new improving student course evaluations · 2016. 9. 6. · discontinue the formative student...
TRANSCRIPT
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
I M P ROV I N G S T U D E N T C O U R S E E VA LUAT I O N S
STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION QUALITY TEAM
SEPTEMBER 2009 – JULY 2010
1
STEERING COMMITTEE FEEDBACK
Team name and number: Student Course Evaluation Quality Team________________________ Date: September 8, 2010________________ Sponsor: Debra Rathke______________________
Idea for Improvement Support
1. Discontinue formative student course evaluations starting Fall 2010. 2. Place the responsibility for summative student course evaluations with the Student Learning Assessment Committee. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to the following:
Define the purpose of student course evaluations at Owens Community College Given the purpose, determine the most appropriate instrument and methodology Ensure participation of students and instructors Oversee the implementation of a web-based data system to access results
_____________ _____________
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………….. 4
Student Course Evaluation Team………………………………………………….. 6
Background Information…………………………………………………………… 7
Summary of Previous Team Report……………………………………………….. 8
Project Statement and Framework…………………………………………………. 12
Operational Definitions…………………………………………………………….. 15
Define and Analyze the Current Process…………………………………………… 16
Current Student Course Evaluation Process………………………………. 16
Student Course Evaluation Response Rates……………………………….. 21
Survey & Focus Group of Owens’ Deans and Chairs……………............. 24
Institutional Survey………………………………………………………… 26
OAIRP Poll of Two Year Institutions that Conduct Formative Student Course Evaluations………………………………………………………….
28
Scantron Conference Call for Improving Response Rates for Online Student Course Evaluations………………………………………………...
28
IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Demonstration………………. 30
Student Course Evaluation Literature Review………………..................... 32
Development of Improvement Theory & Implementation Plan…………………….. 36
Recommendation 1………………………………………………………… 36
Recommendation 2………………………………………………………… 37
Gantt Chart………………………………………………………………………….. 46
How to Study Results……………………………………………………………….. 47
How Improvements will be Engrafted into System………………………………….
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………
48
49
49
3
Appendix B……………………………………………………………………
Appendix C……………………………………………………………………
Appendix D……………………………………………………………………
Appendix E……………………………………………………………………
Appendix F……………………………………………………………………
Appendix G…………………………………………………………………...
Appendix H…………………………………………………………………...
Appendix I…………………………………………………………………….
Appendix J…………………………………………………………………….
Appendix K……………………………………………………………………
Appendix L……………………………………………………………………
Appendix M…………………………………………………………………...
Appendix N…………………………………………………………………...
50
51
52
53
70
74
112
113
115
117
121
124
126
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Student Course Evaluation Quality Team convened on September 16, 2009 and was charged with the task of reviewing improvements made by the Student Evaluations Process Management Team, including the Fall 2006 online formative student course evaluation pilot; gathering data from the college about the current process and assessing this data; acquiring data and best practices from other institutions, including any relevant literature; and making appropriate recommendations for improvement. Following is the report completed by this team.
The team arrived at its project statement on October 7, 2009: To improve student course evaluation process value to stakeholders: students, faculty, and administrators, by
Identifying stakeholders’ expectations
Increasing student participation
Identifying risks/benefits of incentives/penalties
Analyzing appropriate questions for student course evaluations
Ensuring suitability of web-based and land-based student course evaluations
Emphasizing uniformity when administrating student course evaluations
Decreasing cost in terms of expenses, process time, and class time taken
Providing feedback to stakeholders
Planning timeline to enable change
Improving courses through use of student course evaluations
Aligning results with program assessment
Increasing stakeholder satisfaction
The team created a flow chart of the current process and conducted its research, which it gathered from Owens Community College employees and reports and from a variety of outside institutions. The data presented herein includes a Flow Chart of the Current Student Course Evaluation Process, 2010 Estimated Cost of Student Course Evaluations, Student Course Evaluation Response Rates, Survey & Focus Group of Owens’ Deans and Chairs, Institutional Survey, OAIRP Poll of Two Year Institutions that Conduct Formative Student Course Evaluations, Scantron Conference Call for Improving Response Rates for Online Student Course Evaluations, IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Demonstration, and Student Course Evaluation Literature Review. The team used this data to formulate a list of recommendations.
5
An analysis of the data resulted in the following recommendations:
1. Discontinue the Formative Student Course Evaluations Starting Fall Semester 2010.
The current process for administering, processing, and returning the results to stakeholders does not allow sufficient time for changes to be made to the course or teaching strategy based on the feedback. The response rate for online formative student course evaluations has dropped considerably since moving to an online format. Additionally, it is not common practice among higher education institutions to do both formative and summative student course evaluations.
2. Place the responsibility for summative student course evaluations with the Student Learning Assessment Committee. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to the
following:
Define the purpose of student course evaluations at Owens Community College Given the purpose, determine the most appropriate instrument and methodology Ensure participation of students and instructors Oversee the implementation of a web-based data system to access results
(This document includes specific suggestions for executing each of these responsibilities, see pages 39-44)
Student course evaluation is a form of assessment. The purpose of assessment is to improve learning and to satisfy accountability requirements. Given the importance of student learning assessment, it is important to ensure that student course evaluations fulfill their intended purpose. Because student course evaluations are an assessment activity utilized and owned by faculty, deans, and chairs, this review and revision is outside the purview of this committee and should come from a campus-wide group composed primarily of representatives from SLAC, Rank Committee, faculty, deans, and chairs.
The team found this collaborative experience rewarding and would like to thank those involved. In particular, the team would like to thank Co-Leaders Joseph Inman and Juleen Tajblik for their foresight in advocating for changes within student course evaluations. It would also like to thank Team Champion and Facilitator Deb Rathke for her guidance throughout the entire process.
The Student Course Evaluation Quality Team would like to thank both AQIP Planning Council and AQIP Quality Council for allowing us to participate in this process of continuous improvement.
6
STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS
Name Title Role
Deb Rathke Director, Institutional Research Team Champion & Facilitator
Juleen Tajblik
Joseph Inman
Manager, Computer Operations
Programmer/Analyst
Team Co-Leader
Team Co-Leader
Amanda Dominique Instructional Designer Scribe
Thomas Deckelman Professor, Business Technology
Anne Fulkerson Enrollment and Retention Research Associate
Patrick Gill Adjunct Faculty, English
Douglas Mead Chair, Fine and Performing Arts
Marian Moore Instructor, Social and Behavioral Sciences
Thomas Reed Financial Analyst, Budget and Systems
7
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In September 2009, the Student Course Evaluation Quality Team met for the first time to receive its formal charge. The vision was to improve the student course evaluation process to all stakeholders, which are Owens Community College students, faculty, and administrators.
Prior to the Student Course Evaluation Quality Team was a Process Management Team that researched the student course evaluation process. Their goal was to arrive at a project that would result in an improved student course evaluation process at Owens Community College. Thanks to their recommendations, a formative student course evaluation online process was implemented as a “test pilot.” This test pilot has been active since Spring Semester 2007. All formative student course evaluations have been given in web format since that time.
The test pilot has shown through a lack of participation that it has not been successful for approximately three years. The Student Course Evaluation Quality Team took on the role of reevaluating this process to see if formative student course evaluations could be successful at Owens Community College. Beyond this, the team looked at the entire process to determine its effectiveness when considering the student course evaluation itself, return of results, cost, along with other factors.
Because the current Owens Community College student course evaluation process has some limitations, the Student Course Evaluation Quality Team was charged to review the current process and to suggest improvements. A summary of the previous team’s report follows.
8
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS TEAM REPORT
The Student Course Evaluation Process Management Team met on January 20, 2006 to evaluate the current student course evaluation process. The team received its formal charge from Dr. Stan Jensen to arrive at a project that would result in an improved student course evaluation process at Owens Community College.
It looked at the then current process and discovered that it currently had four different student course evaluation processes:
1. Written evaluations for all on-campus courses over eight weeks in length.
2. Web-based course evaluation – done on the web.
3. Telecourse evaluations – written.
4. Workforce and Community Services Customer Satisfaction Survey for non-credit classes – written.
The team decided to focus on written evaluations for all on-campus courses over eight weeks in length. The students in these classes were given two sets of student course evaluations, formative and summative, prior to the end of the class. The formative went out shortly after the 14th day and the summative near the end of the semester.
The process when the Student Course Evaluation Process Management Team began was:
Information Technology Services requests the student course evaluation schedule from the Records Department.
A report is run for part-of-term code and schedule-type code to determine the different student course evaluations and time frames.
Supplies are gathered, instructional letters and envelopes prepared for all online campus classes.
The schedule is checked and student course evaluations created for part-of-term code at schedule date (taken from the first bullet).
The header information is filled in.
Term, ID, and CRN is printed in bubble section of blank forms.
Labels are printed in the same order as the forms.
Checklists are printed in the same order as the forms.
Print courses not meeting extract listing (problems) are sent with a letter to the instructor’s supervisor for corrections. The supervisor then sends electronic copies to Human Resources and Records with the corrections so that Information Technology Services can print and send out student course evaluations.
The student course evaluation packets are sent to the full-time instructors via interoffice mail, with the checklists mailed to their supervisors.
9
The student course evaluation packets are sent to the supervisors via interoffice mail for distribution to all part-time instructors along with a checklist of classes.
The instructor then appoints a student from the class to act as proctor.
After providing instructions to the class and advising the proctor to distribute the forms, the instructor leaves the room until students are finished completing the evaluations.
This student proctor distributes the evaluation forms, gathering the completed forms into the envelope and sealing each envelope. The student delivers the sealed envelope back to the closest academic office.
The academic offices return all completed student course evaluation packets to Information Technology Services.
Information Technology Services cleans out all materials not needed (pencils, instruction papers) from returned packets.
As they are returned, packets are bundled into batches and scanned to create “sdf” files.
“sdf” files are compiled into an eval.1st file. Computer generated evaluation summaries are printed from the eval.1st file for every packet.
For the formative student course evaluations with full-time instructors, both the original evaluation packet with the student comments and a copy of the computer-generated evaluation summary are returned to each faculty member. Only a copy of the computer-generated evaluation summary is sent to the supervisor.
For the summative evaluation, the original evaluation packet with the student comments and two sets of the computer-generated evaluation summary are returned to each supervisor. The supervisor then gives one copy of the computer-generated evaluation summary to the instructor.
A main concern for the team was a lack of meaning and validity of in-class student course evaluations. Other related areas of concern were the materials used, the workforce involved, the methods in which student course evaluations were given, and the environment in which they were given. These were specified in the following manner:
Among material concerns were the possible loss of data should envelopes with completed forms be lost and the large cost inherent with paper student course evaluations.
Workforce issues included the manual process of running each evaluation separately. Instructors also lost class time as a result of this process.
Issues of method concerned a long turnaround time for the return of results and the possibility that faculty privacy could be breached should results be returned to the wrong instructor.
Environmental concerns included teacher intimidation of students before student course evaluations, as well as the lack of anonymity in providing hand-written comments on evaluations, especially formative evaluations.
10
The team collected data to determine current perceptions of the student course evaluation process. The main source of data for the team’s recommendations came from a survey used to establish a benchmark of student, faculty, and administration opinions about the current process. The highlights of these results were provided in the report.
A 44-55% majority preferred trying an on-line student course evaluation system.
The majority of respondents believed some change is needed in the questions, but it was not conclusive about what that change should be.
While a majority of faculty and administration indicated that they did not find the formative student course evaluations useful, a majority of the student respondents felt that they should still have the option to respond to a midterm student course evaluation.
A significant majority of respondents believed the current deadline for the formative student course evaluations was much too late.
As a result of the data, the team went through process analysis by looking at cause and effects. They determined that replacing in-class formative student course evaluations with online formative student course evaluations could save an estimated $3,027.97/semester as well as help in the prevention of data loss. It would also save Information Technology Services time in the process, save class time, and hopefully increase student interest. The change was believed to make much quicker turnaround time as well. The team believed that this change would alter the environment in a positive manner; students could write comments anonymously, which in turn would provide instructors with accurate and detailed information.
The Student Course Evaluations Process Management Team made the following recommendations to be completed by December 2006:
Pilot the formative student course evaluations in an online format for all campus classes.
Change the scale from 1-5 to 0-4 (0=N/A, 1=Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree, 4=Strongly Disagree).
Add an expanding comment box beneath each of the scaled questions on the front of the form.
Expand explanation to students to include a statement indicating the value of participating seriously in the student course evaluation process.
Change the title of the form to Student Course Evaluation to accommodate requests that the form clearly be understood as an evaluation of both the course and the instructor.
Email the results of the online evaluations to both faculty and administrators.
11
The team also made the recommendation that a future process management team:
Investigate the need to change the questions on the current forms.
If the online pilot of formative student course evaluations proves successful, pilot putting the summative student course evaluation online with corresponding changes of the new scale and expanding comment box.
Review the telecourse and web-based course formative and summative student course evaluation forms.
12
PROJECT STATEMENT AND FRAMEWORK
The Student Course Evaluation Quality Team process began by defining the purpose, which took place at the first meeting on September 16, 2009. This was necessary in order to begin drafting a project statement. Purpose: (1) To improve student learning through a process that fosters continuous course improvement and instructor feedback and (2) to ensure compliance and accountability with accreditation requirements by listening and responding to the voice of students. Once the purpose was identified, the team constructed a project statement. This collaborative process began as the team compiled a list of ideas that were reorganized and reworded into the following. Project Statement: To improve course evaluation process value to stakeholders: students, faculty, and administrators, by
Identifying stakeholders’ expectations
Increasing student participation
Identifying risks/benefits of incentives/penalties
Analyzing appropriate questions for evaluations
Ensuring suitability of web- and land-based course evaluations
Emphasizing uniformity when administrating evaluations
Decreasing cost in terms of expenses, process time, and class time taken
Providing feedback to stakeholders
Planning timeline to enable change
Improving courses through use of evaluations
Aligning results with program assessment
Increasing stakeholder satisfaction
Guiding Questions
The team sought answers to a hierarchy of questions that would act as the basis for improvement. These questions guided the process and structured the discussions that (driven by data) led to a list of recommendations. The questions were as follows:
1. Do we need student course evaluations?
2. What is/are the purpose(s) behind student course evaluations?
13
a. To evaluate the course?
b. To evaluate the instructor?
3. How many student course evaluations should be conducted per course per term?
a. Should the college require formative student course evaluations?
b. Should the college require summative student course evaluations?
c. Should the college continue to conduct both formative and summative student course evaluations?
d. Should students be allowed a makeup opportunity?
4. When should student course evaluations be administered?
5. When should change based on student course evaluations be implemented?
a. The same semester?
b. The next semester?
6. What format should be used for the collection of summative student course evaluations?
a. Paper?
b. Online?
c. Both?
7. Of whom should student course evaluations be required?
a. All students?
b. A sample of students?
c. Should they be optional?
8. Should student course evaluations be administered in all classes for all instructors?
a. All classes?
b. A sample of classes?
c. Only new and adjunct faculty?
9. Should the student course evaluation questions vary by course, department, or school? (Do the questions align with the purpose answered above?)
14
10. Does the current student course evaluation instrument and process successfully achieve the college’s core evaluation and assessment goals?
11. To whom should results be returned?
a. To the chair or direct supervisor?
b. Directly to the instructor?
12. How can the student course evaluation results be delivered to instructors and their supervisors expeditiously, cost effectively, and securely?
13. Who is responsible for overseeing the process?
15
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
Course- Any learning situation provided by Owens Community College in which students pay to participate and earn credit upon completion. Schedule codes run for student course evaluations are as follows:
*“ABS”- Applied Lesson Lab & Studio
*“AP”- Applied Lesson
*“B”- Certain Labs
“CA”- Clinical Application
“DP”- Directed Practice
“E”- Web-based Courses
“H”- Hybrid
*“I”- Certain Independent Studies
“L”- Lecture
“O”- OwensLink
*“ST”- Studio
*“STB”- Studio Lab
(*Run specifically for Fine and Performing Arts):
Land-based Course- Any course with regularly scheduled face-to-face meetings on campus.
Web-based Course- Course materials are delivered online. No regular face-to-face class meetings are assigned, but campus visits may be required for testing, lab activities, etc.
Student Course Evaluation- An evaluation made available by Owens Community College and completed by a student to assess the course and the instructor.
Formative Student Course Evaluation- A course evaluation delivered midway of any 10 week or longer course. Results are returned to instructor prior to the end of the semester.
Summative Student Course Evaluation- A course evaluation delivered at the end of term for all classes. Results are not returned to the instructor until after the end of the semester.
Stakeholders- Any faculty, students, and administration involved in the process.
16
DEFINE AND ANALYZE THE CURRENT PROCESS
Current Student Course Evaluation Process
Owens Community College currently conducts two different types of student course evaluations: formative and summative. The questions were developed locally and are included in Appendices A and B. A flow chart of the process for formative student course evaluations is depicted in Figure 1 and for summative student course evaluations in Figure 2.
Formative student course evaluations
Formative student course evaluations are administered during the fourth week of each semester in all Owens courses that meet for 10 weeks or more. In the first step of the process, an AppWorx program is run to identify courses for evaluation and ensure that the courses selected have all of the required instructor and course information that is necessary to proceed. Approximately four days is spent correcting the errors and regenerating the student course evaluation materials.
If courses are free of data errors, then online web student course evaluations are generated and individualized emails are sent to students enrolled in each course. A checklist of all classes that have received student course evaluations is printed and sent to the specified supervisor. Students are given two weeks to complete the survey.
A sample email that students receive is included in Appendix C.
After the close of the two week data collection window, Information Technology Services spends approximately one to three days printing the evaluation results and determining what results to mail to whom. Full-time instructors immediately receive the numeric results and written comments; a copy of the numeric results (but NOT written comments) is sent to instructors’ supervisors. Part-time instructors do not receive any results until their immediate supervisor reviews the numeric data and forwards all results to instructors. This step in the process can take anywhere from one week to three months for part-time instructors, depending upon how long it takes supervisors to distribute the results. The total length of time to conduct formative evaluations and distribute results to instructors can range from a minimum of 3 weeks to as much as 3 ½ months or more.
17
Figure 1. Flow Chart of Formative Student Course Evaluation Process.
AppWorx checks Banner to
verify courses meet the requirments for HR and Records
Formative Evaluation Flow Chart
4 weeks into the semester
Average time to correct error takes approx . 4 days in order to regenerate an evaluation packet.Note: Labor Distribution changes takes 10 or more days for correction.
Run Evaluation process in AppWorx
(1)
Courses Not meeting extract listing is printed
out & sent to direct supervisor w/ error letter. Also inform. Is sent to Barb in
HR (2)
Once error is corrected Barb email Juleen w/ specified crn to
rerun for evaluations
NO
Online web evaluations are generated and email to each
student for various schedule codes
YES
A check list of all classes that
received evaluations are printed off and sent to specified
supervisor from an .html script
Formative evaluation packets are created 4 weeks into the start of the semester
Evaluation results print off in I.T.S.
2 weeks later
Computer Operators highlight direct supervisor or
instructors name and correlates the
results
Results are mailed out to direct
supervisor or to Full time instructor
Direct supervisor reviews results for
Part time Instructors
Part timeInstructor receives final results
from direct supervisor
1 week – 3 months later
1 day – 3 days later
TIMELINE:
Window is open for students to complete online course evaluations - 2 weeks
Results print out andcollated by Computer Operator – 1-3 days
Results mail to direct Supervisor for review before Instructor receives 1 week – 3 months approx.
Total Time line: 3 weeks–3-½ months
18
Summative student course evaluations
Summative student course evaluations are conducted in all Owens’ courses, regardless of their length. The process begins approximately four weeks prior to the end of the term. Like formative student course evaluations, the first step of the process is to run an AppWorx program to identify courses and to ensure that the courses selected have all of the required instructor and course information. Once errors are corrected, web-based courses follow the same steps as the formative student course evaluations, with the only exception being that supervisors review and forward results to both full- and part-time instructors.
Land-based courses, however, utilize paper student course evaluations and therefore follow a different process. After data errors are corrected for selected courses, evaluation packets for each section are manually assembled. This step of the process is labor intensive and requires three employees a total of 60 hours each to complete.
Student course evaluation packets are then mailed to instructors (full-time) or their supervisors (part-time) and instructors distribute them during the last one to three weeks of the term. Instructors are required to administer evaluations, but there is no consequence for not doing so. The specific instructions that instructors receive are included in Appendix D.
In the next step of the summative student course evaluation process for land-based courses, completed forms are returned to Information Technology Services for processing. This step takes three people approximately 20 hours each and includes emptying packets, organizing and, scanning forms, and correcting errors.
After the forms are scanned and errors corrected, results are printed and mailed to each instructors’ direct supervisor. The direct supervisor reviews the numeric results for full-time instructors and both numeric results and written comments for part-time instructors. After a total of approximately 3 weeks to as much as 3 ½ months, instructors receive the results.
The flow chart for the summative student course evaluation process is included in Figure 2.
19
Figure 2. Flow Chart of Summative Student Course Evaluation Process.
A p p W o rx c h e c k s B a n n e r to v e r i fy
c o u rs e s m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts fo r H R
a n d R e c o rd s
S u m m a tiv e E v a lu a t io n F lo w C h a r t
1 2 w e e k s in to th e s e m e s te r
A v e ra g e t im e to c o r re c t e r ro r ta k e s a p p ro x . 4 d a y s in o rd e r to re g e n e ra te a n e v a lu a tio n p a c k e t .N o te : L a b o r D is tr ib u t io n c h a n g e s ta k e s 1 0 o r m o re d a y s fo r c o r re c t io n .
R u n E v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s in A p p W o rx
(1 )
C o u rs e s N o t m e e tin g e x tra c t l is t in g is p r in te d
o u t & s e n t to d ire c t s u p e rv is o r w / e r ro r le tte r . A ls o in fo rm . Is s e n t to B a rb in
H R (2 )
O n c e e r ro r is c o r re c te d B a rb e m a il J u le e n w / s p e c if ie d c rn to
re ru n fo r e v a lu a tio n s
N O
O n lin e w e b e v a lu a tio n s a re g e n e ra te d a n d e m a il to e a c h
s tu d e n t fo r v a r io u s s c h e d u le c o d e s
C la s s ro o m e v a lu a t io n s p a c k e ts a re
p r in te d o u t a n d p u t to g e th e r m a n u a lly
( 3 )
Y E S
A c h e c k l is t o f a l l c la s s e s th a t
re c e iv e d e v a lu a tio n s a re p r in te d o ff a n d
s e n t to s p e c if ie d s u p e rv is o r fr o m a n
.h tm l s c r ip t
T h is p ro c e s s ta k e s a p p ro x . 3 -4 d a y s w ith 3 fu ll t im e
e m p lo y e e s
M a n u a lly c o l la t in g p a c k e ts c o n s is t o f :
* H a n d s ta m p in g a ll e n v e lo p e s w ith a d u e d a te* P r in t in g in d iv id u a l la b e ls fo r e a c h c la s s a n d a p p ly in g th e la b e ls to e a c h e n v e lo p e is s p e c if ie d o rd e r* C o u n t in g o u t p ro p e r a m o u n t o f fo rm s (p e r c la s s ) a n d s tu f f in g p a c k e ts (b y c rn ) a lo n g w ith e x p la n a tio n le t te r* C o lla t in g th e c h e c k lis t w ith e a c h e v a lu a tio n p a c k e t a n d g ro u p in g th e m to g e th e r
S u m m a t iv e e v a lu a t io n p a c k e ts a r e d e l iv e r e d 4 w e e k s p r io r to f in a ls w e e k
P a c k e ts a re ta k e n to th e C o p y C e n te r fo r
d e l iv e ry to S u p e rv is o rs a n d
In s tru c to rs
E v a lu a t io n re s u lts p r in t o f f in I .T .S .
2 w e e k s la te r
C o m p u te r O p e ra to rs h ig h lig h t d ire c t s u p e rv is o r o r
in s t ru c to rs n a m e a n d c o r re la te s th e
re s u lts
R e s u lts a re m a ile d o u t to d ir e c t s u p e rv is o r
D ire c t s u p e rv is o r r e v ie w s re s u lts
In s tru c to r re c e iv e s f in a l re s u lts f ro m d ire c t s u p e rv is o r
1 w e e k – 3 m o n th s la te r
In s tru c to r d is t r ib u te s e v a lu a t io n s to c la s s
l
N o te : I f in s t ru c to r lo s e s o r m is p la c e s e v a lu a t io n p a c k e t th e in s tru c to r c a lls I .T .S . a n d c a n re q u e s t a re p r in t o f th e ir p a c k e t . T h is c a n b e d o n e w ith in a d a y .
E n d o f p ro c e s s a n d N O re s u lts to
g e n e ra te
N O
S tu d e n ts f i l l o u t th e e v a lu a t io n m a te r ia l
w ith # 2 p e n c il
Y E S
P ro c e s s c o n t in u e s b u t re s u lts a re n o t
re a d w ith a n y o th e r m a rk b e s id e s p e n c il
N O
Y E S
D e s ig n a te d s tu d e n t re tu rn s c o m p le te d
p a c k e t to d e p a r tm e n t o ff ic e o r
to I .T .S .
R e m a in in g p a c k e ts a re m a ile d / re tu rn e d
to I .T .S . fo r p ro c e s s in g
P a c k e ts a re c le a n o u t a n d o rg a n iz e d
fo r s c a n n in g
F o rm s a re s c a n n e d fo r re s u lts in
A p p W o rx
P ro c e s s ru n s w ith o u t e r ro r ?
N o te : C le a n in g o u t p a c k e ts , s c a n n in g a n d c o r re c t in g e r ro rs ta k e s a p p ro x im a te ly 6 0 h o u rs to ta l. ( 3 p e o p le w o rk in g o n th is p ro c e s s th ro u g h o u t th e d u ra t io n .
C o r re c t e r ro r a n d c o n t in u e s c a n n in g
R e -s tu f f th e e v a lu a t io n s a n d th e re s u lts b a c k in to th e
e n v e lo p e
N O
Y E S
P a c k e ts a re ta k e n to th e C o p y C e n te r fo r
d e l iv e ry to d ire c t s u p e rv is o r
D ire c t s u p e rv is o r re v ie w s re s u lts
In s tru c to r r e c e iv e s f in a l re s u lts f ro m d ire c t s u p e rv is o r
1 w e e k – 3 m o n th s la te r
1 d a y – 3 d a y s la te r
T IM E L IN E :
W in d o w is o p e n fo r s tu d e n ts to v s . E v a lu a t io n P a c k e ts c re a te dc o m p le te o n lin e c o u r s e e v a lu a t io n 4 d a y s2 w e e k s R e s u lts p r in t o u t a n d E v a ls g iv e n in c la s s c o lla te d b y C o m p u te r O p e r a to r 1 d a y -4 w k s1 – 3 d a y s
R e s u lts m a il to d ir e c t S u p e r v is o r E v a ls c le a n e d o u t / s c a n fo r r e s u lts F o r r e v ie w b e fo r e In s t ru c to r re c e iv e s 1 – 3 d a y s1 w e e k – 3 m o n th s a p p ro x .
P a c k e ts g o to d ire c t s u p e r v is o r fo r r e v ie w th e n
s e n t to in s t ru c to r 1 w e e k – 3 m o n th s
T o ta l T im e l in e : 3 w e e k s – 3 -½ m o n th s T o ta l T im e l in e : 2 w e e k s – 4 m o n th s
F o o tn o te (3 ) is a n e x a m p le o f th e in s tru c t io n a l le t te r
a d d e d in to e v a lu a t io n p a c k e t .
20
2010 Estimated Cost of Course Evaluations
Summative Forms: $ 5,800 / year Brown Envelopes: $ 780 / year White Paper for Results: $ 420 / year ($210 for formative + $210 for summative) Labor (estimated) $15,336 / year Office Supplies: + tape + rubber bands + hand stamp / ink + instructional letters + toner cartridges + staples + paper clips + printer maintenance $ 1,000 / year (estimated) ____________________________________________________ Grand Total $23,336 / year Labor formula: Estimated 3 staff x 60 hours each x 3 semesters = 540 hours Hourly pay: 540 hours x $20 per hour (average pay per person) = $10,800 Fringe benefits: $10,800 x 42% (fringe benefit rate) = $4,536 ______________________________________________________________ Total labor cost: $10,800 (hourly pay) + $4,536 (fringe benefits) = $15,336 Conclusions:
It takes too long for instructors to receive student course evaluation results in order for them to act upon the results in a timely manner, particularly for formative student course evaluations. The primary reasons for the delay are (1) the paper distribution of results and (2) the required timetable for collecting data (i.e., data collection window does not close until at least the 6th week of class).
The paper distribution of results is costly in terms of printing, envelopes, and staff time.
Paper student course evaluations are labor intensive and costly to prepare and distribute.
Student course evaluation questions assess student satisfaction, but do not assess student learning. They do not permit benchmarking (which is an area that the Higher Learning Commission identified for improvement in response to our 2009 AQIP Systems Portfolio), and they are not tailored to different schools, programs, or courses.
21
Student Course Evaluation Response Rates
Historical response rates to student course evaluations were gathered and analyzed in order to identify trends over time across evaluation types (i.e., formative vs. summative), course types (i.e., web- vs. land-based) and evaluation formats (i.e., paper vs. web). Response rates were calculated for Fall 2000 through Spring 2010 by dividing the number of student course evaluations that were returned by the number that were distributed to students enrolled at the time of the student course evaluation.
Graphs summarizing the results are displayed in Figures 3 - 8 and a detailed breakdown by school and department is provided in Appendix E. As Figures 3 - 5 illustrate, response rates for formative student course evaluations dropped from an average of 49.3% to an average of 10.5% after land-based courses switched from a paper format to a web format. Although response rates in web-based courses declined over the same period (from an average of 19.6% to an average of 14.2%), the decline was much sharper in land-based courses (from an average of 52.7% to an average of 11.4%) where the change in student course evaluation format occurred.
Figures 6 - 8 show that response rates to summative student course evaluations (which continue to be given in a paper format in land-based courses) have also experienced a slight decline over time, from an average of 47.1% between Fall 2003 and Fall 2006 to an average of 43.2% between Spring 2007 and Spring 2010. However, the decline is much smaller than that observed for formative student course evaluations and has been limited to web-based courses: average response rate for web-based courses declined from 19.6% to 12.8% while average response rates for land-based courses rose slightly from 50.0% to 50.9%.
Figure 3. Formative Student Course Evaluation Response Rates: All Sections.
52.2%50.2% 50.3% 49.7%
48.3% 48.0%46.0%
16.1%14.2%
12.0% 11.6%9.0% 8.2%
4.7%
49.3%
10.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
FormativeEvaluations ‐ Return Rates(All Sections)
Switched from a paper‐ to a web‐format in land‐based courses
22
Figure 4. Formative Student Course Evaluation Response Rates: Lecture-Based Courses.
Figure 5. Formative Student Course Evaluation Response Rates: Web-Based Courses.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
200060 200110200160200210 200260200310200360 200410 200460200510200560 200610200660200710 200760200810200860 200910 200960201010
FormativeEvaluations ‐ Lecture Based Courses
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
200060 200110 200160200210 200260 200310200360200410 200460200510200560 200610200660200710 200760200810200860 200910 200960201010
FormativeEvaluations ‐Web Based Courses
23
Figure 6. Summative Student Course Evaluation Response Rates: All Sections.
Figure 7. Summative Student Course Evaluation Response Rates: Lecture-Based Courses.
50.1%48.1% 48.3% 48.3%
45.9%
42.3%
47.4%
42.5%45.5%
42.8%44.5% 44.0%
41.5% 42.1%
47.1%
43.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Summative Evaluations ‐ Return Rates(All Sections)
Summative course evaluations continue to be in a paper format for land‐based sections
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
200060 200110200160200210200260 200310200360200410200460 200510200560200610200660 200710200760200810200860200910200960201010
Summative Evaluations ‐ Lecture Based Courses
24
Figure 8. Summative Student Course Evaluation Response Rates: Web-Based Courses.
Conclusions
Students are more likely to respond to paper- than to web-based student course evaluations. The primary reason is that the paper student course evaluations are administered in class, when students are a captive audience.
Over time, students have become even less likely to respond to web student course evaluations. With the proliferation of web-based technology, students have become over-surveyed and have little motivation for responding.
The sharp drop in response rates for formative student course evaluations is primarily the result of switching from a paper- to a web-format in land-based courses.
Survey & Focus Group of Owens’ Deans and Chairs
In order to gain perspective on the purpose and use of student course evaluations, the Student Course Evaluation Quality Team conducted an informal survey with Owens deans and chairs. The survey was initially distributed by email. However, due to a low number of responses, the survey questions were brought to the February 2010 Chair’s Council meeting for full discussion. Complete survey questions and responses are included in Appendix F and a summary is included below:
A vote was taken regarding the administration of both formative and summative student course evaluations: 90% agreed that summative student course evaluations should be conducted, 5% agreed that formative student course evaluations should be conducted, and 0% felt that both formative and summative student course evaluations should be conducted.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Summative Evaluations ‐Web Based Courses
25
Although respondents like the concept of conducting formative student course evaluations, they do not feel that they are very useful in their present state. The primary issue is time: (1) It takes a long time for chairs to receive results from Information Technology Services; (2) It can take a considerable amount of time to review the information before the results can be forwarded to instructors; and (3) The semester is often finished or nearly completed before the instructors get the results. Another reason that the chairs and deans do not currently find formative student course evaluations helpful is that they only receive numeric results for individual instructors (rather than the written comments).
Although the majority of deans and chairs feel that student course evaluations should be conducted in all classes, they are receptive to the idea of evaluating a smaller sample of sections but would want to select specific instructors or courses for inclusion.
Deans and chairs would like the questions reconstructed so they are more meaningful and so students fully understand the numerical scale and what is being asked; possibly individualize the questions by discipline or division.
Deans and chairs would like to have the data in an electronic format so that they can sort the results by instructor and/or course to look for trends over time.
Deans and chairs would like to add the student’s major as a question on the student course evaluation so they can see how students in different areas feel about different courses (particularly general education courses). Moreover, differential weight could be given to the evaluations of students who are taking courses within or outside their major.
Conclusions
Deans and chairs agree that it is only necessary to do one student course evaluation per term and the majority say that the evaluation conducted should be summative. This is the case because many students do not complete the formative student course evaluations, results are not made available in a timely manner, and there is little time to review both formative and summative student course evaluation results given the sheer number that are received.
The student course evaluation instrument should be revised so the questions asked provide more meaningful information (e.g., program or course specific, tie to the assessment of student learning) and so data can be analyzed by student major.
Student course evaluation results would be more useful if they were provided in a timely manner in an electronic format that permitted for aggregate and trend analyses.
Deans and chairs find the written comments to be useful, sometimes more useful than the numeric data. This is partly the case because they do not currently have any method for performing comparative or trend analyses on numeric results.
26
Institutional Survey
Purpose The primary purpose of the Institutional Survey of Student Course Evaluation was to explore the methods by which other institutions of higher education conduct student course evaluations. Of specific interest was the prevalence of formative student course evaluations, response rates, evaluation formats, and methods to encourage student participation. A complete written report of the survey, including the instrument, and detailed results is provided in Appendix G. Methods A web-based survey was emailed to individuals identified as responsible for student course evaluations at 11 other participating Strategic Horizons institutions as well as to Institutional Research & Planning professionals who subscribe to the NCCCRP (National Community College Council for Research & Planning) and OAIRP (Ohio Association for Institutional Research & Planning) listserves. Institutional Research listserves were utilized because Institutional Research departments often handle some aspect of student course evaluations, and either respond to surveys about the institution or forward them to the appropriate parties. Although the exact number of institutions represented by the listserves is not known, the purpose of the survey was not to generalize results to a particular population (for example to all institutions of higher education, to all institutions in Ohio, or to all community colleges) but rather to generate ideas by exploring different practices across a variety of institutions. An email inviting recipients to complete the survey for their institution or to forward it to a more appropriate person was sent on 11/11/2009. A reminder email was sent on 11/18/2009, and the survey was closed on 11/25/2009. A total of 91 surveys were returned. Result Highlights & Conclusions Although almost all institutions surveyed conduct formal student course evaluations (98%),
very few conduct both formative and summative (8%): The majority conduct summative (76%), and most that conduct formative (32%) do so in lieu of summative (71% of those doing formative).
Most institutions conduct student course evaluations during each regular term of the academic year (89% - 100% conducting summative and/or formative during fall, winter, and spring); however, a relatively small percentage conduct them in all classes (25% formative, 36% summative) or in almost all (80% or more) classes (46% formative, 62% summative).
Many institutions use an out-of-class web- or other computer-based format (44% summative, 39% formative) or use more than one type (34% summative, 36% formative); however, the large majority still use paper-and-pencil (77% summative, 71% formative).
Few institutions (12% summative, 3% formative) use rewards or penalties to encourage student completion of student course evaluations. Of those that use them, rewards/penalties
27
frequently include points towards grades or drawings. Only 2 schools report that they withhold grades or prevent registration.
Student completion of student course evaluations is typically encouraged by conducting evaluations in class, instructor encouragement, announcements, and reminders.
Completion rates for land-based classes were reported to be higher (66% summative, 70% formative) than for web-based classes (36% summative, 44% formative).
The majority of institutions surveyed use student course evaluations for course improvement (79% summative, 68% formative) and instructor evaluations (79% summative, 82% formative). However, given the timing of the evaluations and when results are made available to instructors and their supervisors, the opportunity for immediate action (either the same term or before the next), may be somewhat limited.
o Results of summative student course evaluations are often not made available until the next term to instructors (56%) or their supervisors (44%).
o Formative student course evaluations are usually not distributed to students until after the middle of the class (44%), and results are not made available for more than 2 weeks to instructors (50%) or their supervisors (47%).
Although institutions were more likely to report satisfaction than dissatisfaction for most aspects of their student course evaluations, overall satisfaction was not particularly high (34% summative, 39% formative).
o Satisfaction was highest for cost, (57% summative, 57% formative), and timeliness of feedback to instructors (57% summative, 54% formative).
o Satisfaction was lowest for web completion rates (10% summative, 21% formative) and use of results (18% summative, 32% formative). Satisfaction with land-based completion rates were higher for formative student course evaluations (68%) than for summative (41%).
28
OAIRP Poll of Two-Year Institutions that Conduct Formative Student Course Evaluations
On Friday, October 16, 2009, Anne Fulkerson and Debra Rathke attended the Fall Meeting of the Ohio Association for Institutional Research & Planning in Columbus, OH. The meeting was attended by 62 Institutional Research professionals from across the State of Ohio, including 16 individuals representing 11 different two-year community and technical colleges. During the business meeting of the two-year public schools, Anne and Deb asked if any of the schools present did formative student course evaluations. Not a single institution represented indicated that they conduct formal formative student course evaluations. The general consensus was that formative student course evaluations were not necessary because summative student course evaluations are conducted.
Conclusion
All 11 of the other 22 two-year colleges in the State of Ohio that were surveyed indicated that they do not conduct formative student course evaluations. Formative student course evaluations are not deemed necessary when summative evaluations are conducted.
Scantron Conference Call for Improving Response Rates for Online Student Course Evaluations
Members of the Student Course Evaluation Team participated in a conference call forum hosted by Scantron on January 26, 2010. The forum’s purpose was to allow attendees to listen to, share with, and ask questions of their peers about effective methods of administration, ways to increase participation, and how to best transition to online student course evaluations. Participants from universities and colleges across the country took part in the discussion.
The discussion covered:
Lowering Hurdles by Integrating Evaluations into Learning Systems
The ability to download student course evaluation responses into Class Climate
Building block availability for student course evaluations in Blackboard 9
Making the link to student course evaluation front and center on course management system
Creating links unique to each student and not requiring username & password
Keeping the student course evaluation short (1-2 pages)
Types of Negative Reinforcement
Requiring students to submit a student course evaluation receipt before they can take a final exam
Withholding grades during a given period of time
Withholding grades until completion
29
Types of Positive Reinforcement
Drawings with prizes, such as gift cards
Extra credit or bonus points from instructors
Integrating the student course evaluation into the course curriculum, such as with a reflective activity
Campus-wide celebration for those who participate
Releasing student course evaluation results to students
Reminders to Students and Faculty
Remind faculty and students through email
Exception emails to those students who have not completed
Reminder lists provided to faculty of those who have not completed
Marketing efforts around campus, such as posting flyers
Concerns for Students
Students overloaded with surveys and other emails
Anonymity with exception reporting
Concerns for Faculty
If results released to students, faculty contracts and union issues
Implications for instructors who receive high or low scores
Conclusions
Participants had different thoughts on what worked/did not work at their respective institutions. Factors participants discussed were size, resources, student attitude, and expectations.
Response rates that those attending considered positive ranged from 40% to 60% (and higher). Most participants currently using online student course evaluations experienced the best results when simultaneously implementing multiple strategies for improving response rates.
30
IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Demonstration
The IDEA Center, an education research group that originated at Kansas State University, offers a nationally-normed student course evaluation system (Student Ratings of Instruction) that allows institutions to tailor their student course evaluations to the specific learning objectives that are most relevant to different courses. In addition, students provide feedback on their motivation, effort, and perceptions of the instructor’s use of various instructional strategies and teaching methods. The reports provide national benchmark data and diagnoses of areas in need of improvement, while factoring out variables beyond instructors’ control, such as student work habits, student motivation, and class size. The student course evaluation system is offered in both a paper and an online format (with a BlackBoard building block), and there are both long and short forms available. Data reports are available in print and pdf and can be aggregated at multiple levels (e.g., individual section, all sections of the same course for a single instructor, all sections of the same course) and over various time periods (e.g., every term, academic year, etc.). Detailed information on the IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction can be found at http://www.theideacenter.org. In addition, samples of the Faculty Information Form (to be filled out for each course or section), the long form of the Student Survey, the short form of the Student Survey, the long form report, the short form report, a current pricing sheet, and a current list of participating institutions is included in Appendices H - N. Conclusions Advantages include:
It provides meaningful questions that assess student learning and the methods used to facilitate it.
Instructors/Chairs can identify learning objectives that are most relevant to the course. It allows the opportunity to benchmark with other institutions. This would help Owens to
address the opportunity for improvement identified in the review of the 2009 AQIP Systems Portfolio to increase our institution’s benchmarking.
It includes detailed data reports that control for student motivation, effort, and field of study.
There are web, paper, long, and short versions available. Data can be aggregated at multiple levels and over various time periods, potentially
reducing cost and giving a more global picture than reports based on a single section. The system has been available since 1975 and over 300 institutions participate, including
approximately 35-40 community colleges.
31
Disadvantages include:
Cost. Reports are detailed and complex; some instructors may have difficulty interpreting and
using results. Results are returned in print and pdf form which may pose challenges for delivering
results to instructors in a timely and efficient way. Departments could be tempted to solely rely on indirect student course evaluation results
to assess student learning in lieu of direct measures. If results are requested by section, an extremely small sample size would not permit for
valid and reliable comparison with benchmark data. Open-ended remarks from paper-and-pencil student course evaluations are not
summarized or returned in electronic form; original (hard copy) evaluation sheets would have to be returned to instructors.
Other student course evaluation vendors that could be explored include:
Blue software from eXplorance: www.explorance.com Student Voice: www.courseeval.studentvoice.com CourseEval: www.academicmanagement.com Class Climate: http://www.scantron.com/classclimate/ Student Assessment of Learning Gains: http://www.salgsite.org/
32
Student Course Evaluation Literature Review
Student course evaluations have been used at institutions of higher learning for a number of years. The original intention was to help teachers improve their teaching and inform administrators to monitor teaching quality. Even with the outstanding amount of support and demand for student course evaluations, there is a growing debate about how, when, and in what form students should be allowed to evaluate their instructors and the instructional methods.
A student course evaluation is a paper or electronic questionnaire, which requires a written or selected response answer to a series of questions in order to evaluate the instruction of a given course. The results are intended to help the instructor improve the quality of instruction.
Student course evaluations can be administered while the course is in progress (formative) or at the end of the course (summative). The purpose of the formative student course evaluation is to provide feedback for course improvement while the course is being taught. For this reason the turnaround time for feedback is critical. The purpose of the summative student course evaluation is to provide an overall evaluation of the course from which the instructor is able to make long term improvements to the course and his/her teaching.
The research indicates that student ratings of instruction are a valid index of instructional effectiveness (Cornell University Teaching Evaluation Handbook). The purpose of the student course evaluation should determine the format and kinds of questions included in the evaluation instrument. Formative student course evaluations usually contain questions that are behavior based, while summative student course evaluations focus on global items.
The ideal student course evaluation would allow students and instructors the ability to benefit from ongoing feedback, with a 100% return rate (Radwin, 2009). Faculty tend to equate student satisfaction with high return rates. This is not always the case. As Ravelli (2000) points out, if students feel satisfied with the instructor’s performance, they are less likely to complete the student course evaluation. Many students in this situation chose instead to approach the instructor personally to bring resolution.
Kansas State University’s IDEA Center (Individual Development and Educational Assessment), which tries to improve how colleges use student course evaluations, examined data from classes at nearly 300 institutions from 2002 to 2008. The research found that 89.9% of the institutions used paper surveys while 10.1% posted surveys online (The IDEA Center, June, 2010). The study also found that overall the online surveys resulted in lower response rates. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that high response rates are not necessary for valid and reliable results (Radwin, 2009). In fact, there is no evidence that results of paper- and web-based student course evaluations differ, even when web response rates are comparatively low (Avery, Bryant, Mathios, Kang, & Bell, 2006).
33
The literature about online student course evaluation indicates advantages and disadvantages of using this approach.
Advantages include:
Provides rapid feedback
Is less expensive to administer
Requires less class time
Is less vulnerable to professorial influence
Allows students as much time as they wish to complete
Allows students multiple opportunities to evaluate faculty members
Disadvantages to this mode are:
Requires computer access
Is considered less accurate by faculty unfamiliar with online methods who prefer the traditional in-class paper version
Elicits lower student response rates
Because online surveys offer so many advantages, the IDEA Center has listed several ideas for encouraging student participation. These include:
Communication from instructors to students
Student confidentiality
Using class time to administer the student course evaluations
Frequent reminders of end dates
Integrating the process into campus culture
In 2000, Ravelli piloted an anonymous online faculty-administered student course evaluation tool at Mount Royal College in Calgary, Alberta. Students participating in the study felt the online assessment was a positive experience for several reasons. The tool was linked directly from the online course’s web page, making navigation to the student evaluation instrument simple and straightforward. The students also liked that the student course evaluation was anonymous, adding that they often felt the instructor would be able to attribute individual comments based on their handwriting back to them. Finally, students appreciated the fact that the evaluation tool was online and accessible to them 24 hours a day, allowing them to complete it when they wanted to, not when they had to.
The faculty who participated in Ravelli’s (2000) online student course evaluation study were highly satisfied with being able to access the results in a timely manner. This allowed them to make improvements to the course and their teaching methods, thus improving student satisfaction and addressing student concerns.
34
Works Reviewed & Discussed Avery, R.J., Bryant, W.K., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic Course Evaluations: Does an Online Delivery System Influence Student Evaluations? Journal of Economic Education, 37, 21-37. Cornell University Teaching and Evaluation Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.cte.cornell.edu/resources/teh/ch3.html June 28, 2010. Glenn, D. (2009). Matching Teaching Style to Learning Style May Not Help Students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 15, 2009. Glenn, D. (2010). Rating Your Professors: Scholars Test Improved Course Evaluations. The Chronicle of Education, April 25, 2010. Heath, N. M., Lawyer, S. R., & Rasmussen, E. B. (2007). Web-Based Versus Paper-and-Pencil Course Evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 259-261. Jan, T. (2010). Getting Students to Make their Mark: Few Bothering to Grade Professors as Systems go Online. The Boston Globe, April 7, 2010. Radwin, D (2009). High Response Rates Don’t Ensure Survey Accuracy. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 5, 2009. Ravelli, B. (2000). Anonymous Online Teaching Assessments: Preliminary Findings, Paper presented at: Annual National Conference of the American Association for Higher Education, June 14-18; Charlotte, North Carolina. Rice, H. W. (2009). Don’t Shrug Off Student Evaluations. The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 14, 2009. The IDEA Center. Best Practices for Online Response Rates. Retrieved from http://www.theideacenter.org/OnlineResponseRates June 24, 2010.
Conclusions
The majority of higher education institutions use in-class paper-based student course evaluations
Online student course evaluations result in lower response rates than in-class paper evaluations
35
High response rates are not necessary for valid and reliable results; paper- and web-based student course evaluations tend to produce comparable results even when web response rates are low
Advantages to online student course evaluations:
Provides rapid feedback Is less expensive to administer Requires less class time Is less vulnerable to professorial influence Allows students as much time as they wish to complete Allows students multiple opportunities to evaluate faculty members
Disadvantages to online student course evaluations:
Requires computer access
Is considered less accurate by faculty unfamiliar with online methods who prefer the traditional in-class paper version
Elicits lower student response rates
Suggestions for increasing online response rates:
Communication from instructors to students
Student confidentiality
Using class time to administer the student course evaluations
Frequent reminders of end dates
Integrating the process into campus culture
36
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVEMENT THEORY & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Recommendation 1 Question
Should Owens continue to conduct both formative and summative student course evaluations?
Recommendation Discontinue Formative Student Course Evaluations Starting Fall Semester 2010. Rationale The current process for administering, processing, and returning the results to stakeholders
does not allow sufficient time for changes to be made to the course or teaching strategy based on the feedback. See the Flow Chart for Formative Student Course Evaluations in Figure 1 and the Survey of Owens Deans and Chairs for supporting evidence.
The response rate for online formative student course evaluations has dropped considerably since moving to an online format in 2007.
Formal and informal surveys of other institutions conducted by our team indicate that Owens Community College is one of only a few schools who administer both a summative and formative student course evaluation. See the Institutional Survey (Appendix G) and the OAIRP Poll of Two-Year Institutions that Conduct Formative Student Course Evaluations for supporting documentation.
Turn-around Time for Formative Results As indicated in the discussion of the current student course evaluation process, the data collection window for formative student evaluations does not close until at least the 6th week of class and it takes approximately 1 week to as much as 3 ½ months for instructors to receive results. Deans and Chairs who were surveyed indicated that this turn around period is too long for them to act upon results before the term is over.
Administering the Formative Evaluations Online During the Spring 2007 semester, the Student Course Evaluation Process Management Team started a study in order to try to improve the student course evaluation process. The findings from that study resulted in a “test pilot”, where all formative student course evaluations were administered online. The purpose was to increase processing and turn-around time of results, decrease cost, and improve student participation. The findings from the current group indicate that the online formative student course evaluation process was unsuccessful in many ways.
37
The response rate for the online formative student course evaluations during the over three year “test pilot” dropped each semester from an average of 49.3% (paper evaluations) to the most recent 4.7% as indicated in the data below: Table 2.
Year/Semester Response Rate 200710 16.1% 200760 14.2% 200810 12.0% 200860 11.6% 200910 9.0% 200960 8.2% 201010 4.7%
Average 10.5% (for the 7 semesters since the change)
The formative student course evaluation response rate has dropped a staggering 79.1% from a college-wide average of 49.3% to 10.3%. Owens represents a very small minority of schools that administer two student course evaluations per semester. Results take too long for instructors and chairs to receive in order to act upon them before the end of the term. Even with the electronic collection of data, there is still significant cost and labor associated with the administration and processing of formative student course evaluations. Given these reasons, it is the recommendation of our team that formative student course evaluations be discontinued. Recommendation 2
Questions
Who should have long-term responsibility for summative student course evaluations at Owens Community College?
What is the purpose of student course evaluations at Owens Community College?
Given the purpose, what is the most appropriate instrument and methodology?
How do we ensure student and instructor participation?
What is the most efficient and useful way to make results available?
Recommendation
Place the responsibility for summative student course evaluations with the Student Learning Assessment Committee. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the following:
Define the purpose of student course evaluations at Owens Community College Given the purpose, determine the most appropriate instrument and methodology Ensure participation of students and instructors Oversee the implementation of a web-based data system to access results
38
Rationale
Who should have long-term responsibility for summative student course evaluations at Owens Community College?
Student course evaluation, by definition, is a form of assessment. The Student Learning Assessment Committee (SLAC) is a standing committee with responsibility for assessment at OCC. The committee includes faculty and administrative representatives from each OCC school as well as representatives from President’s Cabinet and Institutional Research. The mission, goal, purposes, and objectives of SLAC are as follows:
Mission: The Student Learning Assessment Committee (SLAC) at Owens Community College is committed to enhancing the integrity of the College's academic programs, Student Resources, and overall functioning through a comprehensive process for assessing student learning.
Goal: The goal of the Student Learning Assessment Committee at Owens Community College is to develop, implement, and monitor a comprehensive, efficient and effective institution-wide process for assessing student learning.
Purposes: The purposes of the Student Learning Assessment Committee at Owens Community College which enable it to meet its mission and goals are (a) to coordinate all assessment efforts at the College; (b) to develop, implement, and monitor an institutional assessment program that candidly measures and assesses student learning; and, (c) to serve as an information clearinghouse for all College constituents, whereby literature pertinent to assessment is made available and assistance and feedback are provided to academic and administrative units when requested.
Objectives: To this end, the Student Learning Assessment Committee at Owens Community College has identified the following objectives in the areas of Coordination and Supervision, Information and Education, and Measurement and Evaluation.
Objective 1: Coordination and Supervision The SLAC will initiate, coordinate, and monitor the assessment process (i.e., all assessment efforts and activities) at the College by
developing, implementing, maintaining, evaluating and modifying as needed, the institutional assessment plan, including the general education component of the plan;
providing feedback on assessment efforts and assistance to academic and administrative units when requested; and,
overseeing the implementation of proposed assessment measuring devices.
Objective 2: Education and Information The SLAC will educate itself and the College constituent units about issues pertinent to the assessment process by
39
reviewing assessment literature, and attending conferences, seminars and workshops on issues pertinent to the assessment process and sharing knowledge ascertained from these activities with key constituent units;
emphasizing the importance of on-going participation in the assessment process; and,
training College constituents in the selection of instruments and measures appropriate to the kinds of learning they want to measure.
Objective 3: Measurement and Evaluation The SLAC will monitor the selection and use of measurement tools and provide an optimistic and honest evaluation of the assessment process by
identifying and disseminating descriptions of potential measuring devices; annually reviewing all assessment measures that are in place, and making
suggestions for replacing measuring devices that are not providing relevant data or that are not cost effective by ones that are;
securing help from the Office of Institutional Research and, giving assurances that assessment data will not be used punitively, rather it will be
used for the purpose of improving academic programs, Student Resources and, ultimately, student learning.
Given their mission, goal, purposes, and objectives, student course evaluations naturally fit under SLAC’s purview.
What is the purpose of student course evaluations at Owens Community College?
Currently, OCC does not have a formally-defined purpose for student course evaluations or guidelines on the use of their results. Moreover, discussion with deans and chairs revealed that student course evaluations are not consistently being used, and in some cases, not used at all. A campus-wide conversation needs to occur that defines the purpose of student course evaluations, the expectations surrounding the administration and use of them, as well as how student course evaluations fit into the assessment process at the college. This conversation needs to be led by SLAC and include consultation from various constituencies involved in student course evaluation (e.g., faculty, deans, chairs, and Information Technology). Given the purpose, what is the most appropriate instrument and methodology?
Review of the current student course evaluation instrument and discussion with Owens deans and chairs suggests that the instrument is not as useful as it could be (see A Survey and Focus Group of Owens Deans and Chairs, Appendices A, B, & F for additional detail on the student course evaluation instrument and deans and chairs opinions). For example, several dean/chair respondents indicated that the current questions are irrelevant, that students often misinterpret the questions, and that the interpretation of results often focuses more on the open-ended comments
40
than the scaled questions (although relatively few students provide comments and there is no way to summarize them). In addition, there is not currently a way for instructors, deans, and chairs to aggregate data (for example, by course or by instructor) or to track trend data over time. Consequently, student course evaluations are typically used to identify problems with instructors, textbooks, and facilities; they are not used to assess student learning, the use of specific teaching methods, or course content. None of the deans or chairs interviewed indicated that they currently use data from student course evaluations in their assessment or accreditation reports.
As indicated on the SLAC Committee web page, programs are encouraged to use both direct and indirect assessment measures of student learning. Student course evaluations have the potential to be a highly-informative indirect measure of teaching effectiveness and student learning.
Moreover, student course evaluations could be used for benchmarking. The Ohio Board of Regents 2008 – 2017 Strategic Plan for Higher Education encourages institutions to utilize national benchmark data in creating a transparent system of accountability. Benchmarking is also an area that the Higher Learning Commission identified as needing improvement in response to the Owens 2009 AQIP Systems Portfolio review: “Owens cites the use of reports to monitor effectiveness and benchmark itself against other higher education institutions and industries outside of higher education. Despite providing an overview of such processes, minimal information is provided regarding how the institution compares with other organizations within and outside higher education.”
One nationally-normed student course evaluation system reviewed by this committee is the IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction (summarized above in the section titled IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Demonstration and in Appendices H - N). This system may or may not be appropriate for Owens; however, it provides an example of questions that can be asked and how a uniform student course evaluation instrument can still be customized to relate to the specific objectives of particular courses or subject areas. Questions such as these could generate a more thorough evaluation of the instructor and provide more specific recommendations of actions needed to improve teaching effectiveness.
Other vendors, in addition to the IDEA Center should also be researched as well as the possibility of creating a consortium with other similar institutions for the sharing of student course evaluation data.
It may be necessary to make methodological changes, depending on the instrument selected.
For example, at this time, Owens conducts student course evaluations in every section of every course, every term. If a nationally-normed instrument is selected, cost may require that student
41
course evaluations be conducted on a sample of sections rather than on the full population or that Owens go to a periodic cycle rather than to evaluate every class every term. The Institutional Survey conducted by this team indicated that only 36% of respondents said their institution conducts student course evaluations in all of their classes each term. Many institutions stated for example that tenured faculty are given a choice of classes for evaluation, they are evaluated every two years, or the chair decides, etc. Depending on the purpose of student course evaluations that is identified and the instrument that is selected, it may be necessary to devise a sampling strategy or to make other methodological or procedural changes to the student course evaluation process.
How do we ensure student and instructor participation?
In order for student course evaluations to be meaningful and generalizable, it is important to ensure full participation of students and instructors. However, response rate over the past three academic years have averaged 13.6% for web student course evaluations compared to 51.1% for paper.
Paper remains the preferred method of administration among institutions. In fact, 77% of the institutions that we surveyed reported that they use a paper format for summative student course evaluations in land-based classes.
However, a web student course evaluation format offers some distinct advantages. For example, web student course evaluations are typically much less expensive than paper in both staff time (see Summative Evaluation Flow Chart for a depiction of the time and effort involved in conducting paper student course evaluations) and money. Students frequently provide much more detailed open-ended comments on web student course evaluations. And instructors cannot identify students’ handwriting on web evaluations.
Several sources that we consulted (including surveyed institutions, institutions that participated in a conference call on the topic of web-based student course evaluations, the IDEA Center—a leading organization in the area of student course evaluations, and several written articles cited in this report) indicate that a variety of strategies can be successful in improving web student course evaluation response rates. A complete list is provided in the first column of Table 1. Our team considered each of these strategies and recommends that SLAC oversee the implementation of those highlighted in web-based classes. The strategies selected are those that were deemed to (1) be the least complicated to implement, (2) maintain instructors’ academic freedom, and (3) “do no harm” to students or instructors. If the strategies effectively improve response rates in web-based classes, then it would be worthwhile to explore whether the same strategies might lead to acceptable response rates on web student course evaluations administered in land-based classes. On the other hand, if the strategies are not effective in improving response rates in web-based classes (where students are accustomed to completing assignments online), then it is unlikely that they would be effective in improving response rates for web student course evaluations
42
administered in land-based classes. In this case, different strategies could be tested or a decision could be made to stay with paper student course evaluations for land-based classes.
Table 1. Strategies for Improving Web Student Course Evaluation Response Rates. Strategies Considered for Improving Response Rates on Web Student Course Evaluations
Recommended?
Frequent reminders Yes-see H and J in list below Verify accuracy of student email and/or login Yes-see G in list below Make sure evaluations are front and center on course management system
Yes-see G in list below
Make accessing the student course evaluation as easy as possible—no username and password
Yes-see G in list below
Monitor response rates and communicate with faculty, chairs and deans
Yes-see F,I, and J in list below
Acknowledge or reward departments with high response rates Yes-see F in list below Reassure students that responses will be kept confidential Yes-see E in list below Announcements Yes-see C in list below Extend time available to take web evaluation Yes-see B in list below Encourage instructors to stress their importance Yes-see A,F, I, & J in list below Making assessment and evaluation part of the campus culture Yes-see A,C,D,F,H,I, and J in list below Drawings for prizes such as netbooks, Wiis, and iPods Yes-see A in list below Withhold grades No-punitive measure with negative
consequences for student progress, continued enrollment, satisfaction, and engagement
Prevent further participation in course until student course evaluation is complete
No-punitive measure with negative consequences for student progress, continued enrollment, satisfaction, and engagement
Prevent future registration No-punitive measure with negative consequences for student progress, continued enrollment, satisfaction, and engagement
Use class time when possible No-not applicable for web-based classes Keep student course evaluation short No-no changes are proposed to evaluation
instrument at this time; recommendation is that a subcommittee of SLAC look at questions to ensure that they are fulfilling assessment needs
Post student course evaluation results by instructor and course on the web
No-issues with faculty contract
Make student course evaluation part of course curriculum No-instructor/chair decision Give extra credit points towards grade No-instructor/chair decision Make grades available early to those who complete student course evaluations
No-grades are already made available within two days of their submission to Records
43
Strategies for Improving Response Rates for Web Student Course Evaluations A. Hold drawings to win popular technological devices (e.g., iPads, iPods, Netbooks, Wii, etc.)
each term, both for students who complete web student course evaluations and for instructors who achieve high web student course evaluation response rates. Implement this strategy in combination with the other strategies below for one full year. If sufficiently high response rates are achieved with all of the strategies in combination, then the recommendation is to try eliminating the incentives for one full year to determine if they justify the cost. 1. Dedicate $1,000 per term ($3,000 annually) to purchase highly-desired technological
devices for drawings. This budget would partially come from money saved through the elimination of formative student course evaluations. If the implementation of these improvements results in acceptable web response rates, then the improvements may also be applied to land-based courses as well, saving an additional estimated $23,336 per year.
2. Enter students into the “Student Drawing” for each web student course evaluation that they complete.
3. Instructors receive one entry into the “Instructor Drawing” for each web-based course response rate that they achieve from 50% to 69%. They receive two entries in the drawing for each web response rate that they achieve from 70% to 89%. They receive three entries for response rates from 90% to 100%.
B. Extend the window during which students can respond to web student course evaluations from 2 weeks to 3 weeks, including the last two weeks of class and finals week.
C. Work with Marketing and Communications to post an announcement on Ozone, OTV, BlackBoard, Facebook, and Twitter during the last three weeks of each term highlighting the importance of student course evaluations and encouraging students to complete them. Below is a draft announcement that could be used:
Online Course Evaluations Begin-Complete Yours for a Chance to Win an iPad!
Student course evaluations for online classes begin this week. Watch your Owens email, Blackboard, and Ozone for links to evaluate your online classes. Receive one entry into a drawing for a FREE iPad for every online course that you evaluate! It takes just a few minutes and all responses are completely anonymous.
For assistance, please call the Help Desk at (567) 661-7120.
44
D. Present a proposal to the Curriculum Committee that the standard syllabus template for all classes include a statement about how student course evaluations are part of the course, what they are used for, and how important they are. Below is some draft language that could be utilized:
Student course evaluations take place at the end of the semester. These evaluations offer instructors feedback from students regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the course. Evaluations will be reviewed by administrators for evaluation purposes. Instructors will not receive this feedback until after semester grades are submitted, and this information will remain confidential.
Instructors will provide students with the evaluation materials in class on a day of their choice. Students enrolled in online courses will be able to access the evaluations electronically. Faculty, administrators, and everyone else involved appreciate students taking the time to provide thoughtful evaluations.
E. Reword text in the email that students receive, simplifying the language, highlighting the prize drawing, and stressing the confidentiality of the data. Below is some draft language that could be utilized:
From: Web Course Evaluations [email protected] Date To: [email protected] Subject: Course Evaluation: Complete for a chance to win an iPad! Dear [Student name], Want a chance to win an iPad? Evaluate your online class at the link below by [date], and you will be entered into a drawing for a FREE iPad! [link] Students are given one entry for each online course that they evaluate. Participation and responses are collected independently. All answers are completely anonymous!
For assistance, please call the Help Desk at (567) 661-7120.
F. Create a report of web response rates by department and post it to ONews at the end of each term along with an acknowledgement of departments with the highest response rates.
45
G. Eliminate login for student course evaluation by creating an individualized link for each student. Embed this link into emails to students and in Ozone (if possible). Link should become deactivated once students complete the evaluation.
H. Send students email reminders weekly until they complete the student course evaluation or until the evaluation window has closed.
I. Create a report that allows instructors to log on and view the current number and percentage of students in each of their web-based courses who have completed the student course evaluation.
J. Send instructors email reminders including their current response rate at the beginning of week 2 and week 3 of the evaluation window.
What is the most efficient and useful way to make results available?
It frequently takes anywhere from 3 weeks to 3 ½ months for student course evaluation results to reach instructors and their supervisors. As indicated by the survey and focus group conducted with deans and chairs, this is often too long of a delay for changes to be made before the end of the term (for formative student course evaluations) or before the start of the next term (for summative student course evaluations). Much of this delay is caused by the printing, assembling, and mailing of paper results as well as the manual distribution of results from supervisors to instructors. In addition, the paper-distribution of results also costs thousands of dollars each year in labor, paper, envelopes, and other office supplies (see Current Student Evaluation Process for the estimated cost of the various aspects of conducting course evaluations). To address these issues, the Spring 2006 Student Course Evaluations Process Management Team recommended that the results of student course evaluations be emailed to instructors and their supervisors. This recommendation was approved by the AQIP Steering Committee; however, implementation was delayed due to concerns that some results might incorrectly be delivered to the wrong person.
As a remedy to this concern, SLAC should be responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of a secure web-based data system for instructors and supervisors to access results. This system would require an individual’s Novell username and password, would be self-service, would be immediately available to instructors and supervisors, and would eliminate the labor and supply costs associated with paper-based results. In addition, because it would be tied to individuals’ username and password, the chance of results incorrectly being delivered would be minimized.
46
GANTT CHART
Fall
2010
Fall
2011
Fall
2012
Recommendation 1 ‐ Discontinue formative evaluations
Conduct survey of deans, chairs, and instructors to assess
satisfaction with new student course evaluation process
Evaluate results of dean, chair, and instructor survey
Recommendation 2 ‐ Place the responsibility for summative student
course evaluations with the Student Learning Assessment
Committee. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Define the purpose of student course evaluations at Owens
Community College
• Given the purpose, determine the most appropriate
instrument and methodology
• Ensure participation of students and instructors
• Oversee the implementation of a web‐based data system to
access results
47
HOW TO STUDY RESULTS
Evaluation of all implemented recommendations will occur in the Fall 2011 and 2012. In the Fall of 2011, our team will conduct an inventory of progress that SLAC has made in implementing suggested improvements. In Fall 2012, SLAC in collaboration with Institutional Research will conduct a survey of deans, chairs, and instructors to assess their satisfaction with the student course evaluation process.
48
HOW IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE ENGRAFTED TO SYSTEM
As proposed in Recommendation 2, student course evaluations are, by definition, an assessment activity. As such, it is the recommendation of this team that responsibility for oversight of the student course evaluations process fall under the purview of SLAC. SLAC is a standing committee with faculty and administrative representatives from each school as well as representatives from President’s Cabinet and Institutional Research. It is an existing structure within the college with a mission, a goal, purposes, and objectives that suitably encompass student course evaluations. Assignment of responsibility for student course evaluations to SLAC will ensure integration of student course evaluations with assessment of student learning and long-term continuous improvement of the process.
49
Appendix A. Land-Based Student Course Evaluation Questions
50
Appendix B. Web-Based Student Course Evaluation Questions
51
Appendix C. Sample Student Course Evaluation Email Invitation From: Web-Based Course Evaluations [email protected] Tuesday - February 16, 2010 7:31 PM To: Joseph Inman Subject: Owens Community College Course Evaluation Dear Joseph, As a student of Owens Community College, your feedback on College courses and services is very important. We ask each student to complete an evaluation of every course taken (any course longer than eight weeks in duration); a midterm (formative) evaluation and an end-of-term (summative) evaluation. Please take a moment and let us know what you think about your course. This survey is completely anonymous and none of the data you submit will be associated with you in any way. After reading the following instructions, go to the evaluation web page by using the URL at the bottom of this message. When you reach the "Sign On" page, please enter your user ID and PIN below: User ID: [email protected] PIN: 2010101162077 Please follow the directions on the evaluation form. In order for your evaluation to be tabulated, PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM BY 02-MAR-10. Alternately, if your email program does not directly open your web browser and the evaluation page, simply open your web browser and copy and paste in the URL above into the "Location" space on your browser. Your feedback is vital to maintain and improve quality education at Owens Community College. To reach the evaluation web-form, please double-click on this URL: https://www.owens.edu/cgi-bin/webeval/webeval.pl?a=q&t=201010&c=17126&s=0&v=1 Thank you.
52
Appendix D. Instructions to Instructors for Administering Land-Based Student Course Evaluations
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Summative Student Course Assessment Procedures 1. A Summative Student Course Assessment must be administered in each course section you teach. 2. This Assessment packet includes: a. Assessment forms for all students in your course section. 3. When administering the Summative Student Course Assessment, please adhere to the following guidelines:
a. Appoint a student from your class to act as proctor. This student will be responsible for distributing the assessment forms, gathering the completed forms into the envelope, and delivering the envelope to the appropriate office. The student should deliver the envelope to the nearest academic office listed below. (If office is closed, the student should slide the envelope under the door).
BUILDING OFFICE LOCATION AVCC……………………………………………………………. Teacher Education Office, Room 130 Center for Fine & Performing Arts…………………….Fine & Performing Arts, Room 205
Math Office, Room 118 College Hall……………………………………………………Teaching and Learning Center, Room 158 Business & Information Technology Office, Room 120 Findlay Campus………………………………………………Executive Deans Office, Room 115C Fire Science & Law Enforcement Center…………….Main Office, Room 160 Founders Hall…………………………………………………Communications/Humanities/Languages, Front Office English Department, Front Office Social & Behavioral Sciences, Front Office Health Technologies & Bicentennial Hall……………Health Sciences Office, Room 121 Industrial & Engineering Tech Building………………Main Office, Room 111 Math / Science Building……………………………………Main Office, Room 141 Transportation Technologies Building………………..Main Office, Room 124 Workforce & Community Services (Toledo)………..Arrowhead location, Front Desk Workforce & Community Services (Findlay)……….Executive Deans Office, Room 115C 4. The evaluation must be completed with #2 lead pencil.
a. Before leaving the room, explain the purpose of the Summative Student Course Assessment. Please tell your students that these assessments provide valuable feedback to you and the academic administration. Encourage them to write comments and provide constructive feedback. Tell them that their comments may help to make the course more valuable and useful and will especially assist future classes. Also tell them that you believe that this student feedback is so important that you are providing ample time for instruction to have students consider each question carefully.
b. After providing instructions to the class and advising the proctor to distribute the forms, leave the room until students are finished completing the assessments.
c. After the assessments are processed, a copy of the computer-generated assessment summary, along with the handwritten student comments, will be provided to each faculty member following review by the Department Chair. The assessment summary along with the student comments will not be returned to you from your department chair until the course is completed.
5. If you have questions regarding the assessment process, please contact your Department Chair.
53
Appendix E. Detailed Course Evaluation Response Rate Data Summer Semester
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
SUMMER SEMESTER
Formative 200030 200130 200230 200330 200430 200530 200630 200730 200830 200930 Summative 200030 200130 200230 200330 200430 200530 200630 200730 200830 200930
SOAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOAS 2,736 3,636 4,678 4,943 5,074 4,865 4,766 5,251 6,061 7,605
SBIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBIT 969 1,241 1,488 1,699 1,695 1,710 1,671 1,897 2,081 2,398
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPSE 248 303 349 278 286 220 133 116 123 225
SOHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOHS 267 363 371 576 667 818 687 714 756 1,019
SON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SON 46 69 216 219 274 409 400 463 428 460
SOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOT 1,043 423 901 733 952 658 545 1,033 760 755
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 46 53 14 21 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,309 6,035 8,003 8,494 9,001 8,694 8,223 9,474 10,209 12,462
SOAS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOAS 1,717 2,253 2,660 2,777 2,851 2,558 2,143 2,120 2,149 3,044
SBIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SBIT 662 651 809 780 761 686 515 468 475 604
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPSE 170 208 262 191 216 155 83 69 66 142
SOHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOHS 175 231 256 331 413 463 387 288 355 479
SON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SON 44 38 153 171 154 215 165 227 188 242
SOT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOT 517 270 217 191 241 178 234 215 272 317
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 22 35 0 15 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,285 3,651 4,357 4,463 4,671 4,255 3,542 3,387 3,505 4,828
SOAS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS 62.8% 62.0% 56.9% 56.2% 56.2% 52.6% 45.0% 40.4% 35.5% 40.0%
SBIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SBIT 68.3% 52.5% 54.4% 45.9% 44.9% 40.1% 30.8% 24.7% 22.8% 25.2%
SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SPSE 68.5% 68.6% 75.1% 68.7% 75.5% 70.5% 62.4% 59.5% 53.7% 63.1%
SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS 65.5% 63.6% 69.0% 57.5% 61.9% 56.6% 56.3% 40.3% 47.0% 47.0%
SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SON 95.7% 55.1% 70.8% 78.1% 56.2% 52.6% 41.3% 49.0% 43.9% 52.6%
SOT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOT 49.6% 63.8% 24.1% 26.1% 25.3% 27.1% 42.9% 20.8% 35.8% 42.0%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 47.8% 66.0% 0.0% 71.4% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 61.9% 60.5% 54.4% 52.5% 51.9% 48.9% 43.1% 35.8% 34.3% 38.7%
48.1% 36.5%
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
54
Fall vs. Spring Semesters – All Delivery Methods {Grouped by Fall & Spring} OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOAS 17,459 20,446 23,731 25,515 26,124 25,702 24,604 24,838 26,962 31,787 SOAS 16,427 19,602 22,176 24,015 23,285 22,948 22,522 24,347 25,997 30,344
SBIT 4,579 4,982 5,712 5,675 5,322 5,921 5,633 5,917 6,220 7,758 SBIT 4,661 5,262 5,651 5,695 5,667 5,793 5,695 6,218 6,543 7,940
SPSE 1,610 1,626 1,964 1,760 1,907 1,734 1,434 1,332 1,382 1,565 SPSE 1,667 1,532 1,628 1,776 1,681 1,287 1,227 1,274 1,341 1,539
SOHS 770 840 1,078 1,349 1,549 1,882 1,950 1,956 2,025 2,541 SOHS 641 685 1,056 1,124 1,162 1,652 1,859 1,674 2,164 2,302
SON 611 757 811 1,017 1,353 1,291 1,433 1,555 1,457 1,127 SON 666 671 837 1,063 1,249 1,257 1,237 1,406 1,358 1,056
SOT 8,951 7,488 6,307 5,290 5,333 3,237 3,536 6,939 6,077 3,907 SOT 9,018 8,612 8,994 6,294 3,015 3,058 3,284 3,346 6,761 8,517
ENR 0 0 0 242 312 324 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 257 142 162 0 0 0 0
33,980 36,139 39,603 40,848 41,900 40,091 38,590 42,537 44,123 48,685 33,080 36,364 40,342 40,224 36,201 36,157 35,824 38,265 44,164 51,698
SOAS 10,083 10,610 12,526 12,938 13,498 12,411 11,687 3,201 2,625 2,674 SOAS 8,856 9,923 10,710 11,858 11,141 11,182 3,427 2,767 2,524 1,561
SBIT 2,500 2,639 2,804 2,706 2,458 2,485 2,177 790 691 689 SBIT 2,324 2,627 2,522 2,638 2,548 2,210 1,000 778 639 409
SPSE 940 1,079 1,086 1,119 1,134 867 742 158 92 96 SPSE 873 972 961 1,010 1,058 762 141 114 77 68
SOHS 558 602 772 855 912 1,151 1,111 357 214 241 SOHS 436 493 696 639 629 846 349 283 246 150
SON 477 572 627 728 773 668 799 337 242 126 SON 510 557 622 790 775 614 306 344 232 94
SOT 4,849 3,455 1,619 2,839 2,140 1,647 1,254 1,218 1,258 171 SOT 4,548 5,196 4,942 3,198 1,784 1,685 539 316 238 148
ENR 0 0 0 131 165 148 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 79 57 53 0 0 0 0
19,407 18,957 19,434 21,316 21,080 19,377 17,770 6,061 5,122 3,997 17,547 19,768 20,453 20,212 17,992 17,352 5,762 4,602 3,956 2,430
SOAS 57.8% 51.9% 52.8% 50.7% 51.7% 48.3% 47.5% 12.9% 9.7% 8.4% SOAS 53.9% 50.6% 48.3% 49.4% 47.8% 48.7% 15.2% 11.4% 9.7% 5.1%
SBIT 54.6% 53.0% 49.1% 47.7% 46.2% 42.0% 38.6% 13.4% 11.1% 8.9% SBIT 49.9% 49.9% 44.6% 46.3% 45.0% 38.1% 17.6% 12.5% 9.8% 5.2%
SPSE 58.4% 66.4% 55.3% 63.6% 59.5% 50.0% 51.7% 11.9% 6.7% 6.1% SPSE 52.4% 63.4% 59.0% 56.9% 62.9% 59.2% 11.5% 8.9% 5.7% 4.4%
SOHS 72.5% 71.7% 71.6% 63.4% 58.9% 61.2% 57.0% 18.3% 10.6% 9.5% SOHS 68.0% 72.0% 65.9% 56.9% 54.1% 51.2% 18.8% 16.9% 11.4% 6.5%
SON 78.1% 75.6% 77.3% 71.6% 57.1% 51.7% 55.8% 21.7% 16.6% 11.2% SON 76.6% 83.0% 74.3% 74.3% 62.0% 48.8% 24.7% 24.5% 17.1% 8.9%
SOT 54.2% 46.1% 25.7% 53.7% 40.1% 50.9% 35.5% 17.6% 20.7% 4.4% SOT 50.4% 60.3% 54.9% 50.8% 59.2% 55.1% 16.4% 9.4% 3.5% 1.7%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 54.1% 52.9% 45.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 30.7% 40.1% 32.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
57.1% 52.5% 49.1% 52.2% 50.3% 48.3% 46.0% 14.2% 11.6% 8.2% 53.0% 54.4% 50.7% 50.2% 49.7% 48.0% 16.1% 12.0% 9.0% 4.7%
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOAS 16,593 18,661 21,976 23,682 24,565 23,906 23,085 23,177 25,487 31,504 SOAS 15,508 18,642 20,664 22,817 22,128 21,529 22,152 22,759 26,428 29,796
SBIT 5,891 6,145 6,979 7,046 7,167 7,458 7,229 7,320 8,203 9,475 SBIT 5,590 6,470 6,829 6,828 7,078 7,146 7,154 7,671 8,516 9,442
SPSE 1,610 1,561 1,885 1,649 1,898 1,633 1,332 1,273 1,285 1,446 SPSE 1,679 1,563 1,550 1,732 1,606 1,202 1,199 1,170 1,288 1,501
SOHS 1,127 1,366 1,660 2,081 2,359 2,651 2,603 2,705 2,939 3,713 SOHS 1,141 1,326 1,750 1,940 2,083 2,496 2,785 2,648 3,325 3,757
SON 1,009 996 1,050 1,293 1,779 1,858 2,034 2,147 2,129 1,929 SON 1,014 994 1,153 1,452 1,834 1,827 1,915 1,992 1,831 1,844
SOT 9,146 8,044 7,129 5,805 6,167 9,150 4,356 7,794 7,005 8,026 SOT 9,650 8,868 9,428 6,516 6,237 9,473 6,511 7,196 7,404 8,644
ENR 0 0 0 218 306 327 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 228 95 142 0 0 0 0
35,376 36,773 40,679 41,774 44,241 46,983 40,639 44,416 47,048 56,093 34,582 37,863 41,374 41,513 41,061 43,815 41,716 43,436 48,792 54,984
SOAS 8,206 10,000 11,501 11,800 12,679 12,146 11,450 11,157 12,323 14,302 SOAS 7,701 9,510 10,258 11,589 11,592 10,891 10,365 10,607 12,370 14,099
SBIT 2,980 3,214 3,569 3,572 3,473 3,181 2,997 2,702 2,987 2,739 SBIT 2,789 3,405 3,323 3,126 3,188 2,819 2,638 2,803 2,956 3,056
SPSE 866 896 963 1,032 1,052 705 679 633 638 743 SPSE 868 1,032 895 937 953 713 638 641 615 747
SOHS 770 852 1,055 1,337 1,178 1,488 1,434 1,461 1,685 1,479 SOHS 742 828 1,033 1,143 1,204 1,377 1,387 1,533 1,929 1,902
SON 787 757 806 951 1,106 952 1,078 1,209 1,307 1,012 SON 732 780 864 1,085 1,131 1,114 1,060 1,170 1,248 1,135
SOT 2,827 3,179 4,168 2,154 1,749 2,944 1,632 3,069 1,978 2,982 SOT 3,122 3,291 3,143 2,023 1,724 1,560 1,655 1,827 2,366 2,212
ENR 0 0 0 87 115 156 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 68 40 49 0 0 0 0
16,436 18,898 22,062 20,933 21,352 21,572 19,270 20,231 20,918 23,257 15,954 18,846 19,516 19,971 19,832 18,523 17,743 18,581 21,484 23,151
SOAS 49.5% 53.6% 52.3% 49.8% 51.6% 50.8% 49.6% 48.1% 48.4% 45.4% SOAS 49.7% 51.0% 49.6% 50.8% 52.4% 50.6% 46.8% 46.6% 46.8% 47.3%
SBIT 50.6% 52.3% 51.1% 50.7% 48.5% 42.7% 41.5% 36.9% 36.4% 28.9% SBIT 49.9% 52.6% 48.7% 45.8% 45.0% 39.4% 36.9% 36.5% 34.7% 32.4%
SPSE 53.8% 57.4% 51.1% 62.6% 55.4% 43.2% 51.0% 49.7% 49.6% 51.4% SPSE 51.7% 66.0% 57.7% 54.1% 59.3% 59.3% 53.2% 54.8% 47.7% 49.8%
SOHS 68.3% 62.4% 63.6% 64.2% 49.9% 56.1% 55.1% 54.0% 57.3% 39.8% SOHS 65.0% 62.4% 59.0% 58.9% 57.8% 55.2% 49.8% 57.9% 58.0% 50.6%
SON 78.0% 76.0% 76.8% 73.5% 62.2% 51.2% 53.0% 56.3% 61.4% 52.5% SON 72.2% 78.5% 74.9% 74.7% 61.7% 61.0% 55.4% 58.7% 68.2% 61.6%
SOT 30.9% 39.5% 58.5% 37.1% 28.4% 32.2% 37.5% 39.4% 28.2% 37.2% SOT 32.4% 37.1% 33.3% 31.0% 27.6% 16.5% 25.4% 25.4% 32.0% 25.6%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 39.9% 37.6% 47.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 29.8% 42.1% 34.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
46.5% 51.4% 54.2% 50.1% 48.3% 45.9% 47.4% 45.5% 44.5% 41.5% 46.1% 49.8% 47.2% 48.1% 48.3% 42.3% 42.5% 42.8% 44.0% 42.1%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
55
Fall vs. Spring Semesters (Formative Only)– Paper vs. Web Method {Grouped by Fall & Spring} OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
Paper Paper
SOAS 17,459 20,368 23,634 25,114 25,350 24,500 22,009 0 0 0 SOAS 16,406 19,472 21,939 23,507 22,475 21,612 125 0 17 0
SBIT 4,354 4,625 5,197 5,003 4,432 4,498 3,721 0 0 0 SBIT 4,324 4,820 5,092 4,851 4,593 4,170 14 0 0 0
SPSE 1,610 1,626 1,964 1,760 1,907 1,692 1,362 0 0 0 SPSE 1,667 1,532 1,628 1,776 1,681 1,226 0 0 0 0
SOHS 770 840 1,059 1,209 1,168 1,435 1,533 0 0 0 SOHS 641 685 998 957 863 1,266 0 0 0 0
SON 611 757 797 984 1,221 1,112 1,191 0 0 0 SON 666 671 818 1,010 1,090 1,010 0 0 0 0
SOT 8,933 7,473 6,307 5,275 5,280 3,152 3,399 4,101 2,920 0 SOT 8,997 8,581 8,985 6,259 2,956 2,970 630 190 0 0
ENR 0 0 0 242 312 324 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 257 142 162 0 0 0 0
33,737 35,689 38,958 39,587 39,670 36,713 33,215 4,101 2,920 0 32,701 35,761 39,460 38,617 33,800 32,416 769 190 17 0
SOAS 10,083 10,603 12,499 12,843 13,348 12,219 11,215 0 0 0 SOAS 8,856 9,895 10,643 11,738 10,995 10,915 10 0 0 0
SBIT 2,489 2,560 2,694 2,549 2,261 2,224 1,804 0 0 0 SBIT 2,312 2,508 2,372 2,438 2,317 1,862 2 0 0 0
SPSE 940 1,079 1,086 1,119 1,134 861 724 0 0 0 SPSE 873 972 961 1,010 1,058 752 0 0 0 0
SOHS 558 602 769 819 848 1,081 1,028 0 0 0 SOHS 436 493 679 606 570 770 0 0 0 0
SON 477 572 622 722 750 643 751 0 0 0 SON 510 557 616 777 743 568 0 0 0 0
SOT 4,849 3,449 1,619 2,836 2,134 1,636 1,233 903 1,031 0 SOT 4,548 5,195 4,941 3,196 1,780 1,663 0 0 0 0
ENR 0 0 0 131 165 148 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 79 57 53 0 0 0 0
19,396 18,865 19,289 21,019 20,640 18,812 16,755 903 1,031 0 17,535 19,620 20,212 19,844 17,520 16,583 12 0 0 0
SOAS 57.8% 52.1% 52.9% 51.1% 52.7% 49.9% 51.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS 54.0% 50.8% 48.5% 49.9% 48.9% 50.5% 8.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐
SBIT 57.2% 55.4% 51.8% 50.9% 51.0% 49.4% 48.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SBIT 53.5% 52.0% 46.6% 50.3% 50.4% 44.7% 14.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SPSE 58.4% 66.4% 55.3% 63.6% 59.5% 50.9% 53.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SPSE 52.4% 63.4% 59.0% 56.9% 62.9% 61.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS 72.5% 71.7% 72.6% 67.7% 72.6% 75.3% 67.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS 68.0% 72.0% 68.0% 63.3% 66.0% 60.8% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SON 78.1% 75.6% 78.0% 73.4% 61.4% 57.8% 63.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SON 76.6% 83.0% 75.3% 76.9% 68.2% 56.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOT 54.3% 46.2% 25.7% 53.8% 40.4% 51.9% 36.3% 22.0% 35.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOT 50.6% 60.5% 55.0% 51.1% 60.2% 56.0% 0.0% 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 54.1% 52.9% 45.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 30.7% 40.1% 32.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
57.5% 52.9% 49.5% 53.1% 52.0% 51.2% 50.4% 22.0% 35.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ 53.6% 54.9% 51.2% 51.4% 51.8% 51.2% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
Web Web
SOAS 0 78 97 401 774 1,202 2,595 24,838 26,962 31,787 SOAS 21 130 237 508 810 1,336 22,397 24,347 25,980 30,344
SBIT 225 357 515 672 890 1,423 1,912 5,917 6,220 7,758 SBIT 337 442 559 844 1,074 1,623 5,681 6,218 6,543 7,940
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 42 72 1,332 1,382 1,565 SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 61 1,227 1,274 1,341 1,539
SOHS 0 0 19 140 381 447 417 1,956 2,025 2,541 SOHS 0 0 58 167 299 386 1,859 1,674 2,164 2,302
SON 0 0 14 33 132 179 242 1,555 1,457 1,127 SON 0 0 19 53 159 247 1,237 1,406 1,358 1,056
SOT 18 15 0 15 53 85 137 2,838 3,157 3,907 SOT 21 31 9 35 59 88 2,654 3,156 6,761 8,517
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 450 645 1,261 2,230 3,378 5,375 38,436 41,203 48,685 379 603 882 1,607 2,401 3,741 35,055 38,075 44,147 51,698
SOAS 0 7 27 95 150 192 472 3,201 2,625 2,674 SOAS 0 28 67 120 146 267 3,417 2,767 2,524 1,561
SBIT 11 79 110 157 197 261 373 790 691 689 SBIT 12 119 150 200 231 348 998 778 639 409
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 158 92 96 SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 10 141 114 77 68
SOHS 0 0 3 36 64 70 83 357 214 241 SOHS 0 0 17 33 59 76 349 283 246 150
SON 0 0 5 6 23 25 48 337 242 126 SON 0 0 6 13 32 46 306 344 232 94
SOT 0 6 0 3 6 11 21 315 227 171 SOT 0 1 1 2 4 22 539 316 238 148
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 92 145 297 440 565 1,015 5,158 4,091 3,997 12 148 241 368 472 769 5,750 4,602 3,956 2,430
SOAS ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.0% 27.8% 23.7% 19.4% 16.0% 18.2% 12.9% 9.7% 8.4% SOAS 0.0% 21.5% 28.3% 23.6% 18.0% 20.0% 15.3% 11.4% 9.7% 5.1%
SBIT 4.9% 22.1% 21.4% 23.4% 22.1% 18.3% 19.5% 13.4% 11.1% 8.9% SBIT 3.6% 26.9% 26.8% 23.7% 21.5% 21.4% 17.6% 12.5% 9.8% 5.2%
SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 14.3% 25.0% 11.9% 6.7% 6.1% SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 16.4% 11.5% 8.9% 5.7% 4.4%
SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 15.8% 25.7% 16.8% 15.7% 19.9% 18.3% 10.6% 9.5% SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 29.3% 19.8% 19.7% 19.7% 18.8% 16.9% 11.4% 6.5%
SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 35.7% 18.2% 17.4% 14.0% 19.8% 21.7% 16.6% 11.2% SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 31.6% 24.5% 20.1% 18.6% 24.7% 24.5% 17.1% 8.9%
SOT 0.0% 40.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ 20.0% 11.3% 12.9% 15.3% 11.1% 7.2% 4.4% SOT 0.0% 3.2% 11.1% 5.7% 6.8% 25.0% 20.3% 10.0% 3.5% 1.7%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
4.5% 20.4% 22.5% 23.6% 19.7% 16.7% 18.9% 13.4% 9.9% 8.2% 3.2% 24.5% 27.3% 22.9% 19.7% 20.6% 16.4% 12.1% 9.0% 4.7%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
56
Fall vs. Spring Semesters (Summative Only) – Paper vs. Web Method {Grouped by Fall & Spring} OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
Paper Paper
SOAS 16,593 18,599 21,887 23,337 23,880 22,876 20,734 19,175 20,910 25,166 SOAS 15,493 18,528 20,457 22,346 21,385 20,295 18,720 18,830 21,024 24,114
SBIT 5,691 5,821 6,542 6,304 6,088 5,885 4,960 5,019 5,273 5,994 SBIT 5,299 6,071 6,210 5,828 5,735 5,327 4,636 4,942 5,170 6,123
SPSE 1,610 1,561 1,885 1,649 1,898 1,593 1,268 1,206 1,191 1,342 SPSE 1,679 1,563 1,550 1,732 1,606 1,149 1,120 1,098 1,145 1,371
SOHS 1,127 1,366 1,641 1,956 1,999 2,232 2,214 2,215 2,364 2,949 SOHS 1,141 1,326 1,697 1,765 1,795 2,124 2,363 2,163 2,728 3,109
SON 1,009 996 1,038 1,262 1,575 1,601 1,708 1,798 1,829 1,613 SON 1,014 994 1,135 1,342 1,606 1,510 1,566 1,603 1,564 1,549
SOT 9,130 8,030 7,129 5,792 6,105 9,081 4,231 7,588 6,747 7,727 SOT 9,629 8,839 9,418 6,485 6,182 9,390 6,312 6,913 7,044 8,307
ENR 0 0 0 218 306 327 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 228 95 142 0 0 0 0
35,160 36,373 40,122 40,518 41,851 43,595 35,115 37,001 38,314 44,791 34,255 37,321 40,467 39,726 38,404 39,937 34,717 35,549 38,675 44,573
SOAS 8,206 9,992 11,480 11,724 12,543 11,961 10,971 10,675 11,543 14,280 SOAS 7,701 9,489 10,205 11,512 11,427 10,679 9,784 10,189 11,939 13,728
SBIT 2,975 3,164 3,471 3,442 3,244 2,863 2,552 2,432 2,553 2,706 SBIT 2,777 3,308 3,189 2,931 2,921 2,471 2,237 2,529 2,688 2,864
SPSE 866 896 963 1,032 1,052 698 667 626 623 743 SPSE 868 1,032 895 937 953 706 633 635 606 737
SOHS 770 852 1,049 1,316 1,125 1,421 1,354 1,385 1,564 1,479 SOHS 742 828 1,023 1,116 1,143 1,312 1,319 1,476 1,870 1,845
SON 787 757 802 947 1,052 912 1,009 1,169 1,207 1,012 SON 732 780 860 1,071 1,093 1,062 964 1,099 1,209 1,107
SOT 2,827 3,175 4,168 2,152 1,742 2,936 1,616 3,041 1,941 2,982 SOT 3,122 3,289 3,141 2,018 1,718 1,545 1,619 1,807 2,344 2,194
ENR 0 0 0 87 115 156 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 68 40 49 0 0 0 0
16,431 18,836 21,933 20,700 20,873 20,947 18,169 19,328 19,431 23,202 15,942 18,726 19,313 19,653 19,295 17,824 16,556 17,735 20,656 22,475
SOAS 49.5% 53.7% 52.5% 50.2% 52.5% 52.3% 52.9% 55.7% 55.2% 56.7% SOAS 49.7% 51.2% 49.9% 51.5% 53.4% 52.6% 52.3% 54.1% 56.8% 56.9%
SBIT 52.3% 54.4% 53.1% 54.6% 53.3% 48.6% 51.5% 48.5% 48.4% 45.1% SBIT 52.4% 54.5% 51.4% 50.3% 50.9% 46.4% 48.3% 51.2% 52.0% 46.8%
SPSE 53.8% 57.4% 51.1% 62.6% 55.4% 43.8% 52.6% 51.9% 52.3% 55.4% SPSE 51.7% 66.0% 57.7% 54.1% 59.3% 61.4% 56.5% 57.8% 52.9% 53.8%
SOHS 68.3% 62.4% 63.9% 67.3% 56.3% 63.7% 61.2% 62.5% 66.2% 50.2% SOHS 65.0% 62.4% 60.3% 63.2% 63.7% 61.8% 55.8% 68.2% 68.5% 59.3%
SON 78.0% 76.0% 77.3% 75.0% 66.8% 57.0% 59.1% 65.0% 66.0% 62.7% SON 72.2% 78.5% 75.8% 79.8% 68.1% 70.3% 61.6% 68.6% 77.3% 71.5%
SOT 31.0% 39.5% 58.5% 37.2% 28.5% 32.3% 38.2% 40.1% 28.8% 38.6% SOT 32.4% 37.2% 33.4% 31.1% 27.8% 16.5% 25.6% 26.1% 33.3% 26.4%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 39.9% 37.6% 47.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 29.8% 42.1% 34.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
46.7% 51.8% 54.7% 51.1% 49.9% 48.0% 51.7% 52.2% 50.7% 51.8% 46.5% 50.2% 47.7% 49.5% 50.2% 44.6% 47.7% 49.9% 53.4% 50.4%
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
Web Web
SOAS 0 62 89 345 685 1,030 2,351 4,002 4,577 6,338 SOAS 15 114 207 471 743 1,234 3,432 3,929 5,404 5,682
SBIT 200 324 437 742 1,079 1,573 2,269 2,301 2,930 3,481 SBIT 291 399 619 1,000 1,343 1,819 2,518 2,729 3,346 3,319
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 40 64 67 94 104 SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 53 79 72 143 130
SOHS 0 0 19 125 360 419 389 490 575 764 SOHS 0 0 53 175 288 372 422 485 597 648
SON 0 0 12 31 204 257 326 349 300 316 SON 0 0 18 110 228 317 349 389 267 295
SOT 16 14 0 13 62 69 125 206 258 299 SOT 21 29 10 31 55 83 199 283 360 337
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
216 400 557 1,256 2,390 3,388 5,524 7,415 8,734 11,302 327 542 907 1,787 2,657 3,878 6,999 7,887 10,117 10,411
SOAS 0 8 21 76 136 185 479 482 780 22 SOAS 0 21 53 77 165 212 581 418 431 371
SBIT 5 50 98 130 229 318 445 270 434 33 SBIT 12 97 134 195 267 348 401 274 268 192
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 7 12 7 15 0 SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 6 9 10
SOHS 0 0 6 21 53 67 80 76 121 0 SOHS 0 0 10 27 61 65 68 57 59 57
SON 0 0 4 4 54 40 69 40 100 0 SON 0 0 4 14 38 52 96 71 39 28
SOT 0 4 0 2 7 8 16 28 37 0 SOT 0 2 2 5 6 15 36 20 22 18
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 62 129 233 479 625 1,101 903 1,487 55 12 120 203 318 537 699 1,187 846 828 676
SOAS ‐‐‐‐‐ 12.9% 23.6% 22.0% 19.9% 18.0% 20.4% 12.0% 17.0% 0.3% SOAS 0.0% 18.4% 25.6% 16.3% 22.2% 17.2% 16.9% 10.6% 8.0% 6.5%
SBIT 2.5% 15.4% 22.4% 17.5% 21.2% 20.2% 19.6% 11.7% 14.8% 0.9% SBIT 4.1% 24.3% 21.6% 19.5% 19.9% 19.1% 15.9% 10.0% 8.0% 5.8%
SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 17.5% 18.8% 10.4% 16.0% 0.0% SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 13.2% 6.3% 8.3% 6.3% 7.7%
SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 31.6% 16.8% 14.7% 16.0% 20.6% 15.5% 21.0% 0.0% SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 18.9% 15.4% 21.2% 17.5% 16.1% 11.8% 9.9% 8.8%
SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 33.3% 12.9% 26.5% 15.6% 21.2% 11.5% 33.3% 0.0% SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 22.2% 12.7% 16.7% 16.4% 27.5% 18.3% 14.6% 9.5%
SOT 0.0% 28.6% ‐‐‐‐‐ 15.4% 11.3% 11.6% 12.8% 13.6% 14.3% 0.0% SOT 0.0% 6.9% 20.0% 16.1% 10.9% 18.1% 18.1% 7.1% 6.1% 5.3%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
2.3% 15.5% 23.2% 18.6% 20.0% 18.4% 19.9% 12.2% 17.0% 0.5% 3.7% 22.1% 22.4% 17.8% 20.2% 18.0% 17.0% 10.7% 8.2% 6.5%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
57
Fall & Spring Semesters (Formative Only) – Paper vs. Web Method plus Combined Totals OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
Fall & Spring Semesters Only
Formative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Totals
SOAS 17,459 16,427 20,446 19,602 23,731 22,176 25,515 24,015 26,124 23,285 25,702 22,948 24,604 22,522 24,838 24,347 26,962 25,997 31,787 30,344
SBIT 4,579 4,661 4,982 5,262 5,712 5,651 5,675 5,695 5,322 5,667 5,921 5,793 5,633 5,695 5,917 6,218 6,220 6,543 7,758 7,940
SPSE 1,610 1,667 1,626 1,532 1,964 1,628 1,760 1,776 1,907 1,681 1,734 1,287 1,434 1,227 1,332 1,274 1,382 1,341 1,565 1,539
SOHS 770 641 840 685 1,078 1,056 1,349 1,124 1,549 1,162 1,882 1,652 1,950 1,859 1,956 1,674 2,025 2,164 2,541 2,302
SON 611 666 757 671 811 837 1,017 1,063 1,353 1,249 1,291 1,257 1,433 1,237 1,555 1,406 1,457 1,358 1,127 1,056
SOT 8,951 9,018 7,488 8,612 6,307 8,994 5,290 6,294 5,333 3,015 3,237 3,058 3,536 3,284 6,939 3,346 6,077 6,761 3,907 8,517
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 257 312 142 324 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33,980 33,080 36,139 36,364 39,603 40,342 40,848 40,224 41,900 36,201 40,091 36,157 38,590 35,824 42,537 38,265 44,123 44,164 48,685 51,698
SOAS 10,083 8,856 10,610 9,923 12,526 10,710 12,938 11,858 13,498 11,141 12,411 11,182 11,687 3,427 3,201 2,767 2,625 2,524 2,674 1,561
SBIT 2,500 2,324 2,639 2,627 2,804 2,522 2,706 2,638 2,458 2,548 2,485 2,210 2,177 1,000 790 778 691 639 689 409
SPSE 940 873 1,079 972 1,086 961 1,119 1,010 1,134 1,058 867 762 742 141 158 114 92 77 96 68
SOHS 558 436 602 493 772 696 855 639 912 629 1,151 846 1,111 349 357 283 214 246 241 150
SON 477 510 572 557 627 622 728 790 773 775 668 614 799 306 337 344 242 232 126 94
SOT 4,849 4,548 3,455 5,196 1,619 4,942 2,839 3,198 2,140 1,784 1,647 1,685 1,254 539 1,218 316 1,258 238 171 148
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 79 165 57 148 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19,407 17,547 18,957 19,768 19,434 20,453 21,316 20,212 21,080 17,992 19,377 17,352 17,770 5,762 6,061 4,602 5,122 3,956 3,997 2,430
SOAS 57.8% 53.9% 51.9% 50.6% 52.8% 48.3% 50.7% 49.4% 51.7% 47.8% 48.3% 48.7% 47.5% 15.2% 12.9% 11.4% 9.7% 9.7% 8.4% 5.1%
SBIT 54.6% 49.9% 53.0% 49.9% 49.1% 44.6% 47.7% 46.3% 46.2% 45.0% 42.0% 38.1% 38.6% 17.6% 13.4% 12.5% 11.1% 9.8% 8.9% 5.2%
SPSE 58.4% 52.4% 66.4% 63.4% 55.3% 59.0% 63.6% 56.9% 59.5% 62.9% 50.0% 59.2% 51.7% 11.5% 11.9% 8.9% 6.7% 5.7% 6.1% 4.4%
SOHS 72.5% 68.0% 71.7% 72.0% 71.6% 65.9% 63.4% 56.9% 58.9% 54.1% 61.2% 51.2% 57.0% 18.8% 18.3% 16.9% 10.6% 11.4% 9.5% 6.5%
SON 78.1% 76.6% 75.6% 83.0% 77.3% 74.3% 71.6% 74.3% 57.1% 62.0% 51.7% 48.8% 55.8% 24.7% 21.7% 24.5% 16.6% 17.1% 11.2% 8.9%
SOT 54.2% 50.4% 46.1% 60.3% 25.7% 54.9% 53.7% 50.8% 40.1% 59.2% 50.9% 55.1% 35.5% 16.4% 17.6% 9.4% 20.7% 3.5% 4.4% 1.7%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 54.1% 30.7% 52.9% 40.1% 45.7% 32.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
57.1% 53.0% 52.5% 54.4% 49.1% 50.7% 52.2% 50.2% 50.3% 49.7% 48.3% 48.0% 46.0% 16.1% 14.2% 12.0% 11.6% 9.0% 8.2% 4.7%
Formative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Paper
SOAS 17,459 16,406 20,368 19,472 23,634 21,939 25,114 23,507 25,350 22,475 24,500 21,612 22,009 125 0 0 0 17 0 0
SBIT 4,354 4,324 4,625 4,820 5,197 5,092 5,003 4,851 4,432 4,593 4,498 4,170 3,721 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
SPSE 1,610 1,667 1,626 1,532 1,964 1,628 1,760 1,776 1,907 1,681 1,692 1,226 1,362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOHS 770 641 840 685 1,059 998 1,209 957 1,168 863 1,435 1,266 1,533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SON 611 666 757 671 797 818 984 1,010 1,221 1,090 1,112 1,010 1,191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOT 8,933 8,997 7,473 8,581 6,307 8,985 5,275 6,259 5,280 2,956 3,152 2,970 3,399 630 4,101 190 2,920 0 0 0
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 257 312 142 324 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
33,737 32,701 35,689 35,761 38,958 39,460 39,587 38,617 39,670 33,800 36,713 32,416 33,215 769 4,101 190 2,920 17 0 0
SOAS 10,083 8,856 10,603 9,895 12,499 10,643 12,843 11,738 13,348 10,995 12,219 10,915 11,215 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
SBIT 2,489 2,312 2,560 2,508 2,694 2,372 2,549 2,438 2,261 2,317 2,224 1,862 1,804 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
SPSE 940 873 1,079 972 1,086 961 1,119 1,010 1,134 1,058 861 752 724 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOHS 558 436 602 493 769 679 819 606 848 570 1,081 770 1,028 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SON 477 510 572 557 622 616 722 777 750 743 643 568 751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOT 4,849 4,548 3,449 5,195 1,619 4,941 2,836 3,196 2,134 1,780 1,636 1,663 1,233 0 903 0 1,031 0 0 0
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 79 165 57 148 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19,396 17,535 18,865 19,620 19,289 20,212 21,019 19,844 20,640 17,520 18,812 16,583 16,755 12 903 0 1,031 0 0 0
SOAS 57.8% 54.0% 52.1% 50.8% 52.9% 48.5% 51.1% 49.9% 52.7% 48.9% 49.9% 50.5% 51.0% 8.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SBIT 57.2% 53.5% 55.4% 52.0% 51.8% 46.6% 50.9% 50.3% 51.0% 50.4% 49.4% 44.7% 48.5% 14.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SPSE 58.4% 52.4% 66.4% 63.4% 55.3% 59.0% 63.6% 56.9% 59.5% 62.9% 50.9% 61.3% 53.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS 72.5% 68.0% 71.7% 72.0% 72.6% 68.0% 67.7% 63.3% 72.6% 66.0% 75.3% 60.8% 67.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SON 78.1% 76.6% 75.6% 83.0% 78.0% 75.3% 73.4% 76.9% 61.4% 68.2% 57.8% 56.2% 63.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOT 54.3% 50.6% 46.2% 60.5% 25.7% 55.0% 53.8% 51.1% 40.4% 60.2% 51.9% 56.0% 36.3% 0.0% 22.0% 0.0% 35.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 54.1% 30.7% 52.9% 40.1% 45.7% 32.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
57.5% 53.6% 52.9% 54.9% 49.5% 51.2% 53.1% 51.4% 52.0% 51.8% 51.2% 51.2% 50.4% 1.6% 22.0% 0.0% 35.3% 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
58
Fall & Spring Semesters (Formative Only) – Paper vs. Web Method plus Combined Totals {Continued}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
Fall & Spring Semesters Only
Formative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Web
SOAS 0 21 78 130 97 237 401 508 774 810 1,202 1,336 2,595 22,397 24,838 24,347 26,962 25,980 31,787 30,344
SBIT 225 337 357 442 515 559 672 844 890 1,074 1,423 1,623 1,912 5,681 5,917 6,218 6,220 6,543 7,758 7,940
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 61 72 1,227 1,332 1,274 1,382 1,341 1,565 1,539
SOHS 0 0 0 0 19 58 140 167 381 299 447 386 417 1,859 1,956 1,674 2,025 2,164 2,541 2,302
SON 0 0 0 0 14 19 33 53 132 159 179 247 242 1,237 1,555 1,406 1,457 1,358 1,127 1,056
SOT 18 21 15 31 0 9 15 35 53 59 85 88 137 2,654 2,838 3,156 3,157 6,761 3,907 8,517
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 379 450 603 645 882 1,261 1,607 2,230 2,401 3,378 3,741 5,375 35,055 38,436 38,075 41,203 44,147 48,685 51,698
SOAS 0 0 7 28 27 67 95 120 150 146 192 267 472 3,417 3,201 2,767 2,625 2,524 2,674 1,561
SBIT 11 12 79 119 110 150 157 200 197 231 261 348 373 998 790 778 691 639 689 409
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 18 141 158 114 92 77 96 68
SOHS 0 0 0 0 3 17 36 33 64 59 70 76 83 349 357 283 214 246 241 150
SON 0 0 0 0 5 6 6 13 23 32 25 46 48 306 337 344 242 232 126 94
SOT 0 0 6 1 0 1 3 2 6 4 11 22 21 539 315 316 227 238 171 148
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 12 92 148 145 241 297 368 440 472 565 769 1,015 5,750 5,158 4,602 4,091 3,956 3,997 2,430
SOAS ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% 9.0% 21.5% 27.8% 28.3% 23.7% 23.6% 19.4% 18.0% 16.0% 20.0% 18.2% 15.3% 12.9% 11.4% 9.7% 9.7% 8.4% 5.1%
SBIT 4.9% 3.6% 22.1% 26.9% 21.4% 26.8% 23.4% 23.7% 22.1% 21.5% 18.3% 21.4% 19.5% 17.6% 13.4% 12.5% 11.1% 9.8% 8.9% 5.2%
SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 14.3% 16.4% 25.0% 11.5% 11.9% 8.9% 6.7% 5.7% 6.1% 4.4%
SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 15.8% 29.3% 25.7% 19.8% 16.8% 19.7% 15.7% 19.7% 19.9% 18.8% 18.3% 16.9% 10.6% 11.4% 9.5% 6.5%
SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 35.7% 31.6% 18.2% 24.5% 17.4% 20.1% 14.0% 18.6% 19.8% 24.7% 21.7% 24.5% 16.6% 17.1% 11.2% 8.9%
SOT 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 3.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ 11.1% 20.0% 5.7% 11.3% 6.8% 12.9% 25.0% 15.3% 20.3% 11.1% 10.0% 7.2% 3.5% 4.4% 1.7%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
4.5% 3.2% 20.4% 24.5% 22.5% 27.3% 23.6% 22.9% 19.7% 19.7% 16.7% 20.6% 18.9% 16.4% 13.4% 12.1% 9.9% 9.0% 8.2% 4.7%
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
59
Fall & Spring Semesters (Summative Only) – Paper vs. Web Method plus Combined Totals OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
Fall & Spring Semesters Only
Summative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Totals
SOAS 16,593 15,508 18,661 18,642 21,976 20,664 23,682 22,817 24,565 22,128 23,906 21,529 23,085 22,152 23,177 22,759 25,487 26,428 31,504 29,796
SBIT 5,891 5,590 6,145 6,470 6,979 6,829 7,046 6,828 7,167 7,078 7,458 7,146 7,229 7,154 7,320 7,671 8,203 8,516 9,475 9,442
SPSE 1,610 1,679 1,561 1,563 1,885 1,550 1,649 1,732 1,898 1,606 1,633 1,202 1,332 1,199 1,273 1,170 1,285 1,288 1,446 1,501
SOHS 1,127 1,141 1,366 1,326 1,660 1,750 2,081 1,940 2,359 2,083 2,651 2,496 2,603 2,785 2,705 2,648 2,939 3,325 3,713 3,757
SON 1,009 1,014 996 994 1,050 1,153 1,293 1,452 1,779 1,834 1,858 1,827 2,034 1,915 2,147 1,992 2,129 1,831 1,929 1,844
SOT 9,146 9,650 8,044 8,868 7,129 9,428 5,805 6,516 6,167 6,237 9,150 9,473 4,356 6,511 7,794 7,196 7,005 7,404 8,026 8,644
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 228 306 95 327 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35,376 34,582 36,773 37,863 40,679 41,374 41,774 41,513 44,241 41,061 46,983 43,815 40,639 41,716 44,416 43,436 47,048 48,792 56,093 54,984
SOAS 8,206 7,701 10,000 9,510 11,501 10,258 11,800 11,589 12,679 11,592 12,146 10,891 11,450 10,365 11,157 10,607 12,323 12,370 14,302 14,099
SBIT 2,980 2,789 3,214 3,405 3,569 3,323 3,572 3,126 3,473 3,188 3,181 2,819 2,997 2,638 2,702 2,803 2,987 2,956 2,739 3,056
SPSE 866 868 896 1,032 963 895 1,032 937 1,052 953 705 713 679 638 633 641 638 615 743 747
SOHS 770 742 852 828 1,055 1,033 1,337 1,143 1,178 1,204 1,488 1,377 1,434 1,387 1,461 1,533 1,685 1,929 1,479 1,902
SON 787 732 757 780 806 864 951 1,085 1,106 1,131 952 1,114 1,078 1,060 1,209 1,170 1,307 1,248 1,012 1,135
SOT 2,827 3,122 3,179 3,291 4,168 3,143 2,154 2,023 1,749 1,724 2,944 1,560 1,632 1,655 3,069 1,827 1,978 2,366 2,982 2,212
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 68 115 40 156 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16,436 15,954 18,898 18,846 22,062 19,516 20,933 19,971 21,352 19,832 21,572 18,523 19,270 17,743 20,231 18,581 20,918 21,484 23,257 23,151
SOAS 49.5% 49.7% 53.6% 51.0% 52.3% 49.6% 49.8% 50.8% 51.6% 52.4% 50.8% 50.6% 49.6% 46.8% 48.1% 46.6% 48.4% 46.8% 45.4% 47.3%
SBIT 50.6% 49.9% 52.3% 52.6% 51.1% 48.7% 50.7% 45.8% 48.5% 45.0% 42.7% 39.4% 41.5% 36.9% 36.9% 36.5% 36.4% 34.7% 28.9% 32.4%
SPSE 53.8% 51.7% 57.4% 66.0% 51.1% 57.7% 62.6% 54.1% 55.4% 59.3% 43.2% 59.3% 51.0% 53.2% 49.7% 54.8% 49.6% 47.7% 51.4% 49.8%
SOHS 68.3% 65.0% 62.4% 62.4% 63.6% 59.0% 64.2% 58.9% 49.9% 57.8% 56.1% 55.2% 55.1% 49.8% 54.0% 57.9% 57.3% 58.0% 39.8% 50.6%
SON 78.0% 72.2% 76.0% 78.5% 76.8% 74.9% 73.5% 74.7% 62.2% 61.7% 51.2% 61.0% 53.0% 55.4% 56.3% 58.7% 61.4% 68.2% 52.5% 61.6%
SOT 30.9% 32.4% 39.5% 37.1% 58.5% 33.3% 37.1% 31.0% 28.4% 27.6% 32.2% 16.5% 37.5% 25.4% 39.4% 25.4% 28.2% 32.0% 37.2% 25.6%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 39.9% 29.8% 37.6% 42.1% 47.7% 34.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
46.5% 46.1% 51.4% 49.8% 54.2% 47.2% 50.1% 48.1% 48.3% 48.3% 45.9% 42.3% 47.4% 42.5% 45.5% 42.8% 44.5% 44.0% 41.5% 42.1%
Summative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Paper
SOAS 16,593 15,493 18,599 18,528 21,887 20,457 23,337 22,346 23,880 21,385 22,876 20,295 20,734 18,720 19,175 18,830 20,910 21,024 25,166 24,114
SBIT 5,691 5,299 5,821 6,071 6,542 6,210 6,304 5,828 6,088 5,735 5,885 5,327 4,960 4,636 5,019 4,942 5,273 5,170 5,994 6,123
SPSE 1,610 1,679 1,561 1,563 1,885 1,550 1,649 1,732 1,898 1,606 1,593 1,149 1,268 1,120 1,206 1,098 1,191 1,145 1,342 1,371
SOHS 1,127 1,141 1,366 1,326 1,641 1,697 1,956 1,765 1,999 1,795 2,232 2,124 2,214 2,363 2,215 2,163 2,364 2,728 2,949 3,109
SON 1,009 1,014 996 994 1,038 1,135 1,262 1,342 1,575 1,606 1,601 1,510 1,708 1,566 1,798 1,603 1,829 1,564 1,613 1,549
SOT 9,130 9,629 8,030 8,839 7,129 9,418 5,792 6,485 6,105 6,182 9,081 9,390 4,231 6,312 7,588 6,913 6,747 7,044 7,727 8,307
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 218 228 306 95 327 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35,160 34,255 36,373 37,321 40,122 40,467 40,518 39,726 41,851 38,404 43,595 39,937 35,115 34,717 37,001 35,549 38,314 38,675 44,791 44,573
SOAS 8,206 7,701 9,992 9,489 11,480 10,205 11,724 11,512 12,543 11,427 11,961 10,679 10,971 9,784 10,675 10,189 11,543 11,939 14,280 13,728
SBIT 2,975 2,777 3,164 3,308 3,471 3,189 3,442 2,931 3,244 2,921 2,863 2,471 2,552 2,237 2,432 2,529 2,553 2,688 2,706 2,864
SPSE 866 868 896 1,032 963 895 1,032 937 1,052 953 698 706 667 633 626 635 623 606 743 737
SOHS 770 742 852 828 1,049 1,023 1,316 1,116 1,125 1,143 1,421 1,312 1,354 1,319 1,385 1,476 1,564 1,870 1,479 1,845
SON 787 732 757 780 802 860 947 1,071 1,052 1,093 912 1,062 1,009 964 1,169 1,099 1,207 1,209 1,012 1,107
SOT 2,827 3,122 3,175 3,289 4,168 3,141 2,152 2,018 1,742 1,718 2,936 1,545 1,616 1,619 3,041 1,807 1,941 2,344 2,982 2,194
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 68 115 40 156 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16,431 15,942 18,836 18,726 21,933 19,313 20,700 19,653 20,873 19,295 20,947 17,824 18,169 16,556 19,328 17,735 19,431 20,656 23,202 22,475
SOAS 49.5% 49.7% 53.7% 51.2% 52.5% 49.9% 50.2% 51.5% 52.5% 53.4% 52.3% 52.6% 52.9% 52.3% 55.7% 54.1% 55.2% 56.8% 56.7% 56.9%
SBIT 52.3% 52.4% 54.4% 54.5% 53.1% 51.4% 54.6% 50.3% 53.3% 50.9% 48.6% 46.4% 51.5% 48.3% 48.5% 51.2% 48.4% 52.0% 45.1% 46.8%
SPSE 53.8% 51.7% 57.4% 66.0% 51.1% 57.7% 62.6% 54.1% 55.4% 59.3% 43.8% 61.4% 52.6% 56.5% 51.9% 57.8% 52.3% 52.9% 55.4% 53.8%
SOHS 68.3% 65.0% 62.4% 62.4% 63.9% 60.3% 67.3% 63.2% 56.3% 63.7% 63.7% 61.8% 61.2% 55.8% 62.5% 68.2% 66.2% 68.5% 50.2% 59.3%
SON 78.0% 72.2% 76.0% 78.5% 77.3% 75.8% 75.0% 79.8% 66.8% 68.1% 57.0% 70.3% 59.1% 61.6% 65.0% 68.6% 66.0% 77.3% 62.7% 71.5%
SOT 31.0% 32.4% 39.5% 37.2% 58.5% 33.4% 37.2% 31.1% 28.5% 27.8% 32.3% 16.5% 38.2% 25.6% 40.1% 26.1% 28.8% 33.3% 38.6% 26.4%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 39.9% 29.8% 37.6% 42.1% 47.7% 34.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
46.7% 46.5% 51.8% 50.2% 54.7% 47.7% 51.1% 49.5% 49.9% 50.2% 48.0% 44.6% 51.7% 47.7% 52.2% 49.9% 50.7% 53.4% 51.8% 50.4%
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
60
Fall & Spring Semesters (Summative Only) – Paper vs. Web Method plus Combined Totals {Continued}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
Fall & Spring Semesters Only
Summative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
Web
SOAS 0 15 62 114 89 207 345 471 685 743 1,030 1,234 2,351 3,432 4,002 3,929 4,577 5,404 6,338 5,682
SBIT 200 291 324 399 437 619 742 1,000 1,079 1,343 1,573 1,819 2,269 2,518 2,301 2,729 2,930 3,346 3,481 3,319
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 53 64 79 67 72 94 143 104 130
SOHS 0 0 0 0 19 53 125 175 360 288 419 372 389 422 490 485 575 597 764 648
SON 0 0 0 0 12 18 31 110 204 228 257 317 326 349 349 389 300 267 316 295
SOT 16 21 14 29 0 10 13 31 62 55 69 83 125 199 206 283 258 360 299 337
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
216 327 400 542 557 907 1,256 1,787 2,390 2,657 3,388 3,878 5,524 6,999 7,415 7,887 8,734 10,117 11,302 10,411
SOAS 0 0 8 21 21 53 76 77 136 165 185 212 479 581 482 418 780 431 22 371
SBIT 5 12 50 97 98 134 130 195 229 267 318 348 445 401 270 274 434 268 33 192
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 12 5 7 6 15 9 0 10
SOHS 0 0 0 0 6 10 21 27 53 61 67 65 80 68 76 57 121 59 0 57
SON 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 14 54 38 40 52 69 96 40 71 100 39 0 28
SOT 0 0 4 2 0 2 2 5 7 6 8 15 16 36 28 20 37 22 0 18
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 12 62 120 129 203 233 318 479 537 625 699 1,101 1,187 903 846 1,487 828 55 676
SOAS ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% 12.9% 18.4% 23.6% 25.6% 22.0% 16.3% 19.9% 22.2% 18.0% 17.2% 20.4% 16.9% 12.0% 10.6% 17.0% 8.0% 0.3% 6.5%
SBIT 2.5% 4.1% 15.4% 24.3% 22.4% 21.6% 17.5% 19.5% 21.2% 19.9% 20.2% 19.1% 19.6% 15.9% 11.7% 10.0% 14.8% 8.0% 0.9% 5.8%
SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 17.5% 13.2% 18.8% 6.3% 10.4% 8.3% 16.0% 6.3% 0.0% 7.7%
SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 31.6% 18.9% 16.8% 15.4% 14.7% 21.2% 16.0% 17.5% 20.6% 16.1% 15.5% 11.8% 21.0% 9.9% 0.0% 8.8%
SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 33.3% 22.2% 12.9% 12.7% 26.5% 16.7% 15.6% 16.4% 21.2% 27.5% 11.5% 18.3% 33.3% 14.6% 0.0% 9.5%
SOT 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 6.9% ‐‐‐‐‐ 20.0% 15.4% 16.1% 11.3% 10.9% 11.6% 18.1% 12.8% 18.1% 13.6% 7.1% 14.3% 6.1% 0.0% 5.3%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
2.3% 3.7% 15.5% 22.1% 23.2% 22.4% 18.6% 17.8% 20.0% 20.2% 18.4% 18.0% 19.9% 17.0% 12.2% 10.7% 17.0% 8.2% 0.5% 6.5%
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
61
Fall & Spring Semesters (Web Courses Only) OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
Fall & Spring Semesters Only ‐‐‐ Web Courses Only
Formative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
SOAS 0 21 78 130 97 237 401 508 774 810 1,202 1,336 2,595 3,702 4,511 4,421 5,171 5,232 6,605 5,998
SBIT 225 337 357 442 515 559 672 844 890 1,074 1,423 1,623 1,912 2,182 2,218 2,311 2,447 2,752 3,232 3,062
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 61 72 88 76 88 103 167 123 153
SOHS 0 0 0 0 19 58 140 167 381 299 447 386 417 419 517 493 592 591 762 603
SON 0 0 0 0 14 19 33 53 132 159 179 247 242 248 261 308 215 245 235 251
SOT 18 21 15 31 0 9 15 35 53 59 85 88 137 223 225 320 281 410 334 333
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 379 450 603 645 882 1,261 1,607 2,230 2,401 3,378 3,741 5,375 6,862 7,808 7,941 8,809 9,397 11,291 10,400
SOAS 0 0 7 28 27 67 95 120 150 146 192 267 472 744 718 600 609 607 620 365
SBIT 11 12 79 119 110 150 157 200 197 231 261 348 373 419 313 288 271 299 313 169
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 18 13 11 12 18 10 10 9
SOHS 0 0 0 0 3 17 36 33 64 59 70 76 83 73 101 93 77 81 93 56
SON 0 0 0 0 5 6 6 13 23 32 25 46 48 55 39 95 49 42 35 26
SOT 0 0 6 1 0 1 3 2 6 4 11 22 21 32 36 26 30 34 28 23
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 12 92 148 145 241 297 368 440 472 565 769 1,015 1,336 1,218 1,114 1,054 1,073 1,099 648
SOAS ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% 9.0% 21.5% 27.8% 28.3% 23.7% 23.6% 19.4% 18.0% 16.0% 20.0% 18.2% 20.1% 15.9% 13.6% 11.8% 11.6% 9.4% 6.1%
SBIT 4.9% 3.6% 22.1% 26.9% 21.4% 26.8% 23.4% 23.7% 22.1% 21.5% 18.3% 21.4% 19.5% 19.2% 14.1% 12.5% 11.1% 10.9% 9.7% 5.5%
SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 14.3% 16.4% 25.0% 14.8% 14.5% 13.6% 17.5% 6.0% 8.1% 5.9%
SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 15.8% 29.3% 25.7% 19.8% 16.8% 19.7% 15.7% 19.7% 19.9% 17.4% 19.5% 18.9% 13.0% 13.7% 12.2% 9.3%
SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 35.7% 31.6% 18.2% 24.5% 17.4% 20.1% 14.0% 18.6% 19.8% 22.2% 14.9% 30.8% 22.8% 17.1% 14.9% 10.4%
SOT 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 3.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ 11.1% 20.0% 5.7% 11.3% 6.8% 12.9% 25.0% 15.3% 14.3% 16.0% 8.1% 10.7% 8.3% 8.4% 6.9%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
4.5% 3.2% 20.4% 24.5% 22.5% 27.3% 23.6% 22.9% 19.7% 19.7% 16.7% 20.6% 18.9% 19.5% 15.6% 14.0% 12.0% 11.4% 9.7% 6.2%
Summative 200060 200110 200160 200210 200260 200310 200360 200410 200460 200510 200560 200610 200660 200710 200760 200810 200860 200910 200960 201010
SOAS 0 15 62 114 89 207 345 471 685 743 1,030 1,234 2,351 3,432 4,002 3,929 4,577 5,404 6,338 5,682
SBIT 200 291 324 399 437 619 742 1,000 1,079 1,343 1,573 1,819 2,269 2,518 2,301 2,729 2,930 3,346 3,481 3,319
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 53 64 79 67 72 94 143 104 130
SOHS 0 0 0 0 19 53 125 175 360 288 419 372 389 422 490 485 575 597 764 648
SON 0 0 0 0 12 18 31 110 204 228 257 317 326 349 349 389 300 267 316 295
SOT 16 21 14 29 0 10 13 31 62 55 69 83 125 199 206 283 258 360 299 337
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
216 327 400 542 557 907 1,256 1,787 2,390 2,657 3,388 3,878 5,524 6,999 7,415 7,887 8,734 10,117 11,302 10,411
SOAS 0 0 8 21 21 53 76 77 136 165 185 212 479 581 482 418 780 431 22 371
SBIT 5 12 50 97 98 134 130 195 229 267 318 348 445 401 270 274 434 268 33 192
SPSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 12 5 7 6 15 9 0 10
SOHS 0 0 0 0 6 10 21 27 53 61 67 65 80 68 76 57 121 59 0 57
SON 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 14 54 38 40 52 69 96 40 71 100 39 0 28
SOT 0 0 4 2 0 2 2 5 7 6 8 15 16 36 28 20 37 22 0 18
ENR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 12 62 120 129 203 233 318 479 537 625 699 1,101 1,187 903 846 1,487 828 55 676
SOAS ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% 12.9% 18.4% 23.6% 25.6% 22.0% 16.3% 19.9% 22.2% 18.0% 17.2% 20.4% 16.9% 12.0% 10.6% 17.0% 8.0% 0.3% 6.5%
SBIT 2.5% 4.1% 15.4% 24.3% 22.4% 21.6% 17.5% 19.5% 21.2% 19.9% 20.2% 19.1% 19.6% 15.9% 11.7% 10.0% 14.8% 8.0% 0.9% 5.8%
SPSE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 17.5% 13.2% 18.8% 6.3% 10.4% 8.3% 16.0% 6.3% 0.0% 7.7%
SOHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 31.6% 18.9% 16.8% 15.4% 14.7% 21.2% 16.0% 17.5% 20.6% 16.1% 15.5% 11.8% 21.0% 9.9% 0.0% 8.8%
SON ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 33.3% 22.2% 12.9% 12.7% 26.5% 16.7% 15.6% 16.4% 21.2% 27.5% 11.5% 18.3% 33.3% 14.6% 0.0% 9.5%
SOT 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 6.9% ‐‐‐‐‐ 20.0% 15.4% 16.1% 11.3% 10.9% 11.6% 18.1% 12.8% 18.1% 13.6% 7.1% 14.3% 6.1% 0.0% 5.3%
ENR ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
2.3% 3.7% 15.5% 22.1% 23.2% 22.4% 18.6% 17.8% 20.0% 20.2% 18.4% 18.0% 19.9% 17.0% 12.2% 10.7% 17.0% 8.2% 0.5% 6.5%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
62
Fall vs. Spring Semesters (Formative Only) – School of Arts {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOAS 0000 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOAS 0000 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,294 3,739 SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,250 3,589
SOAS COM 5,443 6,417 7,462 7,524 7,884 7,753 7,529 7,699 0 0 SOAS COM 5,385 6,449 6,915 7,202 7,494 7,322 7,255 7,344 0 0
SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,917 SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,159
SOAS DEV 3,214 3,750 4,325 3,844 3,773 3,717 3,238 3,264 0 0 SOAS DEV 2,518 3,075 3,166 2,817 2,735 2,679 2,293 3,558 0 0
SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 434 0 0 0 0 SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 408 35 38 0 0
SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,872 6,631 SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,175 5,764
SOAS FPA 0 0 0 1,166 1,489 1,162 924 969 1,119 1,119 SOAS FPA 0 0 479 1,382 1,152 1,060 1,134 1,192 1,432 2,235
SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 341 319 0 SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 288 0
SOAS M/S 4,629 5,490 6,625 7,378 7,118 6,795 6,605 6,508 0 0 SOAS M/S 4,273 5,135 6,266 7,123 6,717 6,056 6,048 6,090 0 0
SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,682 7,408 SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,718 6,991
SOAS S/B 4,146 4,789 5,319 5,603 5,860 5,841 5,837 5,511 6,393 6,438 SOAS S/B 4,226 4,943 5,350 5,491 5,187 5,423 5,328 5,528 6,028 6,305
SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,629 3,772 SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,438 3,511
SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 471 546 0 0 SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 429 505 0 0
SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 654 763 SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 668 790
17,459 20,446 23,731 25,515 26,124 25,702 24,604 24,838 26,962 31,787 16,427 19,602 22,176 24,015 23,285 22,948 22,522 24,347 25,997 30,344
SOAS 0000 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOAS 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 326 SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358 173
SOAS COM 2,908 3,025 3,598 3,728 3,940 3,620 3,463 1,064 0 0 SOAS COM 2,692 3,187 3,268 3,242 3,355 3,487 1,149 901 0 0
SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 128 SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
SOAS DEV 1,874 1,913 2,135 1,959 1,801 1,792 1,667 330 0 0 SOAS DEV 1,271 1,403 1,395 1,207 1,348 1,239 257 314 0 0
SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 279 0 0 0 0 SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 254 7 8 0 0
SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 610 597 SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 488 327
SOAS FPA 0 0 0 614 672 393 316 109 98 96 SOAS FPA 0 0 169 563 484 343 163 135 128 115
SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 37 0 SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 46 0
SOAS M/S 2,743 3,224 3,736 3,711 4,127 3,442 3,140 841 0 0 SOAS M/S 2,481 2,787 3,203 3,969 3,439 3,149 965 705 0 0
SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 515 591 SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 528 330
SOAS S/B 2,545 2,448 3,057 2,926 2,958 2,885 2,838 735 594 579 SOAS S/B 2,412 2,546 2,675 2,877 2,515 2,710 791 630 559 353
SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 283 SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 175
SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 81 0 0 SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 65 0 0
SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 74 SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 39
10,083 10,610 12,526 12,938 13,498 12,411 11,687 3,201 2,625 2,674 8,856 9,923 10,710 11,858 11,141 11,182 3,427 2,767 2,524 1,561
SOAS 0000 48.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS 0000 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS CHI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 10.5% 8.7% SOAS CHI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 11.0% 4.8%
SOAS COM 53.4% 47.1% 48.2% 49.5% 50.0% 46.7% 46.0% 13.8% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS COM 50.0% 49.4% 47.3% 45.0% 44.8% 47.6% 15.8% 12.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS CTL ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 6.7% SOAS CTL ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 4.2%
SOAS DEV 58.3% 51.0% 49.4% 51.0% 47.7% 48.2% 51.5% 10.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS DEV 50.5% 45.6% 44.1% 42.8% 49.3% 46.2% 11.2% 8.8% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS ECE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 64.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS ECE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 62.3% 20.0% 21.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS ENG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 10.4% 9.0% SOAS ENG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.4% 5.7%
SOAS FPA ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 52.7% 45.1% 33.8% 34.2% 11.2% 8.8% 8.6% SOAS FPA ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 35.3% 40.7% 42.0% 32.4% 14.4% 11.3% 8.9% 5.1%
SOAS INS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 12.0% 11.6% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS INS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.8% 16.0% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS M/S 59.3% 58.7% 56.4% 50.3% 58.0% 50.7% 47.5% 12.9% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS M/S 58.1% 54.3% 51.1% 55.7% 51.2% 52.0% 16.0% 11.6% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS MTH ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.1% 8.0% SOAS MTH ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.2% 4.7%
SOAS S/B 61.4% 51.1% 57.5% 52.2% 50.5% 49.4% 48.6% 13.3% 9.3% 9.0% SOAS S/B 57.1% 51.5% 50.0% 52.4% 48.5% 50.0% 14.8% 11.4% 9.3% 5.6%
SOAS SCI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.7% 7.5% SOAS SCI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 10.2% 5.0%
SOAS TED ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 55.8% 14.8% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS TED ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 22.1% 12.9% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS TEHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 11.3% 9.7% SOAS TEHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 10.0% 4.9%
57.8% 51.9% 52.8% 50.7% 51.7% 48.3% 47.5% 12.9% 9.7% 8.4% 53.9% 50.6% 48.3% 49.4% 47.8% 48.7% 15.2% 11.4% 9.7% 5.1%
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
63
Fall vs. Spring Semesters (Summative Only) – School of Arts {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOAS 0000 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOAS 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,044 3,433 SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,226 3,516
SOAS COM 5,107 5,950 6,897 6,996 7,340 7,262 7,007 7,140 0 0 SOAS COM 5,048 6,067 6,370 6,781 6,981 6,703 6,959 6,756 0 0
SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,240 SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,409
SOAS DEV 3,035 3,329 3,810 3,445 3,344 3,289 2,939 2,932 0 0 SOAS DEV 2,293 2,828 2,754 2,497 2,442 2,357 2,192 3,179 0 0
SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 410 0 0 0 0 SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 423 34 37 0 0
SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,395 6,194 SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,013 5,623
SOAS FPA 0 0 12 1,226 1,441 1,143 906 949 1,090 2,028 SOAS FPA 0 0 450 1,524 1,155 1,051 1,147 1,142 1,757 2,250
SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 292 529 23 SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 79 452 0
SOAS M/S 4,463 5,034 6,197 6,789 6,836 6,332 6,230 6,111 0 0 SOAS M/S 4,165 5,051 6,131 6,818 6,426 5,872 6,179 5,822 0 0
SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,427 6,974 SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,516 6,681
SOAS S/B 3,961 4,348 5,060 5,226 5,604 5,470 5,556 5,245 5,990 6,288 SOAS S/B 4,002 4,696 4,959 5,197 5,124 5,123 4,994 5,269 6,457 6,095
SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,407 3,569 SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,377 3,463
SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 447 508 0 0 SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 475 0 0
SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 755 SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 630 759
16,593 18,661 21,976 23,682 24,565 23,906 23,085 23,177 25,487 31,504 15,508 18,642 20,664 22,817 22,128 21,529 22,152 22,759 26,428 29,796
SOAS 0000 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOAS 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,402 1,553 SOAS CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,687 1,779
SOAS COM 2,397 3,055 3,550 3,252 3,553 3,441 3,435 3,460 0 0 SOAS COM 2,510 2,953 3,252 3,352 3,589 3,235 3,297 3,149 0 0
SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 632 SOAS CTL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 505
SOAS DEV 1,500 1,715 1,879 1,639 1,604 1,632 1,579 1,507 0 0 SOAS DEV 1,076 1,296 1,224 1,162 1,238 1,152 1,121 1,408 0 0
SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0 SOAS ECE 0 0 0 0 0 255 32 23 0 0
SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,695 2,971 SOAS ENG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,246 2,646
SOAS FPA 0 0 10 651 912 560 456 428 588 1,084 SOAS FPA 0 0 242 670 628 536 471 516 952 1,168
SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 136 273 18 SOAS INS 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 36 162 0
SOAS M/S 2,287 2,986 3,382 3,816 3,858 3,437 2,972 3,059 0 0 SOAS M/S 2,234 2,958 3,066 3,894 3,580 3,189 2,904 2,964 0 0
SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,747 3,118 SOAS MTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,655 3,134
SOAS S/B 2,017 2,244 2,680 2,442 2,752 2,865 2,760 2,261 2,567 2,717 SOAS S/B 1,881 2,303 2,474 2,511 2,557 2,524 2,212 2,223 2,532 2,599
SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,689 1,753 SOAS SCI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,750 1,831
SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 306 0 0 SOAS TED 0 0 0 0 0 0 242 288 0 0
SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 362 456 SOAS TEHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 386 437
8,206 10,000 11,501 11,800 12,679 12,146 11,450 11,157 12,323 14,302 7,701 9,510 10,258 11,589 11,592 10,891 10,365 10,607 12,370 14,099
SOAS 0000 18.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS 0000 ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS CHI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 46.1% 45.2% SOAS CHI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 52.3% 50.6%
SOAS COM 46.9% 51.3% 51.5% 46.5% 48.4% 47.4% 49.0% 48.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS COM 49.7% 48.7% 51.1% 49.4% 51.4% 48.3% 47.4% 46.6% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS CTL ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 28.2% SOAS CTL ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 35.8%
SOAS DEV 49.4% 51.5% 49.3% 47.6% 48.0% 49.6% 53.7% 51.4% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS DEV 46.9% 45.8% 44.4% 46.5% 50.7% 48.9% 51.1% 44.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS ECE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 51.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS ECE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 60.3% 94.1% 62.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS ENG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 50.0% 48.0% SOAS ENG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 44.8% 47.1%
SOAS FPA ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 83.3% 53.1% 63.3% 49.0% 50.3% 45.1% 53.9% 53.5% SOAS FPA ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 53.8% 44.0% 54.4% 51.0% 41.1% 45.2% 54.2% 51.9%
SOAS INS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 46.6% 51.6% 78.3% SOAS INS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 37.2% 45.6% 35.8% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS M/S 51.2% 59.3% 54.6% 56.2% 56.4% 54.3% 47.7% 50.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS M/S 53.6% 58.6% 50.0% 57.1% 55.7% 54.3% 47.0% 50.9% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS MTH ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 50.6% 44.7% SOAS MTH ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 48.1% 46.9%
SOAS S/B 50.9% 51.6% 53.0% 46.7% 49.1% 52.4% 49.7% 43.1% 42.9% 43.2% SOAS S/B 47.0% 49.0% 49.9% 48.3% 49.9% 49.3% 44.3% 42.2% 39.2% 42.6%
SOAS SCI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 49.6% 49.1% SOAS SCI ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 51.8% 52.9%
SOAS TED ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 55.5% 60.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOAS TED ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 58.2% 60.6% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOAS TEHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 59.8% 60.4% SOAS TEHS ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 61.3% 57.6%
49.5% 53.6% 52.3% 49.8% 51.6% 50.8% 49.6% 48.1% 48.4% 45.4% 49.7% 51.0% 49.6% 50.8% 52.4% 50.6% 46.8% 46.6% 46.8% 47.3%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
64
Fall vs. Spring Semesters – School of Business {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SBIT BUMT 2,631 2,663 3,164 3,287 3,207 3,670 3,699 3,731 3,980 5,156 SBIT BUMT 2,576 2,931 3,104 3,211 3,428 3,522 3,670 3,996 4,230 5,178
SBIT IFS 1,948 2,319 2,548 2,388 2,115 2,251 1,934 2,186 2,240 2,602 SBIT IFS 2,085 2,331 2,547 2,484 2,239 2,271 2,025 2,222 2,313 2,762
4,579 4,982 5,712 5,675 5,322 5,921 5,633 5,917 6,220 7,758 4,661 5,262 5,651 5,695 5,667 5,793 5,695 6,218 6,543 7,940
SBIT BUMT 1,433 1,314 1,405 1,475 1,478 1,479 1,352 408 396 409 SBIT BUMT 1,169 1,317 1,293 1,418 1,499 1,250 562 443 349 250
SBIT IFS 1,067 1,325 1,399 1,231 980 1,006 825 382 295 280 SBIT IFS 1,155 1,310 1,229 1,220 1,049 960 438 335 290 159
2,500 2,639 2,804 2,706 2,458 2,485 2,177 790 691 689 2,324 2,627 2,522 2,638 2,548 2,210 1,000 778 639 409
SBIT BUMT 54.5% 49.3% 44.4% 44.9% 46.1% 40.3% 36.6% 10.9% 9.9% 7.9% SBIT BUMT 45.4% 44.9% 41.7% 44.2% 43.7% 35.5% 15.3% 11.1% 8.3% 4.8%
SBIT IFS 54.8% 57.1% 54.9% 51.5% 46.3% 44.7% 42.7% 17.5% 13.2% 10.8% SBIT IFS 55.4% 56.2% 48.3% 49.1% 46.9% 42.3% 21.6% 15.1% 12.5% 5.8%
54.6% 53.0% 49.1% 47.7% 46.2% 42.0% 38.6% 13.4% 11.1% 8.9% 49.9% 49.9% 44.6% 46.3% 45.0% 38.1% 17.6% 12.5% 9.8% 5.2%
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SBIT BUMT 3,013 2,874 3,371 3,526 3,567 3,865 3,962 3,935 4,526 5,175 SBIT BUMT 2,841 3,210 3,245 3,405 3,591 3,726 4,118 4,370 4,899 5,284
SBIT IFS 2,878 3,271 3,608 3,520 3,600 3,593 3,267 3,385 3,677 4,300 SBIT IFS 2,749 3,260 3,584 3,423 3,487 3,420 3,036 3,301 3,617 4,158
5,891 6,145 6,979 7,046 7,167 7,458 7,229 7,320 8,203 9,475 5,590 6,470 6,829 6,828 7,078 7,146 7,154 7,671 8,516 9,442
SBIT BUMT 1,538 1,456 1,726 1,737 1,645 1,717 1,597 1,423 1,601 1,422 SBIT BUMT 1,339 1,600 1,562 1,589 1,710 1,398 1,489 1,526 1,622 1,593
SBIT IFS 1,442 1,758 1,843 1,835 1,828 1,464 1,400 1,279 1,386 1,317 SBIT IFS 1,450 1,805 1,761 1,537 1,478 1,421 1,149 1,277 1,334 1,463
2,980 3,214 3,569 3,572 3,473 3,181 2,997 2,702 2,987 2,739 2,789 3,405 3,323 3,126 3,188 2,819 2,638 2,803 2,956 3,056
SBIT BUMT 51.0% 50.7% 51.2% 49.3% 46.1% 44.4% 40.3% 36.2% 35.4% 27.5% SBIT BUMT 47.1% 49.8% 48.1% 46.7% 47.6% 37.5% 36.2% 34.9% 33.1% 30.1%
SBIT IFS 50.1% 53.7% 51.1% 52.1% 50.8% 40.7% 42.9% 37.8% 37.7% 30.6% SBIT IFS 52.7% 55.4% 49.1% 44.9% 42.4% 41.5% 37.8% 38.7% 36.9% 35.2%
50.6% 52.3% 51.1% 50.7% 48.5% 42.7% 41.5% 36.9% 36.4% 28.9% 49.9% 52.6% 48.7% 45.8% 45.0% 39.4% 36.9% 36.5% 34.7% 32.4%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
65
Fall vs. Spring Semesters (Formative Only) – School of Health {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOHS 0000 57 70 129 154 151 44 122 141 164 0 SOHS 0000 0 92 115 113 89 90 111 164 221 40
SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
SOHS DHY 264 248 266 249 230 249 256 270 225 237 SOHS DHY 224 177 246 147 95 104 175 158 165 160
SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 431 364 347 0 SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 359 336 11 0
SOHS DTT 202 218 257 254 254 688 0 0 5 0 SOHS DTT 168 158 227 214 174 554 0 0 510 0
SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 914 SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 784
SOHS HIM 0 58 117 349 584 603 657 685 752 802 SOHS HIM 24 72 248 406 504 548 582 569 683 648
SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 211 181 227 0 SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 179 206 0
SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 92 95 27 SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 77 79 9
SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
SOHS NRS 48 35 51 63 78 85 63 59 54 169 SOHS NRS 27 24 37 51 83 67 39 35 35 0
SOHS OPT 23 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOHS OPT 17 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOHS OTA 27 19 67 90 87 94 107 138 131 120 SOHS OTA 38 28 61 64 90 183 336 132 179 117
SOHS PTA 96 77 99 100 73 25 27 26 25 26 SOHS PTA 77 59 38 61 48 46 52 24 75 200
SOHS RDT 53 82 90 90 92 94 45 0 0 0 SOHS RDT 66 66 84 68 79 60 27 0 0 0
770 840 1,078 1,349 1,549 1,882 1,950 1,956 2,025 2,541 641 685 1,056 1,124 1,162 1,652 1,859 1,674 2,164 2,302
SOHS 0000 35 52 76 62 34 7 30 21 18 0 SOHS 0000 0 50 45 5 5 2 14 18 21 0
SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
SOHS DHY 234 200 215 201 203 241 225 71 12 11 SOHS DHY 171 163 196 105 81 90 70 30 5 1
SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 249 49 36 0 SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 43 4 0
SOHS DTT 102 124 182 157 168 414 0 0 0 0 SOHS DTT 93 92 141 115 78 316 0 0 47 0
SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55
SOHS HIM 0 44 70 189 259 244 265 139 100 90 SOHS HIM 21 47 173 215 223 200 106 121 121 54
SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 25 29 0 SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 36 23 0
SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 12 3 3 SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 3 1
SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
SOHS NRS 40 28 47 50 52 59 52 8 1 10 SOHS NRS 21 19 19 32 49 39 3 5 7 0
SOHS OPT 23 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOHS OPT 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOHS OTA 27 19 54 69 70 76 86 25 14 17 SOHS OTA 24 24 50 55 77 101 41 14 15 7
SOHS PTA 66 61 68 81 49 23 26 7 1 1 SOHS PTA 44 45 32 58 40 41 8 5 0 11
SOHS RDT 31 47 59 46 77 87 24 0 0 0 SOHS RDT 46 47 40 54 76 57 3 0 0 0
558 602 772 855 912 1,151 1,111 357 214 241 436 493 696 639 629 846 349 283 246 150
SOHS 0000 61.4% 74.3% 58.9% 40.3% 22.5% 15.9% 24.6% 14.9% 11.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS 0000 ‐‐‐‐‐ 54.3% 39.1% 4.4% 5.6% 2.2% 12.6% 11.0% 9.5% 0.0%
SOHS CIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 21.4% SOHS CIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 16.7%
SOHS DHY 88.6% 80.6% 80.8% 80.7% 88.3% 96.8% 87.9% 26.3% 5.3% 4.6% SOHS DHY 76.3% 92.1% 79.7% 71.4% 85.3% 86.5% 40.0% 19.0% 3.0% 0.6%
SOHS DIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 57.8% 13.5% 10.4% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS DIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 18.9% 12.8% 36.4% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS DTT 50.5% 56.9% 70.8% 61.8% 66.1% 60.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS DTT 55.4% 58.2% 62.1% 53.7% 44.8% 57.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.2% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS FN/H ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 9.2% SOHS FN/H ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 7.0%
SOHS HIM ‐‐‐‐‐ 75.9% 59.8% 54.2% 44.3% 40.5% 40.3% 20.3% 13.3% 11.2% SOHS HIM 87.5% 65.3% 69.8% 53.0% 44.2% 36.5% 18.2% 21.3% 17.7% 8.3%
SOHS HPE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 6.8% SOHS HPE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 4.7%
SOHS HSP ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 58.3% 13.8% 12.8% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS HSP ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 23.0% 20.1% 11.2% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS MIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 100.0% 13.0% 3.2% 11.1% SOHS MIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 6.7% 14.3% 3.8% 11.1%
SOHS MSG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 10.7% SOHS MSG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 6.7%
SOHS NRS 83.3% 80.0% 92.2% 79.4% 66.7% 69.4% 82.5% 13.6% 1.9% 5.9% SOHS NRS 77.8% 79.2% 51.4% 62.7% 59.0% 58.2% 7.7% 14.3% 20.0% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS OPT 100.0% 81.8% 50.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS OPT 94.1% 66.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS OTA 100.0% 100.0% 80.6% 76.7% 80.5% 80.9% 80.4% 18.1% 10.7% 14.2% SOHS OTA 63.2% 85.7% 82.0% 85.9% 85.6% 55.2% 12.2% 10.6% 8.4% 6.0%
SOHS PTA 68.8% 79.2% 68.7% 81.0% 67.1% 92.0% 96.3% 26.9% 4.0% 3.8% SOHS PTA 57.1% 76.3% 84.2% 95.1% 83.3% 89.1% 15.4% 20.8% 0.0% 5.5%
SOHS RDT 58.5% 57.3% 65.6% 51.1% 83.7% 92.6% 53.3% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS RDT 69.7% 71.2% 47.6% 79.4% 96.2% 95.0% 11.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
72.5% 71.7% 71.6% 63.4% 58.9% 61.2% 57.0% 18.3% 10.6% 9.5% 68.0% 72.0% 65.9% 56.9% 54.1% 51.2% 18.8% 16.9% 11.4% 6.5%
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
66
Fall vs. Spring Semesters (Summative Only) – School of Health {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOHS 0000 342 552 619 764 850 754 728 770 961 0 SOHS 0000 415 605 693 756 817 810 859 977 1,160 102
SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
SOHS DHY 262 246 290 246 219 237 240 262 215 234 SOHS DHY 224 223 270 196 139 128 175 158 165 160
SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 408 370 353 0 SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 405 332 63 0
SOHS DTT 195 208 245 250 253 666 0 0 5 0 SOHS DTT 171 158 241 243 174 570 0 0 535 0
SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 966 SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 867
SOHS HIM 16 58 109 373 555 568 616 646 723 802 SOHS HIM 24 77 240 403 490 529 579 553 665 674
SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,074 SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,290
SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 212 190 224 0 SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 203 206 0
SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 170 181 167 SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 105 187 209 162
SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
SOHS NRS 45 33 51 63 80 84 60 56 54 162 SOHS NRS 26 23 37 51 81 64 37 33 34 0
SOHS OPT 39 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOHS OPT 38 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOHS OTA 27 19 80 88 86 111 107 138 128 114 SOHS OTA 38 33 58 63 126 177 333 131 180 117
SOHS PTA 96 77 99 100 115 56 81 97 88 97 SOHS PTA 76 59 35 61 70 63 68 68 96 295
SOHS RDT 105 143 165 197 201 175 71 6 7 0 SOHS RDT 129 137 175 167 186 155 61 6 12 0
1,127 1,366 1,660 2,081 2,359 2,651 2,603 2,705 2,939 3,713 1,141 1,326 1,750 1,940 2,083 2,496 2,785 2,648 3,325 3,757
SOHS 0000 196 309 317 433 441 338 391 420 553 0 SOHS 0000 216 325 373 415 441 420 430 515 731 68
SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOHS CIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
SOHS DHY 231 192 204 211 183 217 205 199 200 129 SOHS DHY 173 147 120 143 109 103 140 150 150 139
SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 173 192 0 SOHS DIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 170 162 40 0
SOHS DTT 75 81 165 161 126 360 0 0 3 0 SOHS DTT 93 92 132 128 109 329 0 0 276 0
SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 372 SOHS FN/H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 409
SOHS HIM 15 51 88 242 135 226 239 243 301 147 SOHS HIM 23 58 153 189 224 199 194 213 238 275
SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 596 SOHS HPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 734
SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 94 131 108 0 SOHS HSP 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 136 116 0
SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 134 135 93 SOHS MIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 164 169 111
SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 SOHS MSG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
SOHS NRS 37 28 43 52 49 73 51 42 49 34 SOHS NRS 24 23 31 31 45 46 34 28 29 0
SOHS OPT 35 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOHS OPT 34 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SOHS OTA 26 18 54 18 64 101 94 59 63 42 SOHS OTA 30 23 47 58 78 93 125 116 129 98
SOHS PTA 67 39 66 79 59 53 80 60 77 39 SOHS PTA 48 50 30 53 61 58 39 48 47 42
SOHS RDT 88 110 116 141 121 120 60 0 4 0 SOHS RDT 101 107 147 126 137 129 53 1 4 0
770 852 1,055 1,337 1,178 1,488 1,434 1,461 1,685 1,479 742 828 1,033 1,143 1,204 1,377 1,387 1,533 1,929 1,902
SOHS 0000 57.3% 56.0% 51.2% 56.7% 51.9% 44.8% 53.7% 54.5% 57.5% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS 0000 52.0% 53.7% 53.8% 54.9% 54.0% 51.9% 50.1% 52.7% 63.0% 66.7%
SOHS CIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 0.0% SOHS CIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 16.7%
SOHS DHY 88.2% 78.0% 70.3% 85.8% 83.6% 91.6% 85.4% 76.0% 93.0% 55.1% SOHS DHY 77.2% 65.9% 44.4% 73.0% 78.4% 80.5% 80.0% 94.9% 90.9% 86.9%
SOHS DIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 40.0% 46.8% 54.4% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS DIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 42.0% 48.8% 63.5% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS DTT 38.5% 38.9% 67.3% 64.4% 49.8% 54.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 60.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS DTT 54.4% 58.2% 54.8% 52.7% 62.6% 57.7% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 51.6% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS FN/H ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 38.5% SOHS FN/H ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 47.2%
SOHS HIM 93.8% 87.9% 80.7% 64.9% 24.3% 39.8% 38.8% 37.6% 41.6% 18.3% SOHS HIM 95.8% 75.3% 63.8% 46.9% 45.7% 37.6% 33.5% 38.5% 35.8% 40.8%
SOHS HPE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 55.5% SOHS HPE ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 56.9%
SOHS HSP ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 44.3% 68.9% 48.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS HSP ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 63.8% 67.0% 56.3% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS MIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 71.3% 78.8% 74.6% 55.7% SOHS MIT ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 93.3% 87.7% 80.9% 68.5%
SOHS MSG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 48.2% SOHS MSG ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 35.0%
SOHS NRS 82.2% 84.8% 84.3% 82.5% 61.3% 86.9% 85.0% 75.0% 90.7% 21.0% SOHS NRS 92.3% 100.0% 83.8% 60.8% 55.6% 71.9% 91.9% 84.8% 85.3% ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS OPT 89.7% 80.0% 100.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS OPT 89.5% 27.3% 0.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SOHS OTA 96.3% 94.7% 67.5% 20.5% 74.4% 91.0% 87.9% 42.8% 49.2% 36.8% SOHS OTA 78.9% 69.7% 81.0% 92.1% 61.9% 52.5% 37.5% 88.5% 71.7% 83.8%
SOHS PTA 69.8% 50.6% 66.7% 79.0% 51.3% 94.6% 98.8% 61.9% 87.5% 40.2% SOHS PTA 63.2% 84.7% 85.7% 86.9% 87.1% 92.1% 57.4% 70.6% 49.0% 14.2%
SOHS RDT 83.8% 76.9% 70.3% 71.6% 60.2% 68.6% 84.5% 0.0% 57.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ SOHS RDT 78.3% 78.1% 84.0% 75.4% 73.7% 83.2% 86.9% 16.7% 33.3% ‐‐‐‐‐
68.3% 62.4% 63.6% 64.2% 49.9% 56.1% 55.1% 54.0% 57.3% 39.8% 65.0% 62.4% 59.0% 58.9% 57.8% 55.2% 49.8% 57.9% 58.0% 50.6%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
67
Fall vs. Spring Semesters – School of Nursing {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
Evaluations SON NRS 611 757 811 1,017 1,353 1,291 1,433 1,555 1,457 1,127 SON NRS 666 671 837 1,063 1,249 1,257 1,237 1,406 1,358 1,056
611 757 811 1,017 1,353 1,291 1,433 1,555 1,457 1,127 666 671 837 1,063 1,249 1,257 1,237 1,406 1,358 1,056
Returned SON NRS 477 572 627 728 773 668 799 337 242 126 SON NRS 510 557 622 790 775 614 306 344 232 94
477 572 627 728 773 668 799 337 242 126 510 557 622 790 775 614 306 344 232 94
Returned % SON NRS 78.1% 75.6% 77.3% 71.6% 57.1% 51.7% 55.8% 21.7% 16.6% 11.2% SON NRS 76.6% 83.0% 74.3% 74.3% 62.0% 48.8% 24.7% 24.5% 17.1% 8.9%
78.1% 75.6% 77.3% 71.6% 57.1% 51.7% 55.8% 21.7% 16.6% 11.2% 76.6% 83.0% 74.3% 74.3% 62.0% 48.8% 24.7% 24.5% 17.1% 8.9%
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
Evaluations SON NRS 1,009 996 1,050 1,293 1,779 1,858 2,034 2,147 2,129 1,929 SON NRS 1,014 994 1,153 1,452 1,834 1,827 1,915 1,992 1,831 1,844
1,009 996 1,050 1,293 1,779 1,858 2,034 2,147 2,129 1,929 1,014 994 1,153 1,452 1,834 1,827 1,915 1,992 1,831 1,844
Returned SON NRS 787 757 806 951 1,106 952 1,078 1,209 1,307 1,012 SON NRS 732 780 864 1,085 1,131 1,114 1,060 1,170 1,248 1,135
787 757 806 951 1,106 952 1,078 1,209 1,307 1,012 732 780 864 1,085 1,131 1,114 1,060 1,170 1,248 1,135
Returned % SON NRS 78.0% 76.0% 76.8% 73.5% 62.2% 51.2% 53.0% 56.3% 61.4% 52.5% SON NRS 72.2% 78.5% 74.9% 74.7% 61.7% 61.0% 55.4% 58.7% 68.2% 61.6%
78.0% 76.0% 76.8% 73.5% 62.2% 51.2% 53.0% 56.3% 61.4% 52.5% 72.2% 78.5% 74.9% 74.7% 61.7% 61.0% 55.4% 58.7% 68.2% 61.6%
68
Fall vs. Spring Semesters – School of Technology {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOT DSN 710 634 886 491 447 420 396 454 427 513 SOT DSN 785 706 692 500 508 431 367 416 442 475
SOT EET 404 368 393 374 367 431 446 480 591 621 SOT EET 365 328 352 318 351 369 456 555 550 659
SOT IND 148 161 176 202 207 200 255 276 434 500 SOT IND 158 209 178 221 230 234 287 343 494 516
SOT MAN 1,058 927 945 389 328 270 313 398 407 557 SOT MAN 1,270 1,278 1,287 368 350 331 401 419 479 547
SOT SKT 6,158 4,971 3,372 3,276 3,386 1,368 1,642 4,866 3,625 1,033 SOT SKT 5,953 5,546 5,966 4,326 904 1,136 1,350 1,138 4,252 5,635
SOT TRT 473 427 535 558 598 548 484 465 593 683 SOT TRT 487 545 519 561 672 557 423 475 544 685
8,951 7,488 6,307 5,290 5,333 3,237 3,536 6,939 6,077 3,907 9,018 8,612 8,994 6,294 3,015 3,058 3,284 3,346 6,761 8,517
SOT DSN 468 402 587 304 290 294 254 62 37 24 SOT DSN 496 471 419 339 330 284 51 56 46 26
SOT EET 273 219 274 258 223 252 250 78 65 44 SOT EET 242 228 205 207 210 207 54 69 48 27
SOT IND 115 106 114 133 107 98 134 48 49 37 SOT IND 104 152 108 134 118 130 44 51 35 25
SOT MAN 489 336 244 269 223 186 218 38 21 11 SOT MAN 585 660 793 266 241 225 56 44 41 20
SOT SKT 3,140 2,083 35 1,478 915 584 81 945 1,056 27 SOT SKT 2,766 3,292 3,060 1,917 490 534 292 76 50 22
SOT TRT 364 309 365 397 382 233 317 47 30 28 SOT TRT 355 393 357 335 395 305 42 20 18 28
4,849 3,455 1,619 2,839 2,140 1,647 1,254 1,218 1,258 171 4,548 5,196 4,942 3,198 1,784 1,685 539 316 238 148
SOT DSN 65.9% 63.4% 66.3% 61.9% 64.9% 70.0% 64.1% 13.7% 8.7% 4.7% SOT DSN 63.2% 66.7% 60.5% 67.8% 65.0% 65.9% 13.9% 13.5% 10.4% 5.5%
SOT EET 67.6% 59.5% 69.7% 69.0% 60.8% 58.5% 56.1% 16.3% 11.0% 7.1% SOT EET 66.3% 69.5% 58.2% 65.1% 59.8% 56.1% 11.8% 12.4% 8.7% 4.1%
SOT IND 77.7% 65.8% 64.8% 65.8% 51.7% 49.0% 52.5% 17.4% 11.3% 7.4% SOT IND 65.8% 72.7% 60.7% 60.6% 51.3% 55.6% 15.3% 14.9% 7.1% 4.8%
SOT MAN 46.2% 36.2% 25.8% 69.2% 68.0% 68.9% 69.6% 9.5% 5.2% 2.0% SOT MAN 46.1% 51.6% 61.6% 72.3% 68.9% 68.0% 14.0% 10.5% 8.6% 3.7%
SOT SKT 51.0% 41.9% 1.0% 45.1% 27.0% 42.7% 4.9% 19.4% 29.1% 2.6% SOT SKT 46.5% 59.4% 51.3% 44.3% 54.2% 47.0% 21.6% 6.7% 1.2% 0.4%
SOT TRT 77.0% 72.4% 68.2% 71.1% 63.9% 42.5% 65.5% 10.1% 5.1% 4.1% SOT TRT 72.9% 72.1% 68.8% 59.7% 58.8% 54.8% 9.9% 4.2% 3.3% 4.1%
54.2% 46.1% 25.7% 53.7% 40.1% 50.9% 35.5% 17.6% 20.7% 4.4% 50.4% 60.3% 54.9% 50.8% 59.2% 55.1% 16.4% 9.4% 3.5% 1.7%
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SOT DSN 704 761 879 464 441 410 375 405 419 465 SOT DSN 730 725 791 475 508 422 354 393 432 467
SOT EET 446 478 495 425 380 467 439 521 609 618 SOT EET 396 440 450 352 375 396 452 513 579 684
SOT IND 144 149 164 205 199 250 297 322 444 482 SOT IND 148 207 176 201 219 215 287 354 476 531
SOT MAN 1,086 914 942 379 324 281 307 396 449 528 SOT MAN 1,320 1,263 1,281 354 341 315 401 368 471 554
SOT SKT 6,124 5,155 3,985 3,646 4,079 7,116 2,354 5,512 4,386 5,154 SOT SKT 6,486 5,536 6,043 4,444 3,998 7,421 4,398 4,926 4,695 5,510
SOT TRT 642 587 664 686 744 626 584 638 698 779 SOT TRT 570 697 687 690 796 704 619 642 751 898
9,146 8,044 7,129 5,805 6,167 9,150 4,356 7,794 7,005 8,026 9,650 8,868 9,428 6,516 6,237 9,473 6,511 7,196 7,404 8,644
SOT DSN 424 407 573 230 266 259 227 259 243 287 SOT DSN 457 456 521 325 306 276 206 248 258 277
SOT EET 262 263 295 218 223 242 251 279 322 349 SOT EET 232 250 261 212 197 191 234 298 287 357
SOT IND 81 98 102 89 99 113 152 150 178 149 SOT IND 95 128 109 117 93 131 138 117 147 176
SOT MAN 283 278 639 200 225 194 218 232 252 301 SOT MAN 373 368 414 221 206 196 233 225 234 289
SOT SKT 1,393 1,725 2,111 1,027 474 1,790 399 1,782 494 1,450 SOT SKT 1,623 1,658 1,426 758 394 404 461 573 1,048 565
SOT TRT 384 408 448 390 462 346 385 367 489 446 SOT TRT 342 431 412 390 528 362 383 366 392 548
2,827 3,179 4,168 2,154 1,749 2,944 1,632 3,069 1,978 2,982 3,122 3,291 3,143 2,023 1,724 1,560 1,655 1,827 2,366 2,212
SOT DSN 60.2% 53.5% 65.2% 49.6% 60.3% 63.2% 60.5% 64.0% 58.0% 61.7% SOT DSN 62.6% 62.9% 65.9% 68.4% 60.2% 65.4% 58.2% 63.1% 59.7% 59.3%
SOT EET 58.7% 55.0% 59.6% 51.3% 58.7% 51.8% 57.2% 53.6% 52.9% 56.5% SOT EET 58.6% 56.8% 58.0% 60.2% 52.5% 48.2% 51.8% 58.1% 49.6% 52.2%
SOT IND 56.3% 65.8% 62.2% 43.4% 49.7% 45.2% 51.2% 46.6% 40.1% 30.9% SOT IND 64.2% 61.8% 61.9% 58.2% 42.5% 60.9% 48.1% 33.1% 30.9% 33.1%
SOT MAN 26.1% 30.4% 67.8% 52.8% 69.4% 69.0% 71.0% 58.6% 56.1% 57.0% SOT MAN 28.3% 29.1% 32.3% 62.4% 60.4% 62.2% 58.1% 61.1% 49.7% 52.2%
SOT SKT 22.7% 33.5% 53.0% 28.2% 11.6% 25.2% 16.9% 32.3% 11.3% 28.1% SOT SKT 25.0% 29.9% 23.6% 17.1% 9.9% 5.4% 10.5% 11.6% 22.3% 10.3%
SOT TRT 59.8% 69.5% 67.5% 56.9% 62.1% 55.3% 65.9% 57.5% 70.1% 57.3% SOT TRT 60.0% 61.8% 60.0% 56.5% 66.3% 51.4% 61.9% 57.0% 52.2% 61.0%
30.9% 39.5% 58.5% 37.1% 28.4% 32.2% 37.5% 39.4% 28.2% 37.2% 32.4% 37.1% 33.3% 31.0% 27.6% 16.5% 25.4% 25.4% 32.0% 25.6%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
69
Fall vs. Spring Semesters – School of Technology {By Department}
OWENS COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT EVALUATIONS ‐‐‐ FY 2001 ‐ FY 2010
FALL SEMESTERS SPRING SEMESTERS
Formative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Formative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SPSE ECE 523 519 569 595 588 0 0 0 0 0 SPSE ECE 484 495 473 498 509 0 0 0 0 0
SPSE LE/F 1,087 1,107 1,395 1,165 1,319 1,734 1,434 1,332 1,382 1,565 SPSE LE/F 1,183 1,037 1,155 1,278 1,172 1,287 1,227 1,274 1,341 1,539
1,610 1,626 1,964 1,760 1,907 1,734 1,434 1,332 1,382 1,565 1,667 1,532 1,628 1,776 1,681 1,287 1,227 1,274 1,341 1,539
SPSE ECE 296 359 363 421 383 0 0 0 0 0 SPSE ECE 229 296 288 321 347 0 0 0 0 0
SPSE LE/F 644 720 723 698 751 867 742 158 92 96 SPSE LE/F 644 676 673 689 711 762 141 114 77 68
940 1,079 1,086 1,119 1,134 867 742 158 92 96 873 972 961 1,010 1,058 762 141 114 77 68
SPSE ECE 56.6% 69.2% 63.8% 70.8% 65.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SPSE ECE 47.3% 59.8% 60.9% 64.5% 68.2% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SPSE LE/F 59.2% 65.0% 51.8% 59.9% 56.9% 50.0% 51.7% 11.9% 6.7% 6.1% SPSE LE/F 54.4% 65.2% 58.3% 53.9% 60.7% 59.2% 11.5% 8.9% 5.7% 4.4%
58.4% 66.4% 55.3% 63.6% 59.5% 50.0% 51.7% 11.9% 6.7% 6.1% 52.4% 63.4% 59.0% 56.9% 62.9% 59.2% 11.5% 8.9% 5.7% 4.4%
Summative 200060 200160 200260 200360 200460 200560 200660 200760 200860 200960 Summative 200110 200210 200310 200410 200510 200610 200710 200810 200910 201010
SPSE ECE 508 545 532 569 554 0 0 0 0 0 SPSE ECE 542 544 462 496 495 0 0 0 0 0
SPSE LE/F 1,102 1,016 1,353 1,080 1,344 1,633 1,332 1,273 1,285 1,446 SPSE LE/F 1,137 1,019 1,088 1,236 1,111 1,202 1,199 1,170 1,288 1,501
1,610 1,561 1,885 1,649 1,898 1,633 1,332 1,273 1,285 1,446 1,679 1,563 1,550 1,732 1,606 1,202 1,199 1,170 1,288 1,501
SPSE ECE 218 287 324 394 316 0 0 0 0 0 SPSE ECE 342 398 310 340 352 0 0 0 0 0
SPSE LE/F 648 609 639 638 736 705 679 633 638 743 SPSE LE/F 526 634 585 597 601 713 638 641 615 747
866 896 963 1,032 1,052 705 679 633 638 743 868 1,032 895 937 953 713 638 641 615 747
SPSE ECE 42.9% 52.7% 60.9% 69.2% 57.0% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ SPSE ECE 63.1% 73.2% 67.1% 68.5% 71.1% ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
SPSE LE/F 58.8% 59.9% 47.2% 59.1% 54.8% 43.2% 51.0% 49.7% 49.6% 51.4% SPSE LE/F 46.3% 62.2% 53.8% 48.3% 54.1% 59.3% 53.2% 54.8% 47.7% 49.8%
53.8% 57.4% 51.1% 62.6% 55.4% 43.2% 51.0% 49.7% 49.6% 51.4% 51.7% 66.0% 57.7% 54.1% 59.3% 59.3% 53.2% 54.8% 47.7% 49.8%
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
Returned %
Evaluations
Returned
70
Appendix F. Deans and Chairs Survey Questions and Responses
1. How do you and faculty in your area currently use results of formative and summative course evaluations? (The formative evaluation is administered around mid semester to courses of at least 10 weeks in length, and the summative is administered at the close of the semester).
I read comments for each and discuss with dept. chairs if there are issues with books or facilities. If there are issues with instructors, I meet with them directly. In general, comments and not scores weigh more heavily in the actions I take.
Continuous quality improvement
The HPE program only receives summative on some courses, not on all. We track the student comments as anecdotal information for the instructors but participation is low. We do not tie the evaluations into any formal tool for reflection and program development as this point because we do not have a systematic way to take in and evaluate the information from the forms that is efficient and relevant. These could be a tremendous tool in planning and implementation but are not effective in their current format.
Currently the results of the midterm evaluations are not used because so few students actually fill them out. I receive many midterm evaluations that have been taken by zero students (yet these are still printed out).
Input data and track in Excel.
Sometimes the numbers are so bad, that we focus on the comments and skip the “1-5”.
Some of the best teachers get the worst ratings. Is it 1 Good/5 Bad that causes the problem or is it only those who really like/really hate the teacher that submit forms.
Time. For Formative they often don’t have time to go through the data because of the sheer quantity of information. Therefore, they are not usable for the Faculty since they are often distributed at the end of the semester.
2. Are there other ways that you think results of formative and summative course evaluations should be used? If yes, please describe.
No
Reappointment for adjuncts, tenure, and promotion reviews
Results should be electronically submitted and should be designed to allow the instructor time to enhance their in-class interactions and also to evaluate student satisfaction and engagement. This differs tremendously from student performance.
These evaluations seem to be a bit pointless. The evaluations at the end of the term are more useful.
3. How often do you think we need to administer evaluations?
Towards the middle and end of semesters.
71
Twice a semester
Once per semester near the middle of the course, to allow for implementation of feedback if necessary. At the end for courses shorter than 5 weeks.
Just at the end of the semester
A vote was taken by a show of hands: 1. Only Formative 5% 2. Only Summative 90% 3. Both Formative and Summative 0%
4. When should results be returned to faculty and chairs for maximum benefit?
Immediately after the middle of the semester and after the end of the semester.
As soon as possible-no longer than 3 weeks
As immediately as possible!
If we are talking about end of the semester evals, soon after grades for the course have been posted.
Have the ability to view a summary of evaluations by course: IST 100, ENG 111, etc.
Have the ability to view not only at the course level (all IST 100) but have the results separated by major. They might take the comments of those who have to take a class because their degree/certificate required them versus those who take a course because it is their major.
Have the ability to view results by instructor.
Have the ability to view all of the above with historical data to view any trends.
Have information that can be sorted by the Chair.
5. Should evaluations be conducted in all classes?
Yes, only way to be sure students actually look at form.
Yes
Yes.
I’m not certain that all classes need to take an evaluation
Once a Full Time Instructor reaches tenure, perhaps randomly. May want to tie this into their employee review that occurs every three years.
Agreed that some sort of random, non 100% coverage is needed. They would like to have the opportunity to add some specific courses or instructors to the survey group.
6. Should all students be required to fill out an evaluation?
No
Yes
Yes.
Perhaps. I’m not sure how to answer this question…
72
Some areas feel that the students are overloaded with evaluations. Not only Formative and Summative, but departmental specific ones as well.
Others felt that Yes all students should fill out evaluations. How to enforce/require this or to make them available if a student misses the time when a evaluations are distributed was not answered.
7. What other suggestions do you have to improve the course evaluation process?
Make the forms more meaningful for the students. Let students see results of previous improvements.
Look for a way to utilize technology to ensure an efficient and effective process for assessment evaluation.
Why can we not use the survey tool in BB for the bulk of the data collection?
Do not conduct mid semester evaluations and offer the results of end of term evals as electronic rather than hard copy.
Other Comments Formative evaluations are often useless because we receive minimum if any returned.
The same comment was later given for Summative evaluations as well. Time, especially for Formative. They often don’t have time to go through the data
because of the sheer quantity of information. Therefore, they are not usable for the Faculty since they are often distributed at the end of the semester.
Found it bizarre that we scan evaluations but don’t keep track of the data. Whatever changes we make, the students must believe in the integrity of the system.
They need to believe that the data and their specific identification are protected from any chance of retaliation from an instructor.
A discussion was also done to attempt to determine if paper vs. electronic was the way to go. No real conclusion was made.
We need to have both Course and Instructor information on the evaluation form. However we need to get rid of the “crap” questions.
How student evaluation data are currently being used
Presently I look at the comments on the back. If there are several problematic comments about an instructor that say close to the same thing then I try to talk to the instructor and sit on a class the next term. I usually make copies of the comments and keep the originals in the file. I no longer use the other information (Q 1-9) for several reasons.
Students often do not follow the scaling directions and often fill it out in the opposite order of what was instructed.
Some questions are meaningless to me both as an instructor and a chair The instructor utilizes the main textbook (s) required for the course. --- I have found that
unless lectures are taken from the book then students usually don't think the book was utilized.
I attend class during the scheduled meeting times. -- I do not think this is filled out accurately
73
I believe that there should be different evaluations for web courses than there are land courses.
There is no way to ensure all students fill these out especially when on the web. The web evaluations have been coming back with obvious student error. I had one
psychology instructor's evaluation say "he is the best math teacher I ever had" These have very little "teeth" -- even if an instructor has consistent bad reviews I have
been instructed that this does not merit disciplinary action because there is not a way to verify the truth of the information.
74
Appendix G
Institutional Survey of Student Course Evaluation Processes
Fall 2009 Summary of Results
Student Course Evaluation Quality Team: Debra Rathke, Team Leader Joseph Inman, Co‐Sponsor Juleen Tajblik, Co‐Sponsor Thomas Deckelman Amanda Dominique Anne Fulkerson Patrick Gill Douglas Mead Marian Moore Rita Perkins Thomas Reed
75
Purpose
The Institutional Survey of Student Course Evaluation Processes was conducted by the Student Course Evaluation Quality Team in the Fall of 2009. The primary purpose was to explore the methods by which other institutions of higher education conduct student course evaluations. Of specific interest was the prevalence of formative student course evaluations, response rates, evaluation formats, and methods to encourage student participation.
Methods
Data were collected using the Institutional Survey of Student Course Evaluation Processes. This web‐based survey was developed by the Student Course Evaluation Quality Team using SNAP Survey Software. A complete copy of the survey, with skip patterns notated, is included in Appendix G ‐ A. Please note that, due to an idiosyncrasy of the pdf process, formatting appears more crowded than in the actual web version. The survey was emailed to individuals identified as responsible for student course evaluations at 11 other participating Strategic Horizons institutions as well as to Institutional Research & Planning professionals who subscribe to the NCCCRP (National Community College Council for Research & Planning) and OAIRP (Ohio Association for Institutional Research & Planning) listserves. Institutional Research listserves were utilized because Institutional Research departments often handle some aspect of student course evaluations, and either respond to surveys about the institution or forward them to the appropriate parties. Although the exact number of institutions represented by the listserves is not known, the purpose of the survey was not to generalize results to a particular population (for example to all institutions of higher education, to all institutions in Ohio, or to all community colleges) but rather to generate ideas by exploring different practices across a variety of institutions. An email inviting recipients to complete the survey for their institution or to forward it to a more appropriate person was sent on 11/11/2009. A reminder email was sent on 11/18/2009, and the survey was closed on 11/25/2009. A total of 91 surveys were returned. Below are the characteristics of respondents and their institution.
13%
13%
73%
1%
Institution Type
4‐year public
4‐year private
2‐year public
2‐year private
3%
14%
18%
23%
31%
11%
Institution Size
Under 1,000
1,000‐2,499
2,500‐4,999
5,000‐9,999
10,000‐19,000
20,000 or more
76
Results
A summary of quantitative and qualitative results organized by question topic is provided below. A complete text of open‐ended responses is provided in Appendix G ‐ B. Open‐ended response themes for summative and formative student course evaluations are combined; therefore, frequencies are not provided. However, themes are listed in order from most to least common.
Prevalence of Student Course Evaluations 98% of respondents said that their institution conducts formal student course evaluations:
o 76% conduct summative (evaluations that take place at the end of a course)
o 32% conduct formative (evaluations that take place sometime before the end of a course)
o 8% conduct both summative & formative
For the 2% of respondents (n=2) who answered that their institution does not currently conduct
formal student course evaluations, the following reasons were given:
o strong unions
o only conducted formally for adjuncts and faculty on probation
14%
85%
1%
Academic Calendar
Quarters
Semesters
No Answer77%
2%
18%
3%
Department of Respondent
Institutional Research / Effectiveness
Information Technology
Provost's Office / Academic Affairs
Other
58%
7%
13%
14%
6% 2%
Job Title
Director, Assis. Director, or Manager
Dean, Assoc./Assis. Dean
Provost, CAO, VP, or AVP
Research Assoc. / Analyst / Coordinator
Other
No Answer
77
Regularity and Uniformity with which Student Course Evaluations are Administered The large majority of respondents said that their institution conducts summative student course
evaluations during each regular academic term, with fewer conducting them in the summer
98%
76%
32%
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Any Type Summative Formative Summative & Formative
% of Institutions Conducting Student Course Evaluations
100%
91%
61%
100% 100% 100%
85%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fall Winter Spring Summer
Terms during which Summative Course Evaluations are Conducted
Semester
Quarter
78
Only respondents from schools on semester systems said that they conduct formative student
course evaluations (n=28). The majority of these respondents, said that they conduct them during
each regular academic term, with fewer conducting them in the summer
Only a small percentage of respondents said that their institution conducts course student
evaluations in all of their classes each term: 36% conduct summative in all classes, 25% conduct
formative in all classes
62% of respondents said that they conduct summative student course evaluations in 80% or more of
classes and 46% said that they conduct formative student course evaluations in 80% or more of
classes
96%89%
54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Fall Spring Summer
Terms during which Formative Course Evaluations are Conducted
36%
26%
13%
12%
9%
2% 2%
Summative: % of Classes Conducted in each Term
100%
80‐99%
60‐79%
40‐59%
20‐39%
1‐19%
No answer
25%
21%
14%
7%
11%
11%
11%
Formative: % of ClassesConducted in each Term
100%
80‐99%
60‐79%
40‐59%
20‐39%
1‐19%
No answer
79
Reasons given for not conducting student course evaluations in all classes included (formative &
summative combined):
o Not given to all instructors; it depends on tenure, length of employment, or full/part‐time
status
o Only certain courses or class types are included
o Sample is selected randomly, on a cycle, or by faculty or department chair choice
o Student course evaluations are optional
o Error or non‐compliance
21% of respondents said that the summative student course evaluation process is different for full‐
time and part‐time instructors and 11% said that the formative student course evaluation process is
different
Ways in which the student course evaluation process was described as different for full‐time and
part‐time instructors included (formative & summative combined):
o Adjuncts and new faculty are evaluated more frequently
o Adjuncts are not evaluated or evaluated less
o Reporting norms are different
o Different evaluation forms are used
o Evaluation results are used to make tenure decisions for full‐time faculty
o Participation/compliance varies
Evaluation Formats and Completion Rates
Evaluation Formats The majority of respondents said that their institution uses a paper‐and‐pencil format both for
formative and summative evaluations of land‐based courses. However, many institutions use an
out‐of‐class web or other computer‐based format (44% summative, 39% formative) or use more
than one type (34% summative, 36% formative).
77%71%
18%14%
44%39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Summative Formative
% of Institutions Using Various Evaluation Formats
Paper
Web/Computer In‐Class
Web/Computer Out‐of‐Class
80
Types of web‐ or other computer‐based software used (summative & formative combined):
o Homegrown system
o CourseEval
o IDEA
o Banner
o Snap
o Remark
o Course Management System (Angel, Blackboard)
o Class Climate
o InstantSurvey
o Key Survey
o Checkbox
o Vovici
o Survey Monkey
o eListen
o SurveyTracker
Completion Rates Many respondents were unsure of their institution’s course evaluation completion rates. However, of those who were able to provide an answer, completion rates for land‐based courses were estimated from 66% (summative) ‐ 70% (formative), and completion rates for web‐based courses were estimated from 36% (formative) ‐ 44% (summative).
66%70%
36%
44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Summative Formative
Completion Rates by Evaluation Type & Format
Land‐Based
Web‐Based
81
How Students are Encouraged to Complete Student Course Evaluations
The primary method for encouraging students to complete student course evaluations is to
administer them in class, with few institutions utilizing rewards or penalties.
Of those institutions that use them, rewards and penalties include (summative & formative combined):
o Points or extra credit points towards course grade at instructor’s discretion
o Institution‐wide drawings (e.g., netbooks, Wii, iPod)
o Grades withheld
o Registration prevented
Other methods used to encourage completion of student course evaluations include (summative & formative combined):
o Reminders and announcements
o Instructors stressing the importance of evaluations
o Extended time to take web student course evaluations when response rate is low
12%
87%
1%
Summative
3%
86%
11%
Formative
Yes
No
No Answer
% of Institutions Using Rewards &/or Penalties
82
Timing of Evaluations, Return and Use of Results Timing of Evaluations Summative
95.6% of respondents said that summative student course evaluations are distributed prior to or
during the last regular week of classes
Formative
The majority of schools who said that they conduct formative student course evaluations (46.4%)
distribute them to students after the middle of the course
2%2%
35%
60%
1%
Summative: When Distributed to Students
After Final Exam Week
During Final Exam Week
During Last Regular Week of Classes
Prior to Last Regular Week of Classes
No Answer
4%
36%
46%
14%
Formative: When Distributed to Students
Before the Middle of Course
Around Middle of Course
After Middle of Course
No Answer
83
Return of Results Summative
Results of summative student evaluations are often not made available to instructors or their
supervisors until the next term (56% and 44% of respondents answering, respectively)
Formative
Results of formative evaluations are most often not available to instructors or their supervisors for
more than 2 weeks
1%
37%
56%
0%
6% 12%
37%44%
2%
6%
Prior to Submission of Final Grades
Following Final Grades & Before Next Term
Next Term
Never
Don't Know
3% 4%
11%
50%
32%
7%7%
14%
47%
25%
Immediately
Within 1 Week
1 to 2 Weeks
More than 2 Weeks
Don't Know
Summative: When Results are Made Available to:
Instructors Instructors’ Supervisor
Formative: When Results are Made Available to:
Instructors Instructors’ Supervisor
84
Use of Results Most institutions that conduct student course evaluations use them for multiple purposes. The most frequent purposes are instructor evaluations and course improvement.
Other purposes mentioned included (summative & formative combined):
Tenure, promotion, or reappointment
Program review
Uses vary by department
However, given the timing of the student course evaluations and when results are made available to instructors and their supervisors, the opportunity for immediate action (either the same term or before the next), may be somewhat limited.
79%
68%
79%82%
47%
36%35%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Summative Formative
% of Institutions Using Results for Various Purposes
Course Improvement
Instructor Evaluations
Program Assessment/Accreditation
Institutional Assessment/Accreditation
85
Satisfaction with Select Aspects of Student Course Evaluations Rates of satisfaction with various aspects of summative and formative student course evaluations were not particularly high; however, respondents were more likely to report satisfaction than dissatisfaction.
Cost: More satisfied than dissatisfied with both summative and formative
Staff hours dedicated to process: More satisfied than dissatisfied with summative, more dissatisfied
than satisfied with formative
Timeliness of feedback to instructors and their supervisors: More satisfied than dissatisfied with
both summative and formative
Completion rates: More satisfied than dissatisfied with land‐based classes but more dissatisfied than
satisfied with web
Use of results: Neutral to dissatisfied with summative, neutral to satisfied with formative
Overall satisfaction: more satisfied than dissatisfied with both
Summative
Formative
Satisfied or Very Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied or Very
Dissatisfied
Don't Know / No Answ
er /
Not Applicable
Cost 57% 10% 9% 24%Sta ff hours dedicat ed to process 49% 15% 18% 19%
T imel ine ss of feedba ck to ins tructors 57% 9% 15% 19%T imel ine ss of feedba ck to ins tructors' supervi sors 49% 12% 16% 23%Evalua tion com ple tion ra tes for land ‐based classes 41% 15% 18% 26%
Evalua tion com ple tion ra tes for web ‐ba sed classe s 10% 12% 27% 31%Use of re su lts 18% 32% 28% 22%Overal l sa tisfa ct ion w ith summat ive course evalua tions a t your ins titution 34% 24% 19% 24%
Satisfied or Very Satisfied
Neither Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied or Very
Dissatisfied
Don't Know / No Answ
er /
Not Applicable
Cost 57% 11% 14% 18%Sta ff hours dedicat ed to process 39% 7% 43% 11%T imel ine ss of feedba ck to ins tructors 54% 18% 7% 21%
T imel ine ss of feedba ck to ins tructors' supervi sors 57% 14% 7% 21%Evalua tion com ple tion ra tes for land ‐based classes 68% 7% 4% 21%Evalua tion com ple tion ra tes for web ‐ba sed classe s 21% 7% 39% 32%Use of re su lts 32% 29% 18% 21%
Ove ral l sa tisfa ct ion w ith summat ive course evalua tions a t your ins titution 39% 25% 18% 18%
86
Highlights & Conclusions
Although almost all institutions surveyed conduct formal student course evaluations (98%), very few
conduct both formative and summative (8%): The majority conduct summative (76%), and most that
conduct formative (32%) do so in lieu of summative (71% of those doing formative).
Most institutions conduct student course evaluations during each regular term of the academic year
(89% ‐ 100% conducting summative and/or formative during fall, winter, and spring); however, a
relatively small percentage conduct them in all classes (25% formative, 36% summative) or in almost
all (80% or more) classes (46% formative, 62% summative)
Many institutions use an out‐of‐class web‐ or other computer‐based format (44% summative, 39%
formative) or use more than one type (34% summative, 36% formative); however, the large majority
still use paper‐and‐pencil (77% summative, 71% formative)
Few institutions (12% summative, 3% formative) use rewards or penalties to encourage students’
completion of student course evaluations. Of those that use them, rewards/penalties frequently
include points towards grades or drawings. Only 2 schools report that they withhold grades or
prevent registration.
Student completion of student course evaluations is typically encouraged by conducting evaluations
in class, instructor encouragement, announcements, and reminders
Completion rates for land‐based classes were reported to be higher (66% summative, 70%
formative) than for web‐based classes (36% summative, 44% formative)
The majority of institutions surveyed use student course evaluations for course improvement (79%
summative, 68% formative) and instructor evaluations (79% summative, 82% formative). However,
given the timing of the evaluations and when results are made available to instructors and their
supervisors, the opportunity for immediate action (either the same term or before the next), may be
somewhat limited.
o Results of summative student course evaluations are often not made available until the next
term to instructors (56%) or their supervisors (44%)
o Formative student course evaluations are usually not distributed to students until after the
middle of the class (44%), and results are not made available for more than 2 weeks to
instructors (50%) or their supervisors (47%)
Although institutions were more likely to report satisfaction than dissatisfaction for most aspects of their student course evaluations, overall satisfaction was not particularly high (34% summative, 39% formative).
o Satisfaction was highest for cost, (57% summative, 57% formative), and timeliness of feedback to instructors (57% summative, 54% formative)
o Satisfaction was lowest for web completion rates (10% summative, 21% formative) and use of results (18% summative, 32% formative). Satisfaction with land‐based completion rates were higher for formative student course evaluations (68%) than for summative (41%)
87
Appendix G ‐ A: Survey Instrument
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
Appendix G ‐ B: Open‐Ended Responses
In what department/office do you work? Other Responses Academic Affairs Instructional/Academic Affairs Institutional Effectiveness and Planning (includes IR) Vice President Student Academic Services, with institutional research/improvement responsibilities Arts and Sciences IE and Assessment Academic Affairs Registrar's Office Registrar's Office Institutinal Effectiveness Research and Planning Institutional Effectiveness Inwstitutional Effectiveness Academic Services Academic What is your job title? Director of Institutional and Market Research Vice President of Institutional Effectiveness, Research, Planning and Assessment Director Institutional Research Research associate Director, IR and Assessment Dean, Planning, Institutional Effectiveness and Research Director Director of Institutional Effectiveness Director of Institutional Effectiveness Associate Dean of IR Executive Director, Planning, Assessment, and Research Director of Institutional Research Associate Dean of Institutional Assessment Associate Provost Director of Institutional Effectiveness Research Analyst Researdh Analyst Institutional Research Manager Associate Director of Planning, Research, and Organizational Development Associate Director of Research
95
What is your job title? Cont. Associate VP Academic Affairs Coordinator of Institutional Effectiveness Director, IR, Planning, & IE Exec. Dir., I.R. VPAA Research Assistant Director of Institutional Research Instructional Assistant Institutional Researcher Survey Research Analyst Director, Institutional Effectiveness and Planning Director, Institutional Research Director Director of Institutional Assessment, Research and Planning Director of Research and Assessment Associate Vice Provost for Planning and Accountability Director Information Systems/Institutional Research Director of Institutional Planning Research and Effectiveness Director Director of Institutional Research Assistant to the Vice President, Student and Academic Services Director, Institutional Research, Assessment and Planning Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Research Director of Institutional Assessment Academic Director of Institutional Effectiveness Dean, Arts and Science Education Director, Research & Planning Vice President Coordinator, IE and Assessment Director Assistant Dean, Academic Affairs Associate Provost for Quality Initiatives and Curriculum Registrar Director, Institute for Teaching and Learning Manager, Scanning and Survey Office VP Academic Affairs Associate Vice President of Student Learning Sr. Research Analyst Director of Planning, Research and Assessment Vice Presdient for Academic Affairs Director, IR Director of IE, Research and Planning
96
What is your job title? Cont. Director of Institutional Effectiveness Director of Institutional Research Director of IR & Planning Director of Institutional Research and Planning Director of Institutional Reseasrch Manager, Institutional Research Director of Assessment chief academic officer Evaluation Specialist Research Assistant executive Director Administrative Assistant Dir of Institutional Research Survey Analyst Director of Institutional Research Executive Director, Institutional Research Director, Institutional Research & Analysis Director of IR Associate Vice President Assistant to the Vice President, Academic Services Director of Planning, Research, & Grants Dir, Planning and Research Assistant Director of Institutional Research Dean Coordinator of Institutional Research Institutional Research Director Director, Institutional Research Why does your institution not conduct formal student course evaluations?
Strong unions. Individual faculty members may conduct their own surveys, and ask us for admin support. In addition, probationary faculty classes are surveyed.
We conduct formal assessments only of those faculty who are on probation or are adjunct.
If you do not conduct student course evaluations each term? Summative Full‐time faculty choose two course they will have evaluated. Adjuncts must do all.
Full time faculty are on two year contracts, and only have to participate every other year. Adjunct faculty participate every year. The spring evaluation cycle is optional, and often it is only adjunct faculty, and those who may have missed the fall cycle who participate that semester.
97
If you do not conduct student course evaluations each term? Cont. Summative Cont. Tenured faculty have four choices as to how they will be evaluated. Student evaluation is one of the four choices.
Only courses taught by adjuncts are evaluated every semester. Full‐time faculty are evaluated on a rotating basis as outlined in their collective bargaining agreement.
Student evaluations of faculty are contractually driven. Generally, they are used for promotion and tenure. Accordingly, student evaluations are not required for full professors. Faculty can also choose those courses they want evaluated.
Assessment are at the discretion of the division chair. We usually have at least 1 ‐ 2 courses per instructor, depending on that instructor's status (i.e. new/first time instructor, etc.).
Independent study and externships are normally excluded.
Seasoned faculty on a rotating basis, all new faculty.
Policy is that all faculty are evaluated annually theitr first three years. Every third year thereafter.
Not all faculty are required to be evaluated each semester.
Full time faculty only have to administer surveys once per school year, Part time faculty do it every semester that they teach (per Faculty Contract)
All courses taught by adjunct faculty are evaluated each semester. Classes taught by tenured faculty are evaluated every three years
Tenured professors need only do an evaluation for Spring or Fall classes.
A few select courses have their own evaluation systems and are exempt from the College‐wide forms. Very few, about 98% of all courses us the college form. Also, tenured faculty members do not need to evaluate all courses but almost all do.
During the Fall term, students in all classes for classroom faculty are administered a student feedback instrument (Fall 100%). Students in all classes for classroom adjunct faculty are administered a student feedback instrument and other faculty have the option of administering student feedback (Spring and Winter 50%).
Non‐tenured full‐time faculty‐‐ all classes, adjunct faculty with fewer than 4 semesters‐‐all courses; tenured faculty and veteran adjunct faculty, select one course per semester
All instructors are given the option of using CoursEval, an online evaluation system, or in‐class scannable forms. If an instructor does not opt in to CoursEval, the in‐class scannable forms packet is provided but it up to the individual instructor as to whether or not they administer the evaluations. While we provide the opportunity for 100% of the classes to be evaluated each quarter, in actuality only about 75% of the total classes each quarter participate in the evaluation process.
The division dean chooses two classes and the faculty member chooses one class.
Only lecture courses are included
98
If you do not conduct student course evaluations each term? Cont. Summative Cont. Some course types are not evaluated such as independent study, project only, individual studio, coops, internships etc.
Course characteristics exclude some classes, such as independent studies. Departments may choose to use an instrument other than the university‐wide document.
Faculty select sections to be surveyed. First year full time faculty do four per year. All other full time faculty do two per year. Adjuncts do one per year.
Each semester all part‐time and non‐tenured faculty are evaluated for each course they teach (this about half the courses taught at the university) unless there is five or fewer students in a course or it is a practicum, student teaching, etc. Web‐only classes are being evaluated for a process to conduct evaluations. In addition, tenured faculty A‐M are evaluated one semester and N‐Z are evaluated during the other. This is dictated by our faculty contract.
Do not survey classes with enrollments below 5 students
Evaluations are conducted at the department level and analyzed at the department level so there are a few cases where the evaluations do not take place even though they are supposed to be mandatory.
Distance Learning classes have a pilot evaluation system under development.
execpt individualized instructions, etc.
So all professors are covered on a rotation schedule (It's focused on the instructor rather than the particular course.)
Evaluations only required for our junior faculty, optional for tenured faculty
At lease one class per instructor
Online courses do not have a student faculty evaluation. There is an evaluation of the course content, but not a faculty evaluation. Approximately 20% of our courses are online.
Student course evaluations are administered in each class of first time instructors (first time at institution) during their first semester on campus. Subsequent evaluations are conducted on a rotation per instructor of every sixth semester.
Depends on the schedule for the instructor
Faculty choose
Essentially two courses for each full‐time faculty member; courses taught by part‐time faculty are sporadically selected
100% of credit classes conduct the evaluation...but not all non‐credit classes do.
some instructors fail to complete the process
The number depends on level of adjunct or full time faculty based on number of sections taught and contract renewal date.
99
If you do not conduct student course evaluations each term? Cont. Summative Cont.
Faculty sometimes forget to do it.
FT instructors have 1/3 of their classes randonly selected and evaluated each year. Adjunct‐‐all classes their first year, then two per year
Formative
We do not evaluate labs, independent study, freshmen seminar, or high school concurrent courses in this evaluation. High School students complete a different evaluation instrument that is linked to our National Alliance for Concurrent Enrollment Program (NACEP) accreditation.
indepenent study excluded, work study excluded, and a few others.
Formative course evaluations are conducted in new programs.
Based on the faculty contract, tenured faculty need only evaluate 2 of their courses each term.
We don't evaluate independent studies, or classes with less than 3 students enrolled. If it is possible to combine classes, this is done (i.e., classes that meeting concurrently, but are different level courses such as Chorus I and Chorus II).
Some divisions to not require completions for every section
The college wide evaluation is optional. Instructors may have their own assessment tool.
Same as above‐formative questions are included in course evaluations
The course evaluation are primarly for faculty evaluation so every faculty member is evaluated for a certain number of classes per year.
Two classes are selected ‐‐ one by the instructor and one be her/his dean.
All full‐time faculty and senior adjuncts are evaluated in at least two sections a year; they may opt to add additional sections. Adjunct faculty are evaluated in all sections every semester.
The College of Education is the only unit known to use formative evaluations.
don't know
in the summer term, only courses through Continuing Education are surveyed.
Mid‐semester evaluations are done for new part‐time instructors.
New instructors or areas for improvment
at least one class per semester per instructor
There are special sections of courses excluded such as labs, etc
We conduct evaluations for all probationary faculty (all their courses including late start, online) until they are tenured, and then tenured and adjunct faculty every 6 semesters they teach.
All courses with part‐time faculty and 1/3 to 1/2 of courses taught by full‐time faculty.
100
Is the course evaluation process different for full‐time and part‐time instructors?
Summative
Adjuncts do all courses and use the short evaluation form.
As described above. They use the same survey instrument,though.
We report different norms based on whether it is a full time or part time faculty person.
Only courses taught by adjuncts are evaluated every semester. Full‐time faculty are evaluated on a rotating basis as outlined in their collective bargaining agreement. Currently, adjuncts are evaluated using an online survey with 10 closed‐ended ratings questions and 2 open‐ends. FT faculty are evaluated using paper survey with only open‐ended questions. We are currently looking into changing this.
No
see above. Part time instructors are evaluated each semester
See above.
Tenured faculty have a set number of courses they must evaluate annually (but most evaluate all) Non‐tenured but tenure track faculty must evaluate all courses Part‐time tenured faculty must evaluate all courses the first few terms and then a set number per year after that.
Student feedback for full‐time faculty is collected in the Fall. Student feedback for part‐time faculty is collected every term.
First of all, we have separate course and instructor evaluations. For instructor evaluations, we create evaluation forms only for instructors who have taught five or more sessions in a class (we have a lot of team‐taught courses). We will evaluate instructors who taught fewer than five sessions at the request of the course director.
In the past, it has been a paper/pencil evaluation. We are moving to all electronic versions.
We don't include part‐time instructors in the rotation until it becomes obvious that they are going to be on the schedule regularly.
Part time instructors have to be evaluated several times in a row during their first two years, then they go on a cycle
almost none done for PT faculty
participation is a little more difficult to insure
For adjunct is most often every quarter for the first year of teaching and then once a year. For full time on probationary status it is each quarter the first year, then once a year for next two years. Non‐probationary full time faculty once every three years.
101
Is the course evaluation process different for full‐time and part‐time instructors?
Formative
Assessments are not required of adjunct faculty; the assessment form is slightly different for adjunct faculty
For full‐time probationary, the results are used for tenure decisions.
If you use a web‐ or other computer‐based format, what software vendor do you use?
Summative
Remark
We use Class Climate. Some teachers have students complete the survey in class, others ask the students to respond online.
Snap Online running on our server
Remark ‐ Principia
SNAP
Our student information system's internal survey system (SunGard Banner).
InstantSurvey
IDEA evaluations
CourseEval
Key Survey
Developed in‐house
CoursEval powered by Academic Management Systems
We just went live (today) with the first full‐scale on‐line course evaluation. It was piloted over the summer. We are using CoursEval by Academic management Systems
We just moved to on‐line forms in Summer 2009. The process was developed in‐house, using MS Access as the format.
Checkbox
BGSU primarily does paper, but we have a long‐term (meaning not many people have moved to it) pilot project of using the IDEA Center (Kansas State U) SEIs, which include both paper and web options.
in‐house
We use Scantron for in‐class; we use an in‐house web‐based system for distance learning classes (we use the survey tool in Banner)
CoursEval
STARS intranet and Banner
Vovici
102
If you use a web‐ or other computer‐based format, what software vendor do you use? Cont.
Summative Cont.
Our IT people developed our web based system
Homegrown system; AU09 is the first quarter that no paper forms are being used
We use the IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction, delivered via Blackboard.
Scantron, class‐climate
As mentioned above, we have just moved from the paper pencil approach to electronic. Each academic division has there own evaluation and decided which approach to use.
Remark Web Survey 4
Angel ‐ departments design their own evuation forms and some choose to use angel to administer them.
Also developing an on‐line system, in‐house.
CourseEval (?) summative evaluations are not distributed to students
SIR II is the instrument used. It's a paper format, with the vendor doing the statistics and providing us with comparison data on similiar courses.
IDEA
Scantron form
web is used for web‐based courses only; all others are paper
We are piloting a web based program at this time that can be completed out‐of –class
Formative
Developed our own.
Snap Survey Software.
Class Climate
Web and paper evaluations are done through Scantron's Class Climate software.
SurveyMonkey plus Excel and SPSS
Homegrown program. We are considering moving to a software package.
Remarks and Survey Monkey
Scantron "Class Climate"
mainly on web and the answer for "when" varies.
eListen
Scantron forms
Some Departments such as Nursing use a department specific survey. The product we use for this is SurveyTracker
103
Please list whatever rewards or penalties your institution uses.
Summative
Some instructors provide incentives.
We used to offer some class participation point but we ended this practice due to ethics concerns.
It is at the descretion of the instructor. Some offer extra credit, but generally no "rewards" are offered.
Some courses offer extra points.
Not yet, but we are looking into withholding access to view grades and/or register for next semester courses.
We have a portion of the evaluation which is shared with students so they can match their learning style to teaching styles based on the information from previous semesters.
This falls under our instructors' discretion.
Instructors, some cases, issue bonus points to compliant students. For all course evaluations made available at the end of this fall term, there will be three netbooks that will be used as incentives. Students will be able to opt‐in to participate in the drawing without it affecting the confidentiality of their responses to the survey(s).
Mostly no ‐ but some departments release grades later if students don't complete the evaluation. Since this is our first quarter we are monitoring response rates and deciding on this policy campus wide.
An incentive is offered each quarter but only for the students who complete the online evaluation in CoursEval. The incentive prizes used so far include Nintendo Wii and iPod Touch.
Course evaluations are required. (Instructor evaluations are optional.) We record the names of students who do not complete course evals. If students have to appear before the student conduct board for some reason, the issue of their non‐compliance on completing required surveys *might* be raised.
Inconsistent, some faculty yes and some faculty no.
This is a suggestion but up to individual faculty member for web based only.
Formative
Some courses offer extra points.
Students are requested to complete the surveys during class time. Whoever is in attendance is asked to participate. Most student complete the survey, but at close inspection, it's clear are doing a cursory job.
don't know
If there are other things that your institution does to encourage students to complete evaluations, please describe.
Summative
Class Time is taken to complete the forms (without the instructor present)
They don't need incentives, because this is given during class time, and they are usually happy to participate.
104
If there are other things that your institution does to encourage students to complete evaluations, please describe. Cont.
Summative Cont.
Class Time is taken to complete the forms (without the instructor present)
They don't need incentives, because this is given during class time, and they are usually happy to participate.
The paper ones are done in class and the completion rate is high for these.
Our best method of getting a good response is to have the class take the online assessment in a computer lab ‐ however, due to scheduling issues, it does not occur regularly unless the course evaluated is in a lab already. If we feel the response rate is too low for a course, we extend the time available to complete the survey, and the instructor continues to pressure students to participate.
Some faculty offer incentives (minor grade points) and there is a drawing for an I‐POD
Some faculty take students to computer lab to complete evaluations.
Evaluations are completed during a regular class session, so most students are a captive audience and complete the form
Faculty encouragement. Faculty can view the number of students completing the evaluation during the evaluation period and encourage greater participation.
We send out emails to the students and to the instructors when evaluations are made available. We are in the process of ensuring that the completion of course evaluations be included as a component of the course by being stated in the syllabus given to students at the beginning of the course. We are also attempting to develop a marketing campaign to make students aware of our system and how it works. We have just started to use the online system to administer our course evaluations and the process has been getting better since our first online implementation in spring 2009.
Lots of reminders, instructors know who has not yet completed them and can remind them personally.
We've found that faculty support of the evaluation process is important. At the institutional level, we've found that in‐class sessions produce the highest rate of return. For those classes without computers, we've arranged lab time on a rotating basis for the students. We will be testing other 'student‐friendly methods'
Instructors encourage students to complete the surveys. They are supposed to explain to students how they utilize the survey results to improve teaching and learning.
Reminder messages are sent each week to non‐respondents for the CoursEval evaluations only.
Depends on the faculty member, some want these done, some don't. Those who want them done encourage students to complete.
Emails to students
It is part of the course expectations. It is distributed and done during class time.
Portal and Blackboard Announcements
The isntruments are handed out during class time. Instructors leave the room and a student is selected to disstribute and collect the surveys, place them in an envelope, seal the envelope, and deliver the envelope to the department office.
105
If there are other things that your institution does to encourage students to complete evaluations, please describe. Cont.
Summative Cont.
A student is asked to volunteer to collect the evaluations, seal them in a pre‐printed envelope and sign and date a form taped to the outside of the envelope.
A student is responsible for collecting the evaluations and returning them to the dean's office.
Formative
Send each student an email letting them know the evaluation is available and asked them to participate.
done in class. Students made aware of "SOQ" week
Through Class Climate, emails are sent to each student enrolled in a web/out‐of‐class class. Also a reminder is sent to students who have not completed the survey 2‐3 days after the initial email is sent.
given time in class
Student collects the evaluations and returns to the dean's office
They inform students that this is the opportunity to provide feedback and feedback is important to the institution.
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed land‐based classes complete the evaluation?
Summative
80
70
most who have chance
85% of those surveyed
25
90% in chosen classes
80%
25 ‐ 30%
50
60‐70%
about 40%
30%
40%
100%
70%
106
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed land‐based classes complete the evaluation? Cont.
Summative Cont.
NA
20
To early to answer
42%
35‐55 depends on course
40
60%
65% ‐‐ nearly all attend
80‐90%
90%
40 to 60%
99%
about 50%
80%
100%
60% best approximation
80%
Do not know
unknown
40%
95
Unknown
40%
No way of telling.
Unknown
20
80
90%
Not sure
Don't Know
107
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed land‐based classes complete the evaluation? Cont.
Summative Cont.
90%
60%
90
95
60%
varies
80% for written
80%
75%
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed land‐based classes complete the evaluation? Cont.
Formative
20%
80‐85% based on schedules
78
80
90%
85%
Fall 2009 is pilot term
100
60%
70
30%
90%
35%
70%
90
Not sure
50%
100
108
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed land‐based classes complete the evaluation? Cont.
Formative Cont.
60
65
80%
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed web‐based classes complete the evaluation?
Summative
currently do not survey
30
LT 10
not sure.
15 to 20%
40
dk
20%
60%
40 ‐ 50%
50
80%
35%
25%
100%
50%
NA
25
To early to answer
na
50
60%
40%
40‐50%
33%
109
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed web‐based classes complete the evaluation? Cont.
Summative Cont.
currently do not survey
N/A
Not sure
10%
don't know
80%
Do not know
NA
45%
Unknown
20%
No way of telling.
Uknown
70
N/A
Don't Know
50%
60%
75
20%
varies
no data at this time
30%
50%
Formative
20%
25‐30%
30
80
110
Approximately what percentage of students enrolled in surveyed web‐based classes complete the evaluation? Cont.
Formative Cont.
27%
25%
Fall 2009 is pilot term
60%
20
10%
90%
20%
50
20%
N/A
50%
25
30
30‐40%
How are the results used at your institution? Other Responses
Summative
Tenure process
Program review ‐ Indicators of teaching effectiveness were developed from items on the course evaluation form.
Individual departments do their own course evaluations; response rates differ, rewards differ; distribution methods differ
The goal is to make the summary tabulations available earlier...before the next term starts. Instructor evaluation is important for the adjunct faculty, hence press for a more timely turn‐around.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that the Academic Dean or [some] department chairs review the data as they should with instructors. Even though the data are posted publicly, I get repeated requests from faculty wondering about their results.
Instructor evals are used in promotion and tenure decisions.
Reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions
For some departments also included in T&P
In my position, I am only aware of these being used in accreditation (NCATE and AACSB). I am POSITIVE that this is not the only use.
111
How are the results used at your institution? Other Responses Cont.
Formative
Evaluations may be used by supervisors as one means of determining contract renewals.
We don't count the number of students since students may be enrolled in more than one course and the survey is conducted by course. We process approx 8000 surveys each Fall and Spring semester. Summer is optional and only on request. Results are available the week of finals after grades are submitted. Each department has different instructions for distributing results; they may go directly to the faculty, to the dept chair, or a mix.
Departmental use varies
***NOTE: results including comments are provided to instructors after the semester has ended. This should be the process, but it is actually carried out by the deans; whether or not they do this in a timely manner is beyond my control.
112
Appendix H. IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Faculty Information Form
113
Appendix I. IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Student Survey (Long Form)
114
115
Appendix J. IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Student Survey (Short Form)
116
117
Appendix K. IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Student Survey Report
(Short Form)
118
119
120
121
Appendix L. IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Student Survey Report
(Long Form)
122
123
124
Appendix M. IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Fee Schedule
125
126
Appendix N. IDEA Center Student Ratings of Instruction Participating Institutions
Institutions Using IDEA Student Ratings
April 2010 The institutions listed have varying levels of IDEA usage and implementation. We request that this list not be copied or distributed without prior permission from The IDEA Center. Please contact The IDEA Center for more information. State Institution AK UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA – ANCHORAGE AL HUNTINGDON COLLEGE AL JACKSONVILLE STATE UNIVERSITY AL SAMFORD UNIVERSITY AL SOUTH UNIVERSITY – MONTGOMERY CAMPUS AL UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA – BIRMINGHAM AR UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS-LITTLE ROCK AZ ARGOSY UNIVERSITY - PHOENIX AZ ART INSTITUTE OF PHOENIX AZ ART INSTITUTE OF TUCSON AZ BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - PHOENIX AZ BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - TUCSON AZ COCONINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE CA ARGOSY UNIVERSITY-SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA CA ARGOSY UNIVERSITY – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA - HOLLYWOOD CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA – INLAND EMPIRE CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA – LOS ANGELES CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA – ORANGE COUNTY CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO CA ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA - SUNNYVALE CA AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY CA BIOLA UNIVERSITY CA CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTCHNIC UNIVERSITY – POMONA - PILOT CA CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY-STANISLAUS CA LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY CA POINT LOMA NAZARENE UNIVERSITY CA SOKA UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA CA UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC CA WESTMONT COLLEGE CO ARGOSY UNIVERSITY - DENVER CO ART INSTITUTE OF COLORADO CO COLORADO COLLEGE - PILOT CO COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE CO ILIFF SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY CO WESTERN STATE COLLEGE CT FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY CT RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE – HARTFORD DC HOWARD UNIVERSITY DE WILMINGTON UNIVERSITY FL ARGOSY UNIVERSITY-SARASOTA FL ARGOSY UNIVERSITY-TAMPA FL ART INSTITUTE OF FORT LAUDERDALE FL ART INSTITUTE OF JACKSONVILLE FL ART INSTITUTE OF TAMPA FL BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - MIAMI FL CITY COLLEGE - PILOT
127
FL FLAGLER COLLEGE FL GULF COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE FL MIAMI INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ART & DESIGN FL PALM BEACH ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY FL ROLLINS COLLEGE FL SOUTH UNIVERSITY – ROYAL PALM BEACH FL SOUTH UNIVERSITY – TAMPA FL TRINITY COLLEGE OF FLORIDA GA ARGOSY UNIVERSITY – ATLANTA GA ARMSTRONG ATLANTIC STATE UNIVERSITY GA ART INSTITUTE OF ATLANTA GA AUGUSTA STATE UNIVERSITY – PILOT GA BERRY COLLEGE - PILOT GA BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – ATLANTA GA OXFORD COLLEGE OF EMORY UNIVERSITY GA SOUTH UNIVERSITY GA TOCCOA FALLS COLLEGE IA DORDT COLLEGE IA DRAKE UNIVERSITY IA GRACELAND UNIVERSITY IA GRAND VIEW COLLEGE IA KIRKWOOD COMMUNITY COLLEGE IA LORAS COLLEGE IA LUTHER COLLEGE IA MORNINGSIDE COLLEGE IA NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE IA UNIVERSITY OF DUBUQUE ID BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - BOISE IL ARGOSY UNIVERSITY – CHICAGO IL ARGOSY UNIVERSITY – SCHAUMBURG IL AUGUSTANA COLLEGE - PILOT IL BENEDICTINE UNVERSITY IL BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - MOLINE IL ELMHURST COLLEGE IL GREENVILLE COLLEGE IL ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART-CHICAGO IL ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF ART-SCHAUMBURG IL ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY IL NORTH PARK UNIVERSITY IL PRINCIPIA COLLEGE IL REND LAKE COLLEGE IL RUSH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER IN ART INSTITUTE OF INDIANAPOLIS IN BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – FORT WAYNE IN BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE —INDIANAPOLIS IN BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – MERRILLVILLE IN BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – MICHIGAN CITY IN BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – SOUTH BEND IN BUTLER UNIVERSITY IN HUNTINGTON UNIVERSITY IN INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY IN INDIANA-PURDUE UNIVERSITY – FORT WAYNE IN MARTIN UNIVERSITY IN PURDUE UNIVERSITY-CALUMET - PILOT IN UNIVERSITY OF EVANSVILLE IN UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS IN UNIVERSITY OF SAINT FRANCIS KS KANSAS ART INSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL—KANSAS CITY KS BAKER UNIVERSITY KS BENEDICTINE COLLEGE KS BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – LENEXA KS BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – SALINA KS BUTLER COMMUNITY COLLEGE KS EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY KS FRIENDS UNIVERSITY KS HESSTON COLLEGE KS KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY KS MANHATTAN AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE KS MCPHERSON COLLEGE - PILOT KS OTTAWA UNIVERSITY
128
KS SALINA AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE - PILOT KS SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE KS STERLING COLLEGE KS WASHBURN UNIVERSITY KS WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY KY BLUEGRASS COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL COLLEGE KY BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - HOPKINSVILLE KY BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - LOUISVILLE KY BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – NORTH KENTUCKY KY EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY KY MOREHEAD STATE UNIVERSITY KY NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY - PILOT LA LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY – ALEXANDRIA MA CLARK UNIVERSITY - PILOT MA EASTERN NAZARENE COLLEGE MA NEW ENGLAND INSTITUTE OF ART AND COMMUNICATIONS MA STONEHILL COLLEGE ME UNIVERSITY OF MAINE-PRESQUE ISLE - PILOT MD HOWARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE MD JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MD MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY – PILOT MI ALBION COLLEGE - PILOT MI ART INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN MI FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY MI GRAND VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY - PILOT MI KALAMAZOO VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE MI KUYPER COLLEGE MI LANSING COMMUNITY COLLEGE MI SCHOOLCRAFT COLLEGE MN ARGOSY UNIVERSITY – TWIN CITIES MN ART INSTITUTES INTERNATIONAL - MINNESOTA MN BETHEL UNIVERSITY MN CROWN COLLEGE MN LUTHER SEMINARY MN MACALESTER COLLEGE MN MINNESOTA WEST COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL COLLEGE MN NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE MN ROCHESTER COMMUNITY & TECHICAL COLLEGE - PILOT MN UNIVERSITY OF SAINT THOMAS MO CENTRAL CHRISTIAN COLLEGE OF THE BIBLE MO CULVER-STOCKTON COLLEGE MO DRURY UNIVERSITY MO HARRIS-STOWE STATE UNIVERSITY MO MISSOURI SOUTHERN STATE UNIVERSITY MO OZARKS TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE - PILOT MO SAINT LOUIS COLLEGE OF PHARMACY MO SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY MO SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY MO TRUMAN STATE UNIVERSITY MO UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL MISSOURI MO UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY MO URSHAN GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY MO WESTMINSTER COLLEGE MO WILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE NC APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY NC ART INSTITUTE OF CHARLOTTE NC ART INSTITUTE OF RALEIGH—DURHAM NC BARTON COLLEGE NE CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY NE NEBRASKA METHODIST COLLEGE NE NEBRASKA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY - PILOT NJ GLOUCESTER COUNTY COLLEGE NJ NEW JERSEY CITY UNIVERSITY NJ RARITAN VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE NJ RICHARD STOCKTON COLLEGE NM EASTERN NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY NM NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY NM UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO NV ART INSTITUTE OF LAS VEGAS NV GREAT BASIN COLLEGE
129
NY ART INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK CITY NY HOUGHTON COLLEGE NY ITHACA COLLEGE NY JEFFERSON COMMUNITY COLLEGE NY NAZARETH COLLEGE OF ROCHESTER NY NIAGARA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE NY RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE NY SUNY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AT UTICA/ROME NY THE NEW SCHOOL OH ART INSTITUTE OF OHIO - CINCINNATI OH BALDWIN-WALLACE COLLEGE OH BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY OH BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - AKRON OH BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – CINCINNATI OH BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – FINDLAY OH BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE – NORTH CANTON OH CAPITAL UNIVERSITY OH CEDARVILLE UNIVERSITY OH CINCINNATI CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY OH FRANCISCAN UNIVERSITY OF STEUBENVILLE OH MALONE UNIVERSITY OH MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE OF NURSING OH NOTRE DAME COLLEGE OH OHIO DOMINICAN UNIVERSITY OH SINCLAIR COMMUNITY COLLEGE - PILOT OH UNIVERSITY OF AKRON OH UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI OH WALSH UNIVERSITY OH WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY OK BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE—TULSA OK CAMERON UNIVERSITY OK OKLAHOMA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY OK OKLAHOMA CITY UNIVERSITY OK ROGERS STATE UNIVERSITY - PILOT OK UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA - NORMAN OR ART INSTITUTE OF PORTLAND OR OREGON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY PA ART INSTITUTE OF PITTSBURGH PA ART INSTITUTE STUDY ABROAD PA ART INSTITUTE OF YORK PA BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY - PILOT PA DREXEL UNIVERSITY - PILOT PA EDUCATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION PA ELIZABETHTOWN COLLEGE PA GENEVA COLLEGE PA GWYNEDD-MERCY COLLEGE – PILOT PA HARCUM COLLEGE - PILOT PA KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY - PILOT PA LANCASTER BIBLE COLLEGE PA LEBANON VALLEY COLLEGE PA MESSIAH COLLEGE PA MOUNT ALOYSIUS COLLEGE PA NORTHAMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE PA PENNSYLVANIA HIGHLANDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE - PILOT PA SAINT FRANCIS UNIVERSITY PA SETON HILL UNIVERSITY PA SUSQUEHANNA UNIVERSITY PA VALLEY FORGE MILITARY COLLEGE RI PROVIDENCE COLLEGE RI UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND SC ANDERSON UNIVERSITY SC ART INSTITUTE OF CHARLESTON SC BROWN MACKIE COLLEGE - GREENVILLE SC LANDER UNIVERSITY SC SOUTH UNIVERSITY – COLUMBIA CAMPUS SC TRI-COUNTY TECHNICAL COLLEGE - PILOT SD BLACK HILLS STATE UNIVERSITY SD DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY SD NORTHERN STATE UNIVERSITY SD SOUTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF MINES AND TECHNOLOGY
130
SD SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY SD UNIVERSITY OF SIOUX FALLS SD UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA TN ARGOSY UNIVERSITY - NASHVILLE TN ART INSTITUTE OF TENNESSEE - NASHVILLE TN BAPTIST COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCE TN CHATTANOOGA STATE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE TN EMMANUEL SCHOOL OF RELIGION TN KING COLLEGE TN MILLIGAN COLLEGE TN NASHVILLE STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE TN NORTHEAST STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE TN RHODES COLLEGE TN ROANE STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE TN TENNESSEE TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY TX ANGELO STATE UNIVERSITY TX ARGOSY UNIVERSITY - DALLAS TX ART INSTITUTE OF AUSTIN TX ART INSTITUTE OF DALLAS TX ART INSTITUTE OF HOUSTON TX ART INSTITUTE OF HOUSTON - NORTH TX DEL MAR COLLEGE TX HARDIN – SIMMONS UNIVERSITY TX HOUSTON BAPTIST UNIVERSITY TX SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY TX SCHREINER UNIVERSITY – PILOT TX SUL ROSS STATE UNIVERSITY TX TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY - PILOT TX TEXAS WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY TX TEXAS WOMAN’S UNIVERSITY - PILOT TX TRINITY VALLEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE TX UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-CLEAR LAKE TX UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER-FT. WORTH - PILOT TX UNIVERSITY OF SAINT THOMAS - PILOT TX UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS – ARLINGTON TX UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-SAN ANTONIO TX UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS – TYLER - PILOT TX VICTORIA COLLEGE TX WESTERN TEXAS COLLEGE UT ARGOSY UNIVERSITY – SALT LAKE CITY UT ART INSTITUTE OF SALT LAKE CITY UT SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY - PILOT UT UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY - PILOT VA ARGOSY UNIVERSITY – WASHINGTON DC VA ART INSTITUTE OF VIRGINIA BEACH VA ART INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON VA ART INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON – NORTