Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2006 Semester. Spring Semester 2006 Course and Teaching Evaluations

Transcription

1 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Philadelphia, Pennsylvania A Commonwealth INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE PROVOST Ira M. Schwartz Phone: (215) Provost Fax: (215) ira.schwartz@temple.edu To: From: Subject: Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2006 Semester Ira M. Schwartz Spring Semester 2006 Course and Teaching Evaluations Date: June, 2006 Included in this envelope are the results from the student evaluations for the spring 2006 semester for your course. The results are based on those student evaluations that were returned to your college or departmental office by the student volunteer from your course. This envelope contains a summary of the rating data, and a listing of all the comments made by the students in your course to the open-ended questions on the evaluation form. A brief explanation of how to interpret the data is presented below. Data from a hypothetical course section for Question 1 within the General Information About the Instructor area: ENROLLMENT: 14 RETURNED FORMS: 12 Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 Neutral = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Not Applicable or Did Not Answer Mean SD Pct l Rank 1. The instructor clearly explained the educational objectives of this course. n = 12 (7) 58% (4) 33% (1) 8% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) % 43% 11% 4% 2% % 42% 9% 3% 1% % 40% 9% 3% 2% % 41% 9% 4% 2% The data presented above indicate that there were 14 students enrolled in the course, but that only 12 returned the evaluation form. The first line in the table reports the number of students who used each of the possible ratings. Thus, of the 12 students who completed the rating form, 7 indicated that they Strongly Agree with the statement that The instructor clearly explained the educational objectives of this course, four indicated that they Agree IMS-4006 Page 58895

2 Spring Semester 2006 Course and Teaching Evaluations Page 2 with this statement, one student reported Neutral, and no student indicated disagreement with the statement. In addition, no student checked Not Applicable or did not answer the question. The second line of the table (labeled ) presents these same data converted into percentages. Since 7 out of the 12 students used the rating of Strongly Agree, this is 58% of the ratings. The 4 students who indicated that they Agree with the statement represent 33% of the ratings, and so on. Using a value of 5 for Strongly Agree, 4 for Agree, 3 for Neutral and so on, the mean (or average) for this section is The column labeled SD (for Standard Deviation) is an indication of the dispersion of the ratings. Since most of the students rated the course fairly highly, the dispersion of these ratings is relatively small. The final four lines of the table report the data for different comparison groups. These groups are: Third line (): Fourth line (): Fifth line (): Sixth line (): All of the courses in the same department as the hypothetical course All of the courses in the same college as the hypothetical course All of the courses, across the, at the same level (lower division undergraduate, upper division undergraduate, or graduate/professional) as the hypothetical course All of the courses across the entire The final number in the table at the end of lines three through six is a percentile rank that is provided as one way to compare an instructor s ratings to these different groups. For example, on the bottom line, the table indicates that for Question 1, the average score for all courses rated in the sample semester was When the average Question 1 scores for all courses are listed from top to bottom, the hypothetical course s average of 4.50 is at the 66 th percentile. That is, 66% of all the courses had average scores lower than the hypothetical s on Question 1. These data are reported for all 15 questions on the evaluation form. The additional data that are reported (page 1 of your report) were derived from the questions at the top of the student evaluation form. These questions ask the students to indicate what their interest was in the course prior to taking it, what grade they expect to get, whether the course was required or elected, and the number of hours per week spent preparing for the course. As before, comparison data are provided. Please be advised that data are not reported for any course in which the enrollment is less than eight. This decision was made to ensure that anonymity is maintained for students whose identity might be determined in courses with limited enrollment. If you have suggestions about the way the form is structured or about the way the data are reported, please send your suggestions to me. Thank you for your participation. Page 58896

3 Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Spring 2006 CRN: INSTR. NAME: NEWMAN, STEVEN DEPARTMENT: ENGLISH (02407) COURSE #: W333 SECT. #: 001 CAMPUS: BROAD AND MONTGOMERY COLLEGE: LIBERAL ARTS TIMES TAUGHT: INSTR. TUid: COURSE NAME: INSTRUCTOR: FIRST TIME STDS RESTORATION 18C L 1 of 1 ENROLLMENT: 12 COMPLETED EVALUATIONS: 12 Low = 1 Moderate = 2 High = 3 Not Answered Mean SD Pct l Rank 1. Before enrolling, my level of interest in the subject matter of this course was 11 (2) (3) (6) (1) 18% 27% 55% % 53% 29% % 48% 34% % 43% 45% % 47% 36% F = 0 D = 1 C = 2 B = 3 A = 4 2. Expected grade in this course 11 (5) (6) (0) (0) (0) (1) 45% 55% 0% 0% 0% % 53% 10% 0% 0% % 49% 10% 0% 0% % 44% 9% 0% 0% % 45% 10% 1% 0% Elective = 2 Required = 1 3. Course was: Required or Elective 8 (7) (1) (4) 88% 13% % 27% % 39% % 33% % 28% More than 9 = = = = 2 Less than 1 = 1 4. Hours per week spent preparing for course 10 (0) (3) (6) (1) (0) (2) 0% 30% 60% 10% 0% % 46% 38% 8% 3% % 53% 29% 5% 2% % 45% 32% 8% 6% % 47% 30% 8% 5% Page 58897

