Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Fall 2005 Semester. Fall Semester 2005 Course and Teaching Evaluations

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

Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Spring 2007 Term. Spring 2007 Course and Teaching Evaluations

CITY WAGE TAX REFUND FORM

It is December 15, Phillip Groth, CFO, and Carver Smith, Controller, both

2009 Spring Check-In Survey Report

American University of Armenia 2018 Freshman Student Exit Survey. Prepared by Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Chabot College Fall 2007 Student Accreditation Survey: All Students

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium and Smaller Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2012

Derivatives (Futures and Options) (MGMT ; CRN: 34067) Spring 2016

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2010

American University of Armenia 2016 FRESHMAN STUDENT EXIT SURVEY

Interpreting the Frequency Distributions Report

WEST VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY PETITION FOR RETROACTIVE WITHDRAWAL DUE TO CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES

Social Studies 201 January 28, 2005 Measures of Variation Overview

MCJ 6240 ONLINE Criminal Justice Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation SYLLABUS Fall Lap top if available and flash drive

Research Universities (high and very high research activity) Frequency Distributions August 2011

Frequency Distributions August University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Master s Colleges & Universities (Medium & Small Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2009

Q2.1 Please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about the use of time in your school.

Master s Colleges & Universities (Larger Programs) Frequency Distributions August 2011

FSSE 2011 Frequency Distributions Illinois State University

Frequency Distributions August Baccalaureate Colleges Arts & Sciences

FSSE 2005 Frequency Distributions University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

FSSE 2008 Frequency Distributions Baccalaureate Colleges Arts & Sciences

FSSE 2006 Frequency Distributions University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Tax 6065 Tax Data Bases, Research, & Procedure University of West Florida

RES/FIN 9776 Real Estate Finance Spring 2014 M/W 05:50-7:05pm Room: building 22, 137 East 22nd, Room 203

Q1 I am a: CCC College Survey SP2014- Governance Awareness 1 / 11. Answ ered: 46 Skipped: 0. Student. Classified (full-time) Classified (hourly)

Continuing Education Employee Perception Survey. Briefing. Prepared by: SDCCD Office of Institutional Research and Planning September 4, 2009

College of Southern Maryland BUSINESS FINANCE. Course / Instructor Information. Things to Purchase. Course Description.

FSSE 2009 Frequency Distributions Kentucky State University

STUDENT EXPERIENCE SURVEY - HE 2016

San José State University Econ 1A, Principles of Macroeconomics, Section 19, Fall 2014

Math 14, Homework 6.2 p. 337 # 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 Name

Social Studies 201 January 28, Percentiles 2

East Alaska and West Alaska gold companies: the financial statement impact of accounting choices

Q1 The committee set attainable initiatives.

NSSE Benchmarks Mean Score for 5 Indicators of Effective Educational Practice

No, because np = 100(0.02) = 2. The value of np must be greater than or equal to 5 to use the normal approximation.

Professor Moll Secured Financing Spring 2018

Course Syllabus. Taxation 328: Partnership Taxation. Summer 2012 (Cyber: April 29- August 18) Golden Gate University School of Tax

Memorandum. Human Resources Division

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Financial Statement Procedures FPI 2-12

ABC Electronics: An Instructional Case Illustrating Auditors Use of Preliminary Analytical Procedures

Course: TA 318.C3 CyberCampus Advanced Federal Income Taxation Fall Michael Vinson

Welcome Professor, Instructors and Other Investment Groups

FSSE 2005 Frequency Distributions Total Grand Frequencies

F11 Freshman Check-in Summary Report

NSSE Scores for English Majors

NSSE Scores for Psychology Majors

NSSE Scores for Health and Exercise Science (HES) Majors

NSSE Scores for Geosciences Majors

TAXATION 322A Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders

Shiller versus Siegel: Are Stocks Too High?

NEW YORK LINKING STUDY

JEFFERSON COLLEGE COURSE SYLLABUS BUS245 COST ACCOUNTING. 3 Credit Hours. Prepared by: Mary E. Baricevic, Ph.D. April 18, 2013

New Mexico Highlands University Annual Operating Budget Process. approved Fall 2016

COWLEY COLLEGE & Area Vocational Technical School

Ethan Erickson, Assistant Vice President for Budget Planning

Illinois LINKING STUDY

Cash Control Systems

Dot Plot: A graph for displaying a set of data. Each numerical value is represented by a dot placed above a horizontal number line.

