Research and Education Center (IRREC). The
results of the questionnaire will assist the Teaching Program in
determining its structure and design to best fit student needs.


,.. UNIVERSITY OF

.FLORIDA

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences


Hello, we need your help!

The University of Florida's Indian River Research and Education
Center is conducting a student needs survey. Our Teaching
Program is new so we are trying to find out what you want and
need in the way of education.

To better meet your educational needs and preferences, we ask that
you take a few minutes to complete our questionnaire. Please
answer each question. Your responses will be anonymous and will
remain completely confidential.

Your answers will help us structure our Teaching Program to better
fit your needs and those of the local community. We really
appreciate your willingness to help by answering our survey.

If you would like to receive more information about the Teaching
Program at the Indian River Research and Education Center, please
contact either of us, or our Program Assistant, Kim Wilson, at
(561) 468-3922.

Again, thank you for your participation.


Lois Schertz Willett
Professor


Tara M Minton
Coordinator of Economic Analysis


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey





UF/IRREC Student Needs Survey

Section 1 -Demographics

1.1 Which of the following age groups best describes you?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. 0-18
2. 19-25
3. 26-40
4. 41-50
5. 51-65
6. 65+


1.2 What is your gender? (Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Male
2. Female


1.3 What is your ethnic origin? (Please circle only ONE
answer.)
1. Caucasian (white)
2. African American
3. Hispanic
4. Asian
5. Indian
6. Native American
7. Other Please Specify:


1.4 What is your marital status? (Please circle only ONE
answer.)
1. Single
2. Married


1.5 What is your current household income? (Please circle only
ONE answer.)
1. $0-$20,000
2. $21,000-$40,000
3. $41,000-$60,000
4. $61,000-$80,000
5. $81,000-$100,000
6. $100,000+


1.6 In which one of the following counties do you reside?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Indian River
2. St. Lucie
3. Martin
4. Okeechobee
5. Other Please Specify:


1.7 How far from Fort Pierce do you live? (Please circle only
ONE answer.)
1. 0-10 miles
2. 11-20 miles
3. 21-30 miles
4. 31-40 miles
5. 40+ miles


1.8 How would you best describe where you live? (Please
circle only ONE answer.)
1. In the city
2. On the outskirts of town
3. In a farming area
4. Other: Please Specify:


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey






Section 2 Employment


2.1 Which of the following best describes your employment
status? (Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Employed, full-time
2. Employed, part-time
3. Retired (Please skip to Section 3.)
4. Unemployed, looking for work (Please skip
to Section 3.)
5. Unemployed, not looking for work (Please
skip to Section 3.)


2.2 In which one of the following counties do you work?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Indian River
2. St. Lucie
3. Martin
4. Okeechobee
5. Other Please Specify:



2.3 Which of the following best describes the organization for
which you work? (Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Agricultural Production
2. Agricultural Sales
3. Construction
4. Legal
5. Financial
6. Consulting
7. Medical
8. Educational
9. Governmental
10. Other Please Specify:


2.4 At what organization do you currently work? (Please write
your answer on the line below.)



2.5 How many persons are employed by this organization?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. 0-10
2. 11-20
3. 21-50
4. 51-99
5. 100+


2.6 Which of the following best describes the position you hold
within this organization? (Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Owner/CEO/Agency Head
2. Executive Manager
3. Professional/Technical
4. Sales/Outreach
5. Clerical
6. Staff
7. Farm Crew Member
8. Other Please Specify:



2.7 How long have you worked for this organization? (Please
circle only ONE answer.)
1. 0-5 years
2. 6-10 years
3. 11-15 years
4. 16-25 years
5. 26+ years


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey






Section 4 Academic Content


3.1 Which of the following is the highest level of education
you completed? (Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. High School Diploma or less (Please skip to
Question 3.3.)
2. Some College Courses (Please skip to Question 3.3.)
3. Associates (or other 2 year) Degree
4. Bachelors (or other 4 year) Degree
5. Some Graduate Courses
6. Graduate Degree

3.2 Please identify the degrees) you received, the institutions)
from which you received them, and the years) you
received them. (Please write your answers) on the lines
below.)


Degree


Institution


Year


4.1 Would you be interested in internship opportunities to
further your educational development? (Please circle only
ONE answer.)
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Know


4.2 How interested are you in the following subject areas:
(Please circle ONE number for each subject.)
Extremely Very Somewhat
Interested Interested Interested
1. Agribusiness 1 2 3
2. Horticulture 1 2 3
3. Agricultural Education and 1 2 3
Communication


Not
Interested
4
4
4


4.3 Which of the subject areas in Question 4.2 are you MOST
interested in? (Pleasefill in the blank.)


3.3 Are you currently taking any college courses? (Please
circle only ONE answer.)
1. No (Please skip to Section 4.)
2. Yes

3.4 What educational institutions) are you currently attending?
(Please write your answers) on the lines below.)
1.
2.
3.

3.5 Are you currently working towards a degree? (Please circle
only ONE answer.)
1. No (Skip to Question 4.1.)
2. Yes Please specify the degree:


3.6 What is your intended major? (Please fill in the blank.)

An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


4.4 How interested are you in the following Agribusiness
areas: (Please circle ONE number for each course.)
Extremely Very Somewhat
Interested Interested Interested
1. Human Resources 1 2 3
2. Strategic Selling 1 2 3
3. International Trade 1 2 3
4. Quantitative Analysis 1 2 3
5. Agricultural Policy 1 2 3
6. Agricultural 1 2 3
Marketing
7. Financial Management 1 2 3
8. Resource Economics 1 2 3
9. Economic Theory 1 2 3


Not
Interested
4
4
4
4
4
4

4
4
4


4.5 Which of the subject areas in Question 4.4 are you MOST
interested in? (Please fill in the blank.)


Section 3 Education






4.6 How interested are you in the following Horticultural
Science areas: (Please circle ONE number for each
course.)


Vegetable Production
Environmental Hort
Citrus Production
Postharvest Physiology


Extremely
Interested
1
1
1
1


Very
Interested
2
2
2
2


Somewhat
Interested
3
3
3
3


Not
Interested
4
4
4


4.7 Which of the subject areas in Question 4.6 are you MOST
interested in? (Please fill in the blank.)


4.8 How interested are you in these other subject areas: (Please
circle ONE number for each subject.)
Extremely Very Somewhat N
Interested Interested Interested Inter


