| |
5 (excellent)
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1 (poor)
|
Mean (STD)
|
|---|
|
Composition of the program
|
13 (69%)
|
5 (26%)
|
1 (5%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
4.68 (0.58)
|
|
Organisation
|
9 (47%)
|
10 (53%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
4.47 (0.51)
|
|
Range of topics
|
13 (69%)
|
5 (26%)
|
1 (5%)
|
0 (0%)
|
0 (0%)
|
4.68 (0.58)
|
|
Social program
|
7 (37%)
|
9 (47%)
|
2 (11%)
|
1 (5%)
|
0 (0%)
|
4.16 (0.83)
|
- Legend: Rating range from 5 (excellent) to 1 (poor) on the lime survey given in total (and relative) frequency. The evaluation was on a voluntary basis; the students were asked to rate only the workshops they really attended; multiple ratings were not allowed