4 Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Spring 2006 CRN: INSTR. NAME: NEWMAN, STEVEN DEPARTMENT: ENGLISH (02407) COURSE #: W333 SECT. #: 001 CAMPUS: BROAD AND MONTGOMERY COLLEGE: LIBERAL ARTS ENROLLMENT: COMPLETED EVALUATIONS: TIMES TAUGHT: INSTR. TUid: COURSE NAME: INSTRUCTOR: Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 FIRST TIME STDS RESTORATION 18C L 1 of 1 Neutral = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Not Answered Mean SD Pct l Rank 1. The instructor clearly explained the educational objectives of this course. 2. The instructor was well organized and prepared for class. 3. So far, the instructor has graded fairly. 4. The instructor scheduled time and was available to students outside of class. 5. The instructor provided prompt feedback about exams, projects, rehearsals, and performances. 6. The instructor consistently started and ended class on time. 7. The instructor promoted a classroom atmosphere in which I felt free to ask questions and express my opinions. 8. The instructor taught this course well. 11 (8) (3) (0) (0) (0) (1) 73% 27% 0% 0% 0% % 41% 7% 3% 1% % 41% 8% 3% 1% % 39% 8% 3% 1% % 40% 9% 3% 2% (8) (2) (0) (0) (0) (2) 80% 20% 0% 0% 0% % 37% 8% 3% 1% % 38% 8% 3% 1% % 37% 7% 3% 1% % 38% 8% 3% 1% (10) (2) (0) (0) (0) (0) 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% % 37% 12% 4% 2% % 38% 10% 4% 2% % 36% 10% 4% 2% % 37% 11% 4% 2% (10) (2) (0) (0) (0) (0) 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% % 37% 10% 2% 1% % 38% 15% 2% 1% % 37% 14% 3% 1% % 37% 16% 3% 1% (9) (2) (0) (0) (0) (1) 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% % 39% 10% 4% 2% % 40% 11% 4% 2% % 38% 10% 4% 2% % 39% 11% 4% 2% (9) (2) (0) (0) (0) (1) 82% 18% 0% 0% 0% % 39% 7% 3% 1% % 41% 6% 3% 1% % 39% 6% 3% 1% % 40% 7% 3% 1% (8) (3) (0) (0) (0) (1) 73% 27% 0% 0% 0% % 32% 7% 3% 2% % 33% 9% 3% 2% % 33% 8% 3% 2% % 34% 9% 3% 2% (8) (3) (0) (0) (0) (1) 73% 27% 0% 0% 0% % 33% 10% 4% 2% % 34% 10% 4% 2% % 33% 10% 4% 3% % 34% 11% 4% 3% Page 58898

5 Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Spring 2006 CRN: INSTR. NAME: NEWMAN, STEVEN DEPARTMENT: ENGLISH (02407) COURSE #: W333 SECT. #: 001 CAMPUS: BROAD AND MONTGOMERY COLLEGE: LIBERAL ARTS ENROLLMENT: COMPLETED EVALUATIONS: TIMES TAUGHT: INSTR. TUid: COURSE NAME: INSTRUCTOR: Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 FIRST TIME STDS RESTORATION 18C L 1 of 1 Neutral = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Not Answered Mean SD Pct l Rank 1. The course materials (textbook, handouts, etc.) and course activities were useful and of high quality. 2. I learned a great deal in this course. 3. I increased my ability to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view. 4. Information technology (Internet, , courseware, etc.) was used effectively in the course. 5. I gained an interest in learning more about the material covered in this course. 6. This course had value to me. 11 (8) (2) (1) (0) (0) (1) 73% 18% 9% 0% 0% % 43% 13% 4% 2% % 43% 14% 5% 2% % 41% 15% 6% 3% % 42% 16% 6% 3% (9) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) 82% 9% 9% 0% 0% % 41% 16% 5% 2% % 41% 14% 4% 2% % 40% 12% 4% 2% % 41% 14% 5% 2% (8) (3) (0) (0) (0) (1) 73% 27% 0% 0% 0% % 42% 15% 4% 2% % 40% 20% 5% 2% % 39% 18% 5% 2% % 40% 20% 5% 2% (8) (3) (0) (0) (0) (1) 73% 27% 0% 0% 0% % 40% 21% 5% 2% % 39% 20% 5% 2% % 39% 17% 4% 2% % 40% 19% 5% 2% (8) (2) (1) (0) (0) (1) 73% 18% 9% 0% 0% % 35% 22% 9% 4% % 37% 18% 7% 4% % 37% 15% 6% 3% % 37% 18% 8% 4% (9) (1) (1) (0) (0) (1) 82% 9% 9% 0% 0% % 40% 16% 5% 3% % 40% 16% 5% 3% % 39% 12% 4% 2% % 40% 15% 5% 3% Not Answered Too Light = 1 Light = 2 Average = 3 Heavy = 4 Too Heavy = 5 7. The workload for this course was 12 (0) (9) (3) (0) (0) (0) 0% 75% 25% 0% 0% % 34% 56% 4% 0% % 26% 62% 8% 0% % 31% 55% 7% 0% % 28% 57% 8% 1% Page 58899

6 Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Spring 2006 CRN: INSTR. NAME: NEWMAN, STEVEN INSTRUCTOR: 1 of 1 Additional Items Report Below is an analysis of responses in the "Additional Items" section of the student sheets. This section was not scored because either additional (optional) items were not used or no additional items were answered. Page 58900

7 083548: Comment #1 Page 58901

8 083548: Comment #2 Page 58902

9 083548: Comment #3 Page 58903

10 083548: Comment #4 Page 58904

11 083548: Comment #5 Page 58905

12 083548: Comment #6 Page 58906

13 083548: Comment #7 Page 58907

14 083548: Comment #8 Page 58908

15 083548: Comment #9 Page 58909

16 083548: Comment #10 Page 58910