1. Agricultural Education &
Communication
2. Agricultural & Biological
Engineering
3. Agricultural Operations
Management
4. Animal Sciences
5. Entomology &
Nematology
6. Fisheries/Aquatic Sciences
7. Landscape Architecture
8. Food Science/Human
Nutrition
9. Forestry
10. Natural Resources
11. Soil & Water Science
12. Turfgrass Science
13. Wildlife Ecology


ot
ested
4


1 2 3


4.9 Which of the subject areas in Question 4.8 are you MOST
interested in? (Please fill in the blank.)


Section 5 Academic Structure


5.1 What level of coursework are you most interested in?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Audit do not receive any UF credits
2. Certification receive certificate
3. Undergraduate credit
4. Undergraduate degree
5. Graduate credit
6. Graduate degree
7. Not interested in coursework

5.2 What is your preferred course length? (Please circle only
ONE answer.)
1. 16 weeks
2. 8 weeks
3. 4 weeks
4. 2 weeks
5. 2 days
6. 1 day
7. No Preference

5.3 What is your preferred time of year for taking courses?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Spring
2. Summer
3. Fall
4. Winter
5. No Preference

5.4 What is your preferred day of the week for taking courses?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Monday
2. Tuesday
3. Wednesday
4. Thursday
5. Friday
6. Saturday
7. Sunday


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey





5.5 What is your preferred time of day for taking courses?
(Please circle only ONE answer.)
1. Morning
2. Afternoon
3. Evening
4. No Preference

5.6 What is your preference for each course delivery type.
(Please circle ONE number for each delivery type.)
Extremely Strongly Somewhat 1
Preferred Preferred Preferred Prel
1. Internet/WWW 1 2 3


Videoconference
Video Tape
Local Television
Lab
Live Lecture


5.10 What is your preference for each testing method. (Please
circle ONE number for each method.)
Extremely Very Somewhat Not
Preferred Preferred Preferred Preferred
1. Proctored Exam, 1 2 3 4
in a Classroom
Setting
2. Proctored Exam, 1 2 3 4
Not in a Classroom
Setting
3. Take Home Exam, 1 2 3 4
Not Proctored


Jot
erred
4
4


5.7 Which of the delivery types in Question 5.6 would you
MOST prefer? (Please fill in the blank.)


5.8 What is your preference for each method of interacting
with your professor. (Please circle ONE number for each
method.)


1. Chat Room
2. Email
3. Fax
4. Telephone
5. Face to
Face


Extremely
Preferred
1
I
1
1
1


Strongly
Preferred
2
2
2
2
2


Somewhat
Preferred
3


Not
Preferred
4
4
4
4
4


5.11 Which of the testing methods in Question 5.10 would you
MOST prefer? (Please fill in the blank.)


5.12 Should you decide to pursue additional education, how do
you anticipate funding the endeavor? (Please circle only
ONE answer.)
1. Self-funded
2. Scholarships
3. Loans
4. Assistantships
5. Employer-funded
6. Some combination of above: Please specify:


5.9 Which of the methods of interacting with your professor in
Question 5.8 would you MOST prefer? (Pleasefill in the
blank.)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey






Section 6 Other Comments


6.1 P'k. ,i,. add any additional comments about you or your
interest in the learning opportunities available at the
University of Florida's Indian River Research and
Education Center,















Thank you for your assistance!
Please return the completed survey in the enclosed postage-paid
envelope to:


Lois Schertz Willett, Professor and
Tara M Minton, Coordinator ofEconomic Analysis
Indian River Research and Education Center
University of Florida
2199 South Rock Road
Fort Pierce, Florida 34945

Ifyou have any questions please contact us.
VOICE 561-468-3922
FAX 561-468-5668
EMAIL Iwillett(ufl.edu
E.MI IL minton(iuf.edu


.. UNIVERSITY OF

: FLORIDA

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

Indian River Research and Education Center
2199 South Rock Road
Fort Pierce, Florida 34945
(561) 468-3922
www.irrec.ifas.ufl.edu


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


I












Appendix A.4 Reminder Postcard


Hi!
Just a reminder for you to fill out the survey
we sent you last week from the University of
Florida's Indian River Research and
Education Center.

Your responses will really help with the
design and structure of the new teaching
program. It should only take a few minutes of
your time and will eliminate the need to send
you a second survey. Remember your answers
will remain completely confidential.

Thanks again for your participation! We look forward to hearing from you
soon!


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


0 UNIVERSITY OF
N& FLORIDA
Indian River Research and Education Center
Lois Schertz Willett and Tara M Mintdn
2199 South Rock Road
Fort Pierce, Florida 34945-3138

































Appendix B


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












Table B.1 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Age
Variable and Responses 0-25 Years
n (%)*


26-50 Years
n (%)*


51+ Years
n (%)*


Marital Status
Single 71 (90) 36 (35) 14 (25)
SMarried 8 (10) 68 (65) 43 (75)
Total 79 (100) 104 (100) 57 (100)
Income
$0-$40,000 56 (75) 26 (26) 9 (17)
$41,000-$80,000 11 (15) 37 (37) 15 (28)
$81,000+ 8 (10) 38 (38) 30 (56)
Total 75 (100) 101 (100) 54 (100)
County of Residence
Indian River 16 (20) 12 (12) 16 (28)
St. Lucie 27 (34) 44 (42) 15 (26)
Martin 9 (11) 28 (27) 15 (26)
Okeechobee 8 (10) 11 (11) 9 (16)
Alachua 16 (20) 2 (2) 0 0
Other Location 3 (4) 7 (7) 2 (4)
Total 79 (100) 104 (100) 57 (100)
Employment Status
Employed 50 (65) 99 (96) 51 (89)
Unemployed 27 (35) 4 (4) 6 (11)
Total 77 (100) 103 (100) 57 (100)
Employment Staff Number
0-50 Employees 29 (63) 51 (52) 39 (76)
50+ Employees 17 (37) 47 (48) 12 (24)
Total 46 (100) 98 (100) 51 (100)
Length of Employment
0-5 Years 47 (94) 45 (45) 9 (17)
6-10 Years 2 (4) 23 (23) 12 (23)
11+Years 1 (2) 31 (31) 31 (60)
Total 50 (100) 99 (100) 52 (100)
Current Education Status
No 10 (13) 76 (75) 52 (91)
Yes 69 (87) 26 (25) 5 (9)
Total 79 (100) 102 (100) 57 (100)
Internship Opportunities
Yes 64 (81) 37 (37) 11 (20)
No 3 (4) 38 (38) 35 (63)
Don't Know 12 (15) 25 (25) 10 (18)
Total 79 (100) 100 '(100) 56 (100)
Preferred IRREC Subject Area
Agribusiness 27 (42) 29 (46) 17 (55)
Horticultural Science 10 (15) 22 (35) 5 (16)
Ag Education & Communication 28 (43) 12 (19) 9 (29)
Total 65 (100) 63 (100) 31 (100)
Course Level
Audit or Certification 6 (8) 23 (25) 13 (27)
Undergraduate 34 (43) 21 (23) 2 (4)
Graduate 36 (46) 28 (30) 9 (18)
Not Interested in Coursework 3 (4) 20 (22) 25 (51)
Total 79 (100) 92 (100) 49 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total