Online Course Catalog # Start Date End Date Weeks

2018 Curricular & Co-Curricular Assessment Needs Survey & Interview Report

ACST400/831/831X: ACTUARIAL CONTROL CYCLE 1 (Referred to below as ACC 1) Semester 1, 2007 ACC 1 UNIT OUTLINE

Excel-Based Active Learning in the Management Accounting Course K A R E N W. B R A U N C A S E W E S T E R N R E S E R V E U N I V E R S I T Y

BAFI 430 is a prerequisite for this class. Knowledge of derivatives, and particularly the Black Scholes model, will be assumed.

National Performance Management Advisory Commission; A Performance Measurement Framework for State and Local Government

Budget Reform Update. Paul Ellinger, Associate Chancellor & Vice Provost Budget and Resource Planning

ANNUAL PROGRAM PLANNING WORKSHEET (APPW)

Base Instructional Support Reduction. Base Instruction Reduction. Loss of Non- Base Recovery. Use of Carryover and Reallocation

PELLISSIPPI STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE MASTER SYLLABUS PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING II ACCT 1020

Institutional Diversity: Encourages students to have a public voice and share their ideas openly

MICHIGAN LINKING STUDY

Slide 1. Slide 2. Slide 3. Northeastern Ohio Actuarial Collaboration. Thomas Wakefield Youngstown State University

Public Finance Department of Public Finance National Chengchi University

NSSE Scores for Human Development and Family Studies (HDFS) Majors

Appropriate placement test scores. ENG 1010 or ENG score or prerequisite course

ACST4032 Actuarial Control Cycle A2

OHIO LINKING STUDY. A Study of the Alignment of the NWEA RIT Scale with the Ohio Achievement Assessment (OAA) December 2012

NSSE Scores for Art Majors

Voluntary Phased Retirement Plan for Full-Time Faculty

Massachusetts LINKING STUDY

NSSE Scores for Human Dimensions of Natural Resources (HDNR) Majors

Special Report. Retirement Confidence in America: Getting Ready for Tomorrow EBRI EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE. and Issue Brief no.

NSSE Scores across Pell Recipient Status

Draft CLA Budget Model,

NSSE Scores for Fish, Wildlife, & Conservation Biology (FWCB) Majors

Accounting Section 3 (DIS 83184) Cost Accounting Course Syllabus Fall 2016

Managerial Accounting

Finance 4021: Derivatives Professor Michael Ferguson Lindner Hall 415 phone: office hours: MW 9:00-10:30 a.m.

HRIR 6503 Employer Sponsored Employee Benefit Plans

PRE-LICENSING EDUCATION INFORMATION PACKET

DRAFT SYLLABUS SUBJECT TO CHANGE RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND ADMINISTRATION

2009 Computer Networking & Service Tech Summary Report

PELLISSIPPI STATE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE MASTER SYLLABUS PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTING II ACC 2120

Financial Accounting

SECTION 7 EARNED SERVICE CREDIT

The Student Experience in Brief: UNC Chapel Hill

CONNECTICUT LINKING STUDY

Transcription:

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122 A Commonwealth INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE PROVOST Ira M. Schwartz Phone: (215) 24-4775 Provost Fax: (215) 24-5816 E-mail: ira.schwartz@temple.edu To: From: Subject: Instructors Who Taught Courses During the Fall 25 Semester Ira M. Schwartz Fall Semester 25 Course and Teaching Evaluations Date: January, 26 Included in this envelope are the results from the student evaluations for the fall 25 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 Pct l Rank 1. The instructor clearly explained the educational objectives of this course. n = 12 (7) 58% (4) 33% (1) 8% () % () % () 4.5.65 41% 43% 11% 4% 2% 4.17.89 74 44% 42% 9% 3% 1% 4.25.85 68 46% 4% 9% 3% 2% 4.24.89 59 45% 41% 9% 4% 2% 4.23.89 66 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-46 Page 14611

Fall Semester 25 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 4.5. The column labeled (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 4.23. When the average Question 1 scores for all courses are listed from top to bottom, the hypothetical course s average of 4.5 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 14612

Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Fall 25 CRN: 41811 INSTR. NAME: OFOEGBU, UCHECHUKWU O. DEPARTMENT: ELECTR ENG (9113) COURSE #: 21 SECT. #: 71 CAMPUS: BROAD AND MONTGOMERY COLLEGE: ENGINEERING TIMES TAUGHT: INSTR. TUid: COURSE NAME: INSTRUCTOR: FIRST TIME 977157 SIGNALS: CON & DISCRET 1 of 1 ENROLLMENT: 18 COMPLETED EVALUATIONS: 15 Low = 1 Moderate = 2 High = 3 Not Answered Pct l Rank 1. Before enrolling, my level of interest in the subject matter of this course was 13 (2) (8) (3) (2) 15% 62% 23% 2.8.62 11% 47% 42% 2.3.66 19 16% 49% 36% 2.2.69 32 12% 43% 45% 2.33.68 2 17% 46% 36% 2.19.71 35 F = D = 1 C = 2 B = 3 A = 4 2. Expected grade in this course 13 (3) (8) (2) () () (2) 23% 62% 15% % % 3.8.62 5% 35% 14% 1% % 3.34.75 28 5% 38% 12% 1% % 3.35.74 25 46% 44% 9% % % 3.37.67 17 45% 44% 1% 1% % 3.33.69 2 Elective = 2 Required = 1 3. Course was: Required or Elective 13 (13) () (2) 1% % 1.. 77% 23% 1.23.42 5 83% 17% 1.17.37 47 67% 33% 1.33.47 29 72% 28% 1.28.45 33 More than 9 = 5 7-9 = 4 4-6 = 3 1-3 = 2 Less than 1 = 1 4. Hours per week spent preparing for course 12 () (2) (6) (2) (2) (3) % 17% 5% 17% 17% 3.33.94 5% 34% 38% 14% 8% 2.86 1. 83 11% 37% 32% 12% 8% 2.68 1.7 84 9% 45% 32% 8% 6% 2.56.96 87 11% 47% 3% 8% 5% 2.49.95 9 Page 14613

Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Fall 25 CRN: 41811 INSTR. NAME: OFOEGBU, UCHECHUKWU O. DEPARTMENT: ELECTR ENG (9113) COURSE #: 21 SECT. #: 71 CAMPUS: BROAD AND MONTGOMERY COLLEGE: ENGINEERING ENROLLMENT: COMPLETED EVALUATIONS: 18 15 TIMES TAUGHT: INSTR. TUid: COURSE NAME: INSTRUCTOR: Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 FIRST TIME 977157 SIGNALS: CON & DISCRET 1 of 1 Neutral = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Not Answered 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. 14 (8) (6) () () () (1) 57% 43% % % % 4.57.49 38% 46% 11% 4% 2% 4.15.88 83 35% 48% 11% 4% 2% 4.11.87 86 48% 4% 8% 3% 1% 4.31.84 7 46% 4% 9% 3% 2% 4.25.87 72 15 (8) (7) () () () () 53% 47% % % % 4.53.5 42% 45% 9% 3% 1% 4.24.82 74 37% 47% 11% 4% 2% 4.15.86 78 51% 37% 7% 3% 1% 4.34.84 59 49% 38% 8% 3% 1% 4.3.85 62 15 (7) (7) () (1) () () 47% 47% % 7% % 4.33.79 39% 42% 12% 5% 2% 4.1.96 59 36% 44% 13% 5% 3% 4.5.96 66 47% 37% 1% 4% 2% 4.23.92 5 46% 37% 11% 4% 2% 4.21.92 52 14 (8) (6) () () () (1) 57% 43% % % % 4.57.49 39% 42% 14% 3% 1% 4.16.86 84 34% 45% 17% 3% 1% 4.6.87 88 44% 37% 15% 3% 1% 4.21.87 79 42% 38% 16% 3% 1% 4.17.88 8 14 (7) (7) () () () (1) 5% 5% % % % 4.5.5 38% 44% 12% 4% 2% 4.13.89 82 33% 46% 14% 5% 3% 4.2.94 85 45% 38% 1% 4% 2% 4.21.92 69 43% 39% 12% 4% 2% 4.18.93 71 14 (9) (5) () () () (1) 64% 36% % % % 4.64.48 43% 47% 7% 2% 1% 4.3.75 89 38% 49% 9% 3% 1% 4.2.81 9 5% 4% 6% 3% 1% 4.33.83 77 48% 41% 7% 3% 1% 4.31.83 79 14 (7) (7) () () () (1) 5% 5% % % % 4.5.5 47% 39% 9% 3% 1% 4.28.86 68 41% 44% 9% 3% 2% 4.2.87 75 54% 33% 8% 3% 2% 4.34.89 54 51% 34% 9% 3% 2% 4.29.91 57 14 (8) (5) (1) () () (1) 57% 36% 7% % % 4.5.63 38% 4% 13% 6% 3% 4.5 1.1 78 35% 42% 14% 6% 3% 3.99 1.1 82 5% 33% 1% 4% 3% 4.24.98 61 47% 34% 11% 4% 3% 4.18 1. 64 Page 14614

Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Fall 25 CRN: 41811 INSTR. NAME: OFOEGBU, UCHECHUKWU O. DEPARTMENT: ELECTR ENG (9113) COURSE #: 21 SECT. #: 71 CAMPUS: BROAD AND MONTGOMERY COLLEGE: ENGINEERING ENROLLMENT: COMPLETED EVALUATIONS: 18 15 TIMES TAUGHT: INSTR. TUid: COURSE NAME: INSTRUCTOR: Strongly Agree = 5 Agree = 4 FIRST TIME 977157 SIGNALS: CON & DISCRET 1 of 1 Neutral = 3 Disagree = 2 Strongly Disagree = 1 Not Answered 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, e-mail, 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. 14 (5) (7) (2) () () (1) 36% 5% 14% % % 4.21.67 24% 44% 18% 9% 5% 3.75 1.7 78 24% 45% 2% 8% 4% 3.77 1.2 78 35% 41% 15% 6% 3% 3.99 1. 65 32% 43% 16% 6% 3% 3.95 1. 67 15 (5) (9) (1) () () () 33% 6% 7% % % 4.27.57 31% 49% 14% 5% 2% 4..92 7 28% 48% 17% 6% 2% 3.93.94 76 41% 41% 12% 4% 2% 4.16.92 52 37% 41% 14% 5% 2% 4.7.95 59 15 (4) (7) (4) () () () 27% 47% 27% % % 4..73 27% 47% 19% 5% 2% 3.93.9 55 24% 47% 22% 5% 2% 3.86.91 61 35% 4% 18% 5% 2% 4.2.94 44 32% 4% 21% 6% 2% 3.94.97 51 13 (4) (6) (3) () () (2) 31% 46% 23% % % 4.8.73 31% 45% 18% 4% 2% 4..9 56 28% 44% 21% 5% 2% 3.91.93 65 37% 39% 18% 4% 2% 4.5.94 5 34% 4% 19% 5% 2% 3.98.97 56 13 (5) (4) (4) () () (2) 38% 31% 31% % % 4.8.83 31% 43% 18% 6% 4% 3.91 1.1 57 27% 43% 2% 6% 4% 3.82 1.1 66 38% 38% 15% 6% 3% 4.3 1.1 46 33% 37% 18% 8% 4% 3.88 1.8 56 13 (5) (5) (3) () () (2) 38% 38% 23% % % 4.15.77 33% 45% 15% 4% 3% 4.2.93 54 29% 46% 17% 4% 3% 3.94.96 62 42% 4% 12% 4% 2% 4.15.94 42 37% 4% 15% 5% 3% 4.3 1. 51 Not Answered Too Light = 1 Light = 2 Average = 3 Heavy = 4 Too Heavy = 5 7. The workload for this course was 14 (2) (5) (6) () (1) (1) 14% 36% 43% % 7% 3.5.98 5% 35% 53% 5% 1% 3.39.7 69 7% 3% 52% 1% 1% 3.31.78 69 7% 31% 55% 7% % 3.36.73 66 6% 28% 57% 8% 1% 3.31.73 7 Page 14615

Temple Course and Teaching Evaluation - Fall 25 CRN: INSTR. NAME: 41811 OFOEGBU, UCHECHUKWU O. INSTRUCTOR: 1 of 1 Additional Items Report Below is an analysis of responses in the "Additional Items" section of the student sheets. NA Low = 1 2 3 4 High = 5 Responses Question NA Low = 1 2 3 4 High = 5 Responses Question 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 1 () (7) (3) () () (5) 3.7.46 % 7% 3% % % 2 () (2) () () () (13) 4.. % 1% % % % 9 () (1) (8) () () (6) 3.11.31 % 11% 89% % % 4 () (3) (1) () () (11) 3.75.43 % 75% 25% % % 4 (1) (2) (1) () () (11) 4..71 25% 5% 25% % % 3 () (3) () () () (12) 4.. % 1% % % % 4 () (3) (1) () () (11) 3.75.43 % 75% 25% % % 4 () (2) (2) () () (11) 3.5.5 % 5% 5% % % 2 () (2) () () () (13) 4.. % 1% % % % 4 () (3) (1) () () (11) 3.75.43 % 75% 25% % % 3 () (2) (1) () () (12) 3.67.47 % 67% 33% % % 4 () (2) (2) () () (11) 3.5.5 % 5% 5% % % 3 () (3) () () () (12) 4.. % 1% % % % 4 () (3) (1) () () (11) 3.75.43 % 75% 25% % % 8 (2) (2) (3) (1) () (7) 3.63.99 25% 25% 38% 13% % 8 (1) (4) (3) () () (7) 3.75.66 13% 5% 38% % % 7 (1) (4) (2) () () (8) 3.86.64 14% 57% 29% % % 7 (2) (2) (2) (1) () (8) 3.71 1.3 29% 29% 29% 14% % 26. 27. 28. 29. 3. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 4. 41. 42. 43. 44. 2. 45. 21. 46. 22. 47. 23. 48. 24. 49. 25. 5. Page 14616

41811: Comment #1 Page 14617

41811: Comment #2 Page 14618

41811: Comment #3 Page 14619