Registrar Eval Summary

Registrar Student Course and Section Evaluations in IHUM: Fall 1998-Spring 2002

The IHUM program distributes the Registrar course and section evaluation forms, as well as internally-designed evaluation forms (until Spring 2002). The purpose of the internal forms is to tailor the questions about the course to the specific goals of the program, while the external forms provide an evaluative method standardized across the university. In addition the internal evaluations reflect the important role the IHUM Fellows play in course development and delivery by providing feedback on their conduct of the section from the perspective of IHUM goals.

Overall trends were similar in both sets of forms. The external forms give a consistent overview of how the course as a whole has been perceived by students in terms familiar from other course evaluations, and tend to highlight the role of the regular faculty in delivering the course, rather than the more section-specific in-house evaluations.

The Registrar Evaluation Forms come in two parts, a Course Evaluation Form and a Section Leader Evaluation Form. Note that because IHUM courses have no counterparts in terms of size, structure, and position, and general data is not yet available from the University, our analysis focuses on how the program rankings compare internally to one another rather than to external measures.

Overall, with the four years data we have available, the Registrar Course evaluations suggest regular improvement in course delivery by our faculty, with the highest marks consistently given for “Displayed thorough knowledge of course material.” The Overall Course rating have improved across the board, most substantially in the Fall quarter courses, from an average of 3.5 for fall 98-99 to 3.8 for Fall 01-02 (a slight drop by from Fall 00-01). The course averages for Fall and Spring 99-00 drop off from 98-99 before surging upward in 00-01, a trend attributable perhaps to the large number of new courses and teaching fellows brought in that year. 1998-99 and 1999-00 general show relatively low scores in questions grouped under “Instructor’s Organization/Clarity;” “Distinguished between more important and less important topics” received 3.0, before rising 3.5 and 3.4 in 2000-01, and 2001-02 respectively. Similarly, “Explained concepts clearly” rose from 3.3 in 1998-99 and 1999-00 before rising to 3.9 and 3.8 in the following two years. The standard deviation for these questions is substantially larger in the first two years surveyed (.51 and .6 in 1998-99; .61 and .51 in 1999-00) than in the following two years (.33, .27 in 2000-01; .50, .44 in 2001-02); this indicates that some courses were significantly more successful than others in achieving these goals. (See sitemap for links to specific quarter details.)

As these numbers also indicate, the Fall course evaluation overall numbers drop off slightly between 2000-01 and 2001-02 (3.9 to 3.8), but the larger trend is towards improvement. This trend seems to be attributable to improvements across the range of evaluative categories, with the most notable gains in “Related course topics to one another” and “Inspired and motivated student interest in course content”. Other substantial improvements occur in areas grouped under “Course Organization, Content, and Evaluation," with notable gains in all areas (.4. or .5 increases) between 1999-00 and 2000-01, and then holding relatively steady in 2001-02. Again the slight overall decreases correspond with increasing standard deviations, indicating that particular courses may have brought down the numbers as a whole. In addition to indicating that the IHUM faculty were more successful in organizing the course material, these increases are perhaps attributable in part to improved Fellow training, given that many assignment and evaluation components of the course are dealt with in section.

The Winter/Spring trends are also towards improvement over the four year period studied, though somewhat less dramatic than in the Fall. The overall numbers started higher and remained in the 3.7-3.9 range, with Spring courses typically outperforming their Winter counterparts by .1 or .2 in several categories. Some notable examples occur in main category “Instructor’s Interaction with Students” where “Demonstrated concern about whether students were learning” has consistently remained around 3.5 during the four years of Winter quarter surveys, but increased from 3.4 to 3.7 by Spring 2001-02. Similarly, the Spring course appears to have been more inspiring, with the Winter numbers remaining stable at 5.5, with a dip to 5.3 in 1999-00, while the Spring numbers moved from 3.6, to 3.4, 3.5 and 3.7. These areas consistently maintain high standard deviations (average in the .4-.5. range) in the Winter, indicating perhaps that individual courses account for some limitations in this area. By Spring, while the deviations remain high (notably .67 for “Inspiring” in Spring 2001-02) the average does improve overall.(See sitemap for links to specific quarter details.)

The highest scores, aside from instructor knowledge, as in Fall courses, tend, somewhat surprisingly, to be given to the degree to which “Section or lab was well integrated into the course structure.” This tendency is somewhat at odds with the data from our internal qualitative evaluations, which suggests that students at times saw too wide a gap between the lectures and sections, but perhaps the difference can be attributed in part to the wording of the question. Overall, the numbers are reassuring, indicating that while students may have some concerns about this part of the course, their concerns were not expressed in their answers here.

Was well prepared for section
Presented material clearly
Helped develop student’s thinking skills in this discipline
Provided helpful comments on assignments, papers, exams
Gave explanations appropriate to the students’ level of understanding
Was an effective discussion, review or lab leader
Answered questions clearly and concisely
Was available for consultation outside of class
Overall teaching effectiveness

Questions for Qualitative Feedback include:

Please comment on the section leader’s knowledge and presentation of the material and how well he/she coordinated the sections with lectures.
Please comment on the section leader’s effectiveness as a discussion leader, his/her ability to answer questions and keep the discussion on track.
Please comment on the attitude of the section leader and his/her availability outside of class.
Please comment on the overall performance of the section leader.
Questions to be asked by the section leader

The section evaluations largely tally with the in-house evaluations, a factor that led the program to drop the in-house evaluations in Spring 01-02 in favor of focus groups and qualitative surveys in order to get a better sense of student responses as they relate to programmatic goals. Qualitative comments on the Registrar section evaluations are few, probably as a result of the students filling out the more substantial in-house evaluations at the same time (these evaluations include a significant narrative component).

Numbers for the section evaluations have been consistently high in relation to the course evaluations, averaging 4.1-4.2 without substantial variation between Fall and Winter/Spring, except in “Answered questions clearly and concisely," which improved from 3.9 (3.7 in 1999-00) in the fall to 4.0 (3.8 in 1999-00) to 4.1 (4.0 in 1999-00). There is a slight increase in “Provided helpful coments on assignments, papers, exams,” with the variation occurring both across quarters and across years, indicating perhaps increased skill among section leaders as well as improved instructor training methods.