33 (42)
18 (23)
27 (35)
78 (100)


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


16 (18)
36 (40)
38 (42)
90 (100)


3 (6)
16 (34)
28 (60)
47 (100)


42 (55) 19 (20) 5 (10)
16 (21) 4 (4) 3 (6)
12 (16) 59 (62) 22 (46)
7 (9) 13 (14) 18 (38)
77 (100) 95 (100) 48 (100)

14 (18) 40 (43) 38 (88)
34 (44) 24 (26) 2 (5)
29 (38) 29 (31) 3 (7)
77 (100) 93 (100) 43 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


~












Table B.2 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Gender
Variable and Responses Male Female
n (% n (%)*


Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Type of Employment Organization
Gov't/Public-Educational
Gov't/Public-Non-Educational
Business-Agricultural
Business-Non-Agricultural
Not-for-Profit
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Preferred IRREC Subject Area
Agribusiness
Horticultural Science
Ag Education & Communication
Total
Preferred Agribusiness Area
Human Resources and Sales
Trade, Policy, and Marketing
Quant, Finance, and Theory


Funding


Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total
* Percent may not add to 100 due to r


35 (31) 56 (47)
30 (27) 33 (28)
47 (42) 29 (25)
112 (100) 118 (100)

6 (6) 24 (23)
7 (7) 10 (10)
29 (30) 9 (9)
53 (55) 59 (57)
1 (1) 2 (2)
96 (100) 104 (100)

40 (41) 61 (59)
21 (22) 16 (15)
36 (37) 27 (26)
97 (100) 104 (100)


48 (42)
48 (42)
17 (16)


64 (52)
28 (23)
30 (25)


113 (100) 122 (100)

43 (56) 30 (37)
21 (27) 16 (20)
13 (17) 36 (44)
77 (100) 82 (100)

16 (19) 29 (35)
40 (47) 21 (25)
29 (34) 33 (40)
85 (100) 83 (100)

55 (54) 37 (33)
21 (21) 39 (35)
25 (25) 36 (32)
101 (100) 112 (100)
wounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












Table B.3 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Marital Status
Variable and Responses Single Married
n (%)* n (%)*
Age


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
County of Residence
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Okeechobee
Alachua
Other Location
Total
Urban/Rural
In the City
Outskirts of Town
In Farming Area
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
County of Employment
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Okeechobee
Alachua
Other Location
Combination
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total


71 (59)
36 (30)
14 (12)


8 (7)
68 (57)
43 136)


121 (100) 119 (100)

76 (65) 15 (13)
22 (19) 41 (36)
19 (16) 57 (50)
117 (100) 113 (100)

22 (18) 22 (18)
43 (36) 43 (36)
24 (20) 28 (24)
12 (10) 16 (13)
16 (13) 2 (2)
4 (4) 8 (7)
121 (100) 119 (100)

60 (50) 37 (31)
54 (45) 69 (58)
7 (6) 13 (11)
121 (100) 119 (100)

89 (75) 111 (94)
30 (25) 7 (6)
119 (100) 118 (100)

16 (18) 17 (15)
30 (33) 34 (31)
13 (14) 28 (25)
8 (9) 17 (15)
18 (20) 2 (2)
6 (7) 6 (5)
0 0 6 (5)
91 (100) 110 (100)

61 (68) 40 (36)
15 (17) 22 (20)
14 (16) 49 (44)
90 (100) 111 (100)

48 (40) 90 (77)
73 (60) 27 (23)
121 (100) 117 (100)

76 (63) 36 (31)
20 (17) 56 (49)
24 (20) 23 (20)
120 (100) 115 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey














Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Season
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Testing Method
Proctored, Classroom
Proctored, Not Classroom
Take Home
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total
* Percent may not add to 100 due tc


14 (12)
41 (36)
46 (41)
12 (11)


28 (26)
16 (15)
27 (25)
36 (34)


113 (100) 107 (100)

41 (36) 11 (11)
33 (29) 37 (36)
39 (35) 54 (53)
113 (100) 102 (100)

11 (10) 7 (7)
10 (9) 18 (18)
31 (28) 9 (9)
4 (4) 6 (6)
56 (50) 60 (60)
112 (100) 100 (100)

46 (40) 20 (19)
20 (17) 3 (3)
36 (31) 57 '(54)
13 (11) 25 (24)
115 (100) 105 (100)

33 (31) 35 (50)
6 (6) 6 (9)
66 (63) 29 (41)
105 (100) 70 (100)

30 (26) 62 (63)
43 (38) 17 (17)
41 (36) 20 (20)
114 (100) 99 (100)
rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey















Table B.4 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Income
Variable and Responses $0-$40,000 $41,000-$80,000 $81,000+
n (%* n (%I* n (%)*


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
S51+ Years
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Funding
Se!f-Funded


56 (62) 11 (17) 8 (11)
26 (29) 37 (59) 38 (50)
9 (10) 15 (24) 30 (39)
91 (100) 63 (100) 76 (100)

35 (38) 30 (48) 47 (62)
56 (62) 33 (52) 29 (38)
91 (100) 63 (100) 76 (100)

76 (84) 22 (35) 19 (25)
15 (16) 41 (65) 57 (75)
91 (100) 63 (100) 76 (100)

68 (76) 59 (94) 67 (91)
22 (24) 4 (6) 7 (9)
90 (100) 63 (100) 74 (100)

55 (80) 25 (42) 18 (27)
7 (10) 18 (31) 12 (18)
7 (10) 16 (27) 37 (55)
69 (100) 59 (100) 67 (100)

31 (34) 40 (65) 61 (81)
60 (66) 22 (35) 14 (19)
91 (100) 62 (100) 75 (100)

60 (67) 27 (44) 21 (28)
12 (13) 19 (31) 42 (56)
18 (20) 15 (25) 12 (16)
90 (100) 61 (100) 75 (100)

9 (11) 12 (20) 20 (31)
32 (38) 14 (23) 9 (14)
37 (44) 17 (28) 16 (25)
7 (8) 17 (28) 20 (31)
85 (100) 60 (100) 65 (100)

30 (34) 12 (21) 8 (13)
23 (26) 20 (36) 26 (41)
34 (39) 24 (43) 30 (47)
87 (100) 56 (100) 64 (100)

33 (38) 13 (23) 15 (22)
17 (19) 2 (4) 4 (6)
30 (34) 29 (52) 33 (49)
8 (9) 12 (21) 16 (24)
88 (100) 56 (100) 68 (100)

17 (20) 24 (44) 49 (75)


An Analysis of the IRREC Snidei Needs Survey











Outside Funding
Combination
Total


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


35 (41) 19 (35)
33 (39) 12 (22)
85 (100) 55 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


3 (5)
13 (20)
65 (100)













Table B.5 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with County of Residence


Variable and Responses


Indian River


n (%)*


St. Lucie


n (%)*


Martin
(%)*


n


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Distance from Ft. Pierce
0-20 Miles
20+ Miles
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total


Age
0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Distance from Ft. Pierce
0-20 Miles
20+ Miles
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
* Percent may not add to


16 (36) 27 (31) 9 (17)
12 (27) 44 (51) 28 (54)
16 (36) 15 (17) 15 (29)
44 (100) 86 (100) 52 (100)

22 (50) 43 (50) 24 (46)
22 (50) 43 (50) 28 (54)
44 (100) 86 (100) 52 (100)

27 (63) 82 (95) 15 (30)
16 (37) 4 (5) 35 (70)
43 (100) 86 (100) 50 (100)

25 (58) 45 (52) 37 (73)
18 (42) 41 (48) 14 (27)


43 (100)

Okeechobee
n (%)*


86 (100)


Alachua
n (%)*


51 (100)

Other Location
n (%)*


8 (29) 16 (89) 3 (25)
11 (39) 2 (11) 7 (58)
9 (32) 0 0 2 (17)
28 (100) 18 (100) 12 (100)

12 (43) 16 (89) 4 (33)
16 (57) 2 (11) 8 (67)
28 (100) 18 (100) 12 (100)

0 0 1 (6) 0 0
28 (100) 17 (94) 11 (100)
28 (100) 18 (100) 11 (100)

23 (82) 1 (6) 7 (58)
5 (18) 17 (94) 5 (42)
28 (100) 18 (1001 12 (100)


100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


Indian RS..


--


--












Table B.6 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Distance
from Ft. Pierce
Variable and Resoonses 0-20 Miles 20+


n (%)*


n (%*


County of Residence
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Okeechobee
Alachua
Other Location
Total
County of Employment
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Okeechobee
Alachua
Other Location
Combination
Total
Preferred Horticulture Subject Area
Vegetable Production
Environmental Horticulture
Citrus Production
PostHarvest Physiology
Total
Course Time
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
* Percent may not add to 100 due


27 (22) 16 (14)
82 (66) 4 (4)
15 (12) 35 (32)
0 0 28 (25)
1 (1) 17 (15)
0 0 11 (10)
125 (100) 111 (100)

21 (20) 11 (12)
58 (55) 6 (7)
13 (12) 27 (29)
1 (1) 24 (26)
7 (7) 12 (13)
0 0 11 (12)
5 (5) 1 (1)
105 (100) 92 (100)

13 (18) 15 (27)
15 (20) 20 (36)
40 (54) 14 (25)
6 (8) 6 (11)
74 (100) 55 (100)

25 (22) 40 (39)
12 (10) 10 (10)
56 (49) 36 (35)
22 (19) 16 (17)
115 (100) 102 (100)
to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


Miles


..... i












Table B.7 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Urban/Rural
Variable and Responses In the City Outskirts of Town In Farming Area
n (%)* n (%)* n (%)*
Marital Status
Single 60 (62) 54 (44) 7 (35)
Married 37 (38) 69 (56) 13 (65)
Total 97 (100) 123 (100) 20 (100)
* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey













Table B.8 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Employment
Status


Variable and Responses


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total
* Percent may not add to 100 due tc


Employed Unemployed
n (%)* n (%)*

50 (25) 27 (73)
99 (50) 4 (11)
51 (25) 6 (16)
200 (100) 37 (100)

89 (45) 30 (81)
111 (56) 7 (19)
200 (100) 37 (100)

68 (35) 22 (67)
59 (30) 4 (12)
67 (35) 7 (21)
194 (100) 33 (100)

134 (67) 7 (19)
67 (33) 30 ,(81)
201 (100) 37 (100)

86 (43) 27 (75)
73 (37) 4 (11)
40 (20) 5 (14)
199 (100) 36 (100)

40 (22) 2 (6)
38 (20) 19 (56)
63 (34) 9 (26)
45 (24) 4 (12)
186 (100) 34 (100)

37 (20) 14 (44)
65 (36) 6 (19)
81 (44) 12 (38)
183 (100) 32 (100)

49 (26) 16 (50)
15 (8) 8 (25)
89 (48) 4 (13)
34 (18) 4 (13)
187 (100) 32 (100)

84 (47) 8 (24)
48 (27) 11 (33)
47 (26) 14 (42)
179 (100) 33 (100)
Sounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey













Table B.9 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with County of Employment
Variable and Responses Indian River St. Lucie Martin Okeechobee
n (%)* n (%)* n (%* n (%)*


Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Distance from Ft. Pierce
0-20 Miles
20+ Miles
Total


16 (48) 30 (47) 13 (32) 8 (32)
17 (52) 34 (53) 28 (68) 17 (68)
33 (100) 64 (100) 41 (100) 25 (100)

21 (66) 58 (91) 13 (33) 1 (4)
11 (34) 6 (9) 27 (68) 24 (96)


32 (100)


64 (100)


40 (100)


25 (100)


Alachua Other Location Combination
n (%)* n (%)* n (%)*
Marital Status
Single 18 (90) 6 (50) 0 0
Married 2 (10) 6 (50) 6 (100)
Total 20 (100) 12 (100) 6 (100)
Distance from Ft. Pierce
0-20 Miles 7 (37) 0 0 5 (83)
20+ Miles 12 (63) 11 (100) 1 (17)
Total 19 (100) 11 (100) 6 (100)
* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey














Table B.10 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Type of Employment
Organization
VariableandResponses Gov'UPublicEd Gov'UPublicNonEd Bu s


n (%)* n (%)*


n (%Y*


Gender
Male
Female
Total
Employment Staff Number
0-50 Employees
50+ Employees
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total


6 (20) 7 (41) 29 (76)
24 (80) 10 (59) 9 (24)
30 (100) 17 (100) 38 (100)

6 (24) 2 (12) 24 (62)
19 (76) 15 (88) 15 (38)
25 (100) 17 (100) 39 (100)

10 (33) 9 (53) 26 (67)
20 (67) 8 (47) 13 (33)


30 (100)


Business Non-Ag
n (%)*


Gender
Male
Female
Total
Employment Staff Number
0-50 Employees
50+ Employees
Total
Current Education Status


53 (47)
59 (53)
112 (100)

84 (75)
28 (25)


17 (100)

Not-for-Profit
n (%)*


39 (100)


1 (33)
2 (67)
3 (100)

2 (67)
1 (33)


112 (100) 3 (100)


No 86 (77) 2 (67)
Yes 26 (23) 1 (33)
Total 112 (100) 3 (100)
* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


---r ......


--


--


An













Table B.11 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Employment
Staff Number
Variable and Responses 0-50 Employees 50+ Employees
n (%)* n (%)*
Age
0-25 Years 29 (24) 17 (22)
26-50 Years 51 (43) 47 (62)
51+ Years 39 (33) 12 (16)
Total 119 (100) 76 (100)
Type of Employment Organization
Gov'tlPublic-Educational 6 (5) 19 (24)
Gov't/Public-Non-Educational 2 (2) 15 (19)
Business-Agricultural 24 (20) 15 (19)
Business-Non-Agricultural 84 (71) 28 (36)
Not-for-Profit 2 (2) 1 (1)
Total 118 (100) 78 (100)
Internship Opportunities
Yes 44 (37) 39 (52)
No 53 (45) 18 (24)
Don't Know 22 (18) 18 (24)
Total 119 (100) 75 (100)
Preferred Agribusiness Area
Human Resources and Sales 13 (16) 22 (39)
Trade, Policy, and Marketing 32 (39) 16 (28)
Quant, Finance, and Theory 37 (45) 19 (33)
Total 82 (100) 57 (100)
Course Level
Audit or Certification 27 (25) 12 (16)
Undergraduate 23 (22) 14 (19)
Graduate 23 (22) 37 (50)
Not Interested in Coursework 33 (31) 11 (15)
Total 106 (100) 74 (100)
* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey
















Table B.12 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Length of Employment


Variable and Responses


0-5 Years
n (%*


6-10 Years
n (%*


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Preferred IRREC Subject Area
Agribusiness
Horticultural Science
Ag Education & Communication
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Funding


47 (47) 2 (5) 1 (2)
45 (45) 23 (62) 31 (49)
9 (9) 12 (32) 31 (49)
101 (100) 37 (100) 63 (100)

40 (40) 21 (57) 36 (57)
61 (60) 16 (43) 27 (43)
101 (100) 37 (100) 63 (100)

61 (60) 15 (41) 14 (22)
40 (40) 22 (59) 49 (78)
101 (100) 37 (100) 63 (100)

55 (56) 7 (19) 7 (12)
25 (26) 18 (49) 16 (27)
18 (18) 12 (32) 37 (62)
98 (100) 37 (100) 60 (100)

49 (49) 30 (81) 56 (88)
52 (51) 7 (19) 8 (13)
101 (100) 37 (100) 64 (100)

62 (61) 15 (41) 10 (16)
18 (18) 18 (49) 37 (60)
21 (21) 4 (11) 15 (24)
101 (100) 37 (100) 62 (100)

24 (32) 13 (52) 21 (60)
18 (24) 8 (32) 6 (17)
32 (43) 4 (16) 8 (23)
74 (100) 25 (100) 35 (100)

13 (13) 6 (19) 21 (38)
27 (28) 5 (16) 6 (11)
43 (44) 10 (31) 10 (18)
15 (15) 11 (34) 19 (34)
98 (100) 32 (100) 56 (100)

30 (30) 2 (6) 5 (10)
31 (31) 12 (35) 22 (44)
39 (39) 20 (59) 23 (46)
100 (100) 34 (100) 50 (100)

36 (36) 6 (17) 7 (13)
9 (9) 1 (3) 5 (10)
46 (46) 20 (56) 24 (46)
9 (9) 9 (25) 16 (31)
100 (100) 36 (100) 52 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


11+ Years
n (%I*















Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


32 (33) 14 (40) 38 (79)
32 (33) 10 (29) 6 (13)
33 (34) 11 (31) 4 (8)
97 (100) 35 (100) 48 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey
















Table B.13 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Current
Education Status
Variable and Responses No


n (%)*


n (%)*


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
County of Residence
Indian River
St. Lucie
Martin
Okeechobee
Alachua
Other Location
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Type of Employment Organization
Gov't/Public-Educational
Govt/Public-Non-Educational
Business-Agricultural
Business-Non-Agricultural
Not-for-Profit
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total


10 (8) 69 (69)
76 (55) 26 (26)
52 (38) 5 (5)
138 (100) 100 (100)

48 (35) 73 (73)
90 (65) 27 (27)
138 (100) 100 (100)

31 (23) 60 (63)
40 (30) 22 (23)
61 (46) 14 (15)
132 (100) 96 (100)

25 (18) 18 (18)
45 (33) 41 (41)
37 (27) 14 (14)
23 (17) 5 (5)
1 (1) 17 (17)
7 (5) 5 (5)
138 (100) 100 (100)

134 (95) 67 (69)
7 (5) 30 (31)
141 (100) 97 (100)

10 (8) 20 (29)
9 (7) 8 (12)
26 (20) 13 (19)
86 (65) 26 (38)
2 (2) 1 (1)
133 (100) 68 (100)

49 (36) 52 (78)
30 (22) 7 (10)
56 (41) 8 (12)
135 (100) 67 (100)

42 (30) 72 (73)
66 (48) 10 (10)
30 (22) 17 (17)
138 (100) 99 (100)


38 (31)
14 (11)
27 (22)
44 (36)
123 (100)


4 (5)
44 (45)
47 (48)
3 (3)
98 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


Yes


--


I


--















Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Season
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Aftemoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total
* Percent may not add to 100 due t


9 (7)
49 (40)
63 (52)


43 (45)
23 (24)
29 (31)


121 (100) 95 (100)

5 (4) 13 (14)
20 (17) 8 (8)
17 (14) 23 (24)
10 (8) 0 0
67 (56) 51 (54)
119 (100) 95 (100)

24 (19) 42 (44)
7 (6) 16 (17)
62 (50) 30 (32)
32 (26) 7 (7)
125 (100) 95 (100)

72 (62) 20 (21)
19 (16) 41 (43)
26 (22) 35 (36)
117 (100) 96 (100)
o rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey
















Table B.14 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Internship Opportunities
Variable and Responses Yes No Don't Know
n (%)* n (%* n (%*


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40 000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Employment Staff Number
0-50 Employees
50+ Employees
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Aftemoon
Evening


64 (57) 3 (4) 12 (26)
37 (33) 38 (50) 25 (53)
11 (10) 35 (46) 10 (21)
112 (100) 76 (100) 47 (100)

48 (43) 48 (63) 17 (36)
64 (57) '28 (37) 30 (64)
112 (100) 76 (100) 47 (100)

76 (68) 20 (26) 24 (51)
36 (32) 56 (74) 23 (49)
112 (100) 76 (100) 47 (100)

60 (56) 12 (16) 18 (40)
27 (25) 19 (26) 15 (33)
21 (19) 42 (58) 12 (27)
108 (100) 73 (100) 45 (100)

86 (76) 73 (95) 40 (89)
27 (24) 4 (5) 5 (11)
113 (100) 77 (100) '45 (100)

44 (53) 53 (75) 22 (55)
39 (47) 18 (25) 18 (45)
83 (100) 71 (100) 40 (100)

62 (71) 18 (25) 21 (53)
15 (17) 18 (25) 4 (10)
10 (11) 37 (51) 15 (38)
87 (100) 73 (100) 40 (100)

42 (37) 66 (87) 30 (64)
72 (63) 10 (13) 17 (36)
114 (100) 76 (100) 47 (100)

14 (13) 19 (28) 8 (18)
40 (37) 3 (4) 15 (34)
47 (44) 13 (19) 14 (32)
7 (6) 33 (49) 7 (16)
108 (100) 68 (100) 44 (100)

38 (34) 5 (8) 9 (23)
32 (29) 23 (37) 16 (41)
42 (38) 35 (56) 14 (36)
112 (100) 63 (100) 39 (100)


41 (38)
16 (15)
41 (38)


13 (19)
5 (8)
28 (41)


12 (29)
2 (5)
22 (54)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey














No Preference
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


11 (10) 22 (32) 5 (12)
109 (100) 68 (100) 41 (100)

28 (30) 39 (66) 42 (69)
47 (51) 9 (15) 8 (13)
17 (18) 11 (19) 11 (18)
92 (100) 59 (100) 61 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey













Table B.15 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with IRREC Subject Area


Variable and Resoonses


Agribusiness
n (%)*


Horticulture Ag Ed and Comm
n (%)* n (%)*


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Preferred Agribusiness Subject Area
Human Resources and Sales
Trade, Policy, and Marketing
Quant, Finance, and Theory
Total
Preferred Horticulture Subject Area
Vegetable Production
Environmental Horticulture
Citrus Production
PostHarvest Physiology
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total


27 (37) 10 (27) 28 (57)
29 (40) 22 (59) 12 (24)
17 (23) 5 (14) 9 (18)
73 (100) 37 (100) 49 (100)

43 (59) 21 (57) 13 (27)
30 (41) 16 (43) 36 (73)
73 (100) 37 (100) 49 (100)

24 (41) 18 (56) 32 (73)
13 (22) 8 (25) 4 (9)
21 (36) 6 (19) 8 (18)
58 (100) 32 (100) 44 (100)

10 (14) 9 (27) 20 (43)
31 (45) 11 (33) 14 (30)
28 (41) 13 (39) 12 (26)
69 (100) 33 (100) 46 (100)

9 (16) 12 (36) 8 (22)
8 (15) 15 (45) 10 (28)
31 (56) 4 (12) 15 (42)
7 (13) 2 (6) 3 (8)
55 (100) 33 (100) 36 (100)

31 (45) 14 (40) 14 (29)
13 (19) 15 (43) 16 (33)
25 (36) 6 (17) 18 (38)
69 (100) 35 (100) 48 (100)


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey













Table B.16 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Agribusiness Subject Area
Variable and Responses HR and Sales Trade, Policy, Mrkt Quant, Fin, Theory


Gender
Male
Female
Total
Employment Staff Number
0-50 Employees
50+ Employees
Total
Preferred IRREC Subject Area
Agribusiness
Horticultural Science
Ag Education & Communication
Total


n (%)* n (%Y n (%)

16 (36) 40 (66) 29 (47)
29 (64) 21 (34) 33 (53)
45 (100) 61 (100) 62 (100)

13 (37) 32 (67) 37 (66)
22 (63) 16 (33) 19 (34)
35 (100) 48 (100) 56 (100)

10 (26) 31 (55) 28 (53)
9 (23) 11 (20) 13 (25)
20 (51) 14 (25) 12 (23)
39 (1001 56 (100) 53 (1001


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey














Table B.17 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Horticultural Science Subject Area
Variable and Responses Veg Production Environmental Hort Citrus Production Post Harvest Phys
n (%)* n (%)* n (%) n (%)
Distance from Ft. Pierce
0-20 Miles 13 (46) 15 (43) 40 (74) 6 (50)
S20+ Miles 15 (54) 20 (57) 14 (26) 6 (50)
Total 28 (100) 35 (100) 54 (100) 12 (100)
Preferred IRREC Subject Area
Agribusiness 9 (31) 8 (24) 31 (62) 7 (58)
Horticultural Science 12 (41) 15 (45) 4 (8) 2 (17)
Ag Education & Communication 8 (28) 10 (30) 15 (30) 3 (25)
Total 29 (100) 33 (100) 50 (100) 12 (100)
* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey















Table B.18 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Course Level


Variable and Responses Audit/Certification
n (%)*


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Employment Staff Number
0-50 Employees
50+ Employees
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total
Course Time
Morning
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Fund;ng


6 (14)
23 (55)
13 (31)
42 (100)

14 (33)
28 (67}


Undergraduate
n (%1*


34 (60)
21 (37)
2 (4)
57 (100)

41 (72)
16 (28)


Graduate Not Interested
n (%)* n (%)*


36 (49)
28 (38)
9 (12)
73 (100)


3 (6)
20 (42)
25 (52)'
48 (100)


46 (63) 12 (25)
27 (37) 36 (75'


42 (100) 57 (100) 73 (100) 48 (100)

9 (22) 32 (58) 37 (53) 7 (16)
12 (29) 14 (25) 17 (24) 17 (39)
20 (49) 9 (16) 16 (23) 20 (45)
41 (100) 55 (100) 70 (100) 44 (100)

40 (95) 38 (67) 63 (88) 45 (92)
2 (5) 19 (33) 9 (13) 4 (8)
42 (100) 57 (100) 72 (100) 49 (100)

27 (69) 23 (62) 23 (38) 33 (75)
12 (31) 14 (38) 37 (62) 11 (25)
39 (100) 37 (100) 60 (100) 44 (100)

13 (33) 27 (71) 43 (68) 15 (33)
6 (15) 5 (13) 10 (16) 11 (24)
21 (53) 6 (16) 10 (16) 19 (42)
40 (100) 38 (100) 63 (100) 45 (100)

38 (90) 14 (24) 27 (36) 44 (94)
4 (10) 44 (76) 47 (64) 3 (6)
42 (100) 58 (100) 74 (100) 47 (100)

14 (34) 40 (69) 47 (64) 7 (15)
19 (46) 3 (5) 13 (18) 33 (70)
8 (20) 15 (26) 14 (19) 7 (15)
41 (100) 58 (100) 74 (100) 47 (100)

1 (2) 21 (38) 29 (40) 1 (2)
27 (66) 14 (25) 26 (36) 3 (7)
13 (32) 20 (36) 17 (24) 39 (91)
41 (100) 55 (100) 72 (100) 43 (100)

12 (29) 25 (43) 25 (36) 2 (5)
4 (10) 10 (17) 7 (10) 2 (5)
22 (54) 21 (36) 29 (42) 13 (31)
3 (7) 2 (3) 8 (12) 25 (60)
41 (100) 58 (100) 69 (100) 42 (100)


24 (60) 10 (17) 24 (35)
6 (15) 24 (41) 25 (37)


29 (76)
4 (11)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student A'c cJ. Survey


--


---


-----














Combination 10 (25) 24 (41) 19 (28) 5 (13)
Total 40 (100) 58 (100) 68 (100) 38 (100)
* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey
















Table B.19 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Course Length
Variable and Responses 16 Weeks 8 Weeks or Less


n (%*


n (%


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
,51+ Years
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Time
Moving
Afternoon
Evening
No Preference
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total
*Percents may not add to 100 due t


33 (63)
16 (31)
3 (6)
52 (100)

41 (79)
11 (21)


18 (26)
36 (51)
16 (23)
70 (100)


33 (47)
37 (53)


27 (29)
38 (41)
28 (30)
93 (100)

39 (42)
54 (58)


52 (100) 70 (100) 93 (100)

30 (60) 23 (33) 34 (39)
12 (24) 20 (29) 24 (27)
8 (16) 26 (38) 30 (34)
50 (100) 69 (100) 88 (100)

37 (73) 65 (92) 81 (87)
14 (27) 6 (8) 12 (13)
51 (100) 71 (100) 93 (100)

30 (81) 31 (48) 39 (48)
2 (5) 12 (18) 20 (24)
5 (14) 22 (34) 23 (28)
37 (100) 65 (100) 82 (100)

9 (17) 49 (68) 63 (68)
43 (83) 23 (32) 29 (32)
52 (100) 72 (100) 92 (100)

38 (73) 5 (8) 9 (23)
5 (10) 23 (37) 16 (41)
9 (17) 35 (56) 14 (36)
52 (100) 63 (100) 39 (100)

1 (2) 27 (39) 13 (15)
21 (40) 14 (20) 20 (22)
29 (56) 26 (37) 17 (19)
1 (2) 3 (4) 39 (44)
52 (100) 70 (100) 89 (100)

26 (52) 18 (26) 21 (23)
8 (16) 8 (12) 7 (8)
15 (30) 41 (59) 28 (30)
1 (2) 2 (3) 36 (39)
50 (100) 69 (100) 92 (100)

10 (20) 35 (51) 41 (48)
23 (47) 13 (19) 23 (27)
16 (33) 21 (30) 22 (26)
49 (100) 69 (100) 86 (100)


o rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


No Preference
n (%*


--


--


I J m i














Table B.20 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Course Season
Variable and Responses Spring Summer Fall
n (%l* n (%* n (%)*


Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total


11 (61) 10 (36) 31 (78)
7 (39) 18 (64) 9 (23)
18 (100) 28 (100) 40 (100)

5 (28) 20 (71) 17 (43)
13 (72) 8 (29) 23 (58)
18 (100) 28 (100) 40 (100)

4 (22) 13 (48) 13 (34)
8 (44) 8 (30) 14 (37)
6 (33) 6 (22) 11 (29)
18 (100) 27 (100) 38 (100)


Winter
n (%*


Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Funding
Self-Funded
Outside Funding
Combination
Total
*Percents may not add to


No Preference
n (%)*


4 (40) 56 (48)
6 (60) 60 (52)
10 (100) 116 (100)

10 (100) 67 (57)
0 0 51 (43)
10 (100) 118 (100)

9 (100) 44 (40)
0 0 29 (27)
0 0 36 (33)
9 (100) 109 (100)
100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey














Table B.21 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Course Time


Morning


n (%)*


Afternoon


n (%*


0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Distance from Ft. Pierce
0-20 Miles
20+ Miles
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less
No Preference
Total


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


42 (64) 16 (70) 12 (13) 7 (18)
19 (29) 4 (17) 59 (63) 13 (34)
5 (8) 3 (13) 22 (24) 18 (47)
66 (100) 23 (100) 93 (100) 38 (100)

46 (70) 20 (87) 36 (39) 13 (34)
20 (30) 3 (13) 57 (61) 25 (66)
66 (100) 23 (100) 93 (100) 38 (100)

33 (54) 17 (74) 30 (33) 8 (22)
13 (21) 2 (9) 29 (32) 12 (33)
15 (25) 4 (17) 33 (36) 16 (44)
61 (100) 23 (100) 92 (100) 36 (100)

25 (38) 12 (55) 56 (61) 22 (58)
40 (62) 10 (45) 36 (39) 16 (42)
65 (100) 22 (100) 92 (100) 38 (100)

49 (75) 15 (65) 89 (96) 34 (89)
16 (25) 8 (35) 4 (4) 4 (11)
65 (100) 23 (100) 93 (100) 38 (100)

36 (73) 9 (60) 46 (51) 9 (26)
6 (12) 1 (7) 20 (22) 9 (26)
7 (14) 5 (33) 24 (27) 16 (47)
49 (100) 15 (100) 90 (100) 34 (100)

24 (36) 7 (30) 62 (67) 32 (82)
42 (64) 16 (70) 30 (33) 7 (18)
66 (100) 23 (100) 92 (100) 39 (100)

41 (62) 16 (70) 41 (45) 11 (29)
13 (20) 5 (22) 28 (31) 22 (58)
12 (18) 2 (9) 22 (24) 5 (13)
66 (100) 23 (100) 91 (100) 38 (100)

12 (19) 4 (17) 22 (26) 3 (8)
25 (39) 10 (43) 21 (25) 2 (5)
25 (39) 7 (30) 29 (34) 8 (21)
2 (3) 2 (9) 13 (15) 25 (66)
64 (100) 23 (100) 85 (100) 38 (100)

26 (40) 8 (35) 15 (18) 1 (3)
18 (28) 8 (35) 41 (49) 2 (5)
21 (32) 7 (30) 28 (33) 36 (92)
65 (100) 23 (100) 84 (100) 39 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey


Evening


Nc


n (%)*


Preference
n (%)*


.^.^^^ ^.^ .- .^^-r--..-_____*-* ** ---- ---------


Variable and Res o s














Table B.22 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Testing Method
Variable and Responses Proc, Classroom Proc, Not Classrm Take Home
n (%)* n (%) n (%)
Marital Status
Single 33 (49) 6 (50) 66 (69)
SMarried 35 (51) 6 (50) 29 (31)
Total 68 (100) 12 (100) 95 (100)
* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey














Table B.23 Crosstabulations Significantly Associated with Funding
Variable and Responses Self-Funded Outside Funding Combination/Other


Age
0-25 Years
26-50 Years
51+ Years
Total
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Marital Status
Single
Married
Total
Income
$0-$40,000
$41,000-$80,000
$81,000+
Total
Employment Status
Employed
Unemployed
Total
Length of Employment
0-5 Years
6-10 Years
11+ Years
Total
Current Education Status
No
Yes
Total
Internship Opportunities
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
Preferred IRREC Subject Area
Agribusiness
Horticultural Science
Ag Education & Communication
Total
Course Level
Audit or Certification
Undergraduate
Graduate
Not Interested in Coursework
Total
Course Length
16 Weeks
8 Weeks or Less


n (%)* n (% )*

14 (15) 34 (57) 29 (48)
40 (43) 24 (40) 29 (48)
38 (41) 2 (3) 3 (5)
92 (100) 60 (100) 61 (100)

55 (60) 21 (35) 25 (41)
37 (40) 39 (65) 36 (59)
92 (100) 60 (100) 61 (100)

30 (33) 43 (72) 41 (67)
62 (67) 17 (28) 20 (33)
92 (100) 60 (100) 61 (100)

17 (19) 35 (61) 33 (57)
24 (27) 19 (33) 12 (21)
49 (54) 3 (5) 13 (22)
90 (100) 57 (100) 58 (100)

84 (91) 48 (81) 47 (77)
8 (9) 11 (19) 14 (23)
92 (100) 59 (100) 61 (100)

32 (38) 32 (67) 33 (69)
14 (17) 10 (21) 11 (23)
38 (45) 6 (13) 4 (8)
84 (100) 48 (100) 48 (100)

72 (78) 19 (32) 26 (43)
20 (22) 41 (68) 35 (57)
92 (100) 60 (100) 61 (100)

28 (30) 39 (66) 42 (69)
47 (51) 9 (15) 8 (13)
17 (18) 11 (19) 11 (18)
92 (100) 59 (100) 61 (100)

31 (53) 13 (30) 25 (51)
14 (24) 15 (34) 6 (12)
14 (24) 16 (36) 18 (37)
59 (100) 44 (100) 49 (100)

24 (28) 6 (10) 10 (17)
10 (11) 24 (41) 24 (41)
24 (28) 25 (42) 19 (33)
29 (33) 4 (7) 5 (9)
87 (100) 59 (100) 58 (100)


10 (12) 23 (39) 16 (27)
35 (41) 13 (22) 21 (36)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey












No Preference
Total
Course Season
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
No Preference
Total


* Percent may not add to 100 due to rounding.


41 (48) 23 (39) 22 (37)
86 (100) 59 (100) 59 (100)

4 (5) 8 (14) 6 (10)
13 (16) 8 (14) 6 (10)
13 (16) 14 (24) 11 (19)
9 (11) 0 0 0 0
44 (53) 29 (49) 36 (61)
83 (100) 59 (100) 59 (100)


An Analysis of the IRREC Student Needs Survey




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs