DEVELOPING AN ON-LINE COURSE/INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION SYSTEM

V. Pougatchev, N. George, G. Lue, and R. Williams

References

  1. [1] L.M. Aleamoni, Typical Faculty concerns about student evalu-ation of instruction, New Directions for Teaching and Learning,31 (San Francisco: Jossey-Boss, Fall 1987), 25–31.
  2. [2] D. Esposito, R. Lhotka, S. Mohr, S. Robinson, M. Bortniker,S. Short, C. Blexrud, B. Loesgen, T. Huckaby, B. Sherrell,A. Rofail, J. Crossland, J. Hales, W. Hankison, D. Wahlin,V. Honnaya, S. Kristich, & E. Lee, Professional WindowsDNA: Building distributed web applications with VB, COM+,MSMQ, SOAP, and ASP, 1st Edition, WROX Press Ltd, 2000,ISBN 1861004451.
  3. [3] S. Clements, Component software—Beyond object-orientedprogramming, 2nd Edition, Addison-Wesley Professional/ACMPress, 2002, ISBN 0201745720.187Appendix A.An example of course/instructor evaluation, browsing through Internet Explorer188Appendix B.An example of OLCIES evaluation by students, browsing through Internet Explorer189Appendix CAn Example of Course/Instructor Evaluation of One Lecturer and “Enterprise Computing”Course by Students of One GroupInstructor Evaluation ResultsQuestions Mean Min Max SDev 1Freq 2Freq 3Freq 4Freq 5FreqMade the objectives of the course clear to students 4.52 1 5 0.95 1 0 1 5 16at the beginning of the semesterSet and followed standards for grading assignments 4.43 1 5 0.9 1 0 0 9 13Organized the learning experience so that students 4.17 1 5 1.07 1 1 2 8 11could easily benefit from itProvided knowledgeable support in the content area 4.52 1 5 0.9 1 0 0 7 15of this courseDisplayed enthusiasm for the subject matter and 4.52 1 5 0.95 1 0 1 5 16topics in the courseReturned assignments within two weeks of 4.65 1 5 0.88 1 0 0 4 18submissionWas able to change approaches to meet new 4.09 1 5 1.12 1 2 1 9 10situationsRelated course topics and assignments to real 4.52 1 5 0.95 1 0 1 5 16situationsWas approachable and showed interest in his/her 4.26 1 5 0.96 1 0 2 9 11studentsFacilitated student participation and involvement 4.22 1 5 0.95 1 0 2 10 10in the classesStimulated creative thinking among members of 4.35 1 5 0.98 1 0 2 7 13the classWas consistently on time 4.39 1 5 1.16 2 0 0 6 15Total number of Feedbacks is 23190Course Evaluation ResultsQuestions Mean Min Max SDev 1Freq 2Freq 3Freq 4Freq 5FreqThere was general agreement between the stated 4.75 4 5 0.44 0 0 0 6 18course objectives and what was actually taughtIn relation to other courses of equal credit value, 4.58 3 5 0.58 0 0 1 8 15the workload in this course was appropriate andmanageableThe textbook(s)/assigned reading materials were 3.92 0 5 1.61 0 0 1 9 11usefulMethods of instruction, including laboratory 4.46 3 5 0.59 0 0 1 11 12work, oral presentations, research, handouts, etc.assisted my learningCourse content was interesting and challenging 4.62 4 5 0.49 0 0 0 9 15Tutorials/practical were directly related to 4.62 4 5 0.49 0 0 0 9 15lecture materialThe grading system used in the course was clear and 4.71 4 5 0.46 0 0 0 7 17objectiveAssessments and examinations stressed important 4.54 3 5 0.59 0 0 1 9 14topics/points covered in the courseMy knowledge has increased as a result of taking this 4.75 4 5 0.44 0 0 0 6 18courseMy technical skills have improved as a result of taking 4.67 3 5 0.56 0 0 1 6 17this courseI would recommend this course to other students 4.75 3 5 0.53 0 0 1 4 19The learning environment for this course was 3.83 2 5 1.17 0 5 3 7 9satisfactoryTotal number of Feedbacks is 24Weight Composite ScoresSection Instructor Evaluation Course EvaluationWeighted-Score 43.87 45.17Weighed-Base 50 50Descriptions:The number of responses where Statistical datastudents have indicated• 5Freq—“Strongly agree” • SDev—“Standard Deviation” of students’ responses• 4Freq—“Agree” • Max—the number of students’ responses who evaluated “Strongly agree•3Freq—“Undecided” • Min—the number of students’ responses who evaluated “Strongly disagree•2Freq—“Disagree” • Mean—the average value of evaluation of students’ responses• 1Freq—“Strongly disagree”191Appendix D.An Analysis of the participation by students of each Academic Unit and OverallFaculty School/Department Class Groups Responses Average No.of Responsesper Class GroupFaculty of Business and Hospitality & Tourism Management 124 1397 11.3Management (FBAM)School of Business Administration 796 11950 15.0FBAM Total: 920 13347 14.5Faculty of Engineering & School of Computing & Information 267 3880 14.5Computing (FENC) TechnologySchool of Engineering 304 3720 12.2FENC Total: 571 7600 13.3Faculty of Education & School of Technical & Vocational 454 5346 11.8Liberal Studies (FELS) EducationDepartment of Humanities & 9 116 12.9Liberal studiesFELS Total: 463 5462 11.8Faculty of Health & School of Pharmacy & Health 447 5565 12.4Applied Science (FHAS) ScienceDepartment of Science & 82 779 9.5MathematicsFHAS Total: 529 6344 12.0Faculty of the Built Caribbean School of Architecture 99 1394 14.1Environment (FOBE)School of Building & Land 307 3289 10.7ManagementFOBE Total: 406 4683 11.5Grand Total: 2889 37436 13.0192Appendix E. Analysis of 3 highest and 3 lowest scoring item programme-group averages for each academicunit.Table E1Highlights the 3 Highest Scoring (Bold Large Typeface) and 3 Lowest Scoring (Small Italics Typeface) ItemProgramme-Group Averages for Each Academic Unit (The distribution of each highlighted item among class groups ispartially indicated by its Mean, Minimum, Maximum and Standard Deviation)School Groups Feature B-Score B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08 B09 B10 B11 B12Faculty: Faculty of Business and Management (FBAM)Hospitality & 124 Average 41.3 4.23 4.09 4.12 4.14 4.14 4.25 4.02 4.16 4.30 4.10 4.22 3.92Tourism Min 19.2 1.50 2.17 1.83 1.33 1.57 2.43 1.17 2.00 1.50 1.20 1.67 1.29Management Max 49.7 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Std.Dev 5.5 0.64 0.57 0.57 0.68 0.65 0.53 0.71 0.56 0.59 0.68 0.63 0.74School of 796 Average 41.1 4.25 3.99 4.03 4.11 4.17 4.22 4.10 4.21 4.24 4.03 4.09 3.91Business Min 10.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Administration Max 49.8 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Std.Dev 4.7 0.52 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.53 0.54 0.55 0.51 0.51 0.55 0.59 0.61FBAM Total: 920 Average 41.1 4.25 4.01 4.04 4.12 4.16 4.23 4.09 4.21 4.24 4.04 4.11 3.91Min 10.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Max 49.8 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Std.Dev 4.8 0.53 0.56 0.56 0.58 0.55 0.53 0.57 0.51 0.53 0.57 0.60 0.63Faculty: Faculty of Engineering and Computing (FENC)School of 267 Average 41.5 4.25 4.08 3.91 4.15 4.22 4.27 4.16 4.22 4.26 4.11 4.12 4.08Computing and Min 22.5 1.70 2.19 1.80 2.27 2.64 1.82 1.91 2.36 2.36 1.91 2.00 2.36Information Max 50.0 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Technology Std.Dev 4.3 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.50 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.46 0.48 0.56 0.53 0.51School of 304 Average 42.5 4.36 4.09 4.15 4.28 4.37 4.37 4.23 4.37 4.41 4.25 4.25 4.02Engineering Min 16.8 1.27 1.67 2.18 1.40 1.91 1.64 1.00 1.73 1.40 1.20 1.00 1.27Max 50.0 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Std.Dev 4.6 0.53 0.62 0.53 0.50 0.46 0.49 0.56 0.46 0.47 0.53 0.57 0.62FENC Total: 571 Average 42.0 4.31 4.31 4.09 4.03 4.22 4.30 4.32 4.19 4.30 4.34 4.18 4.19Min 16.8 1.27 1.27 1.67 1.80 1.40 1.91 1.64 1.00 1.73 1.40 1.20 1.00Max 50.0 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Std.Dev 4.5 0.51 0.51 0.57 0.55 0.50 0.46 0.48 0.53 0.47 0.48 0.55 0.55Grand Total for the university:2889 Average 42.2 4.33 4.10 4.12 4.23 4.29 4.31 4.17 4.29 4.36 4.19 4.24 4.04Min 10.0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00Max 50.0 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00Std.Dev 4.7 0.51 0.59 0.57 0.53 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.55 0.65193

Important Links:

Go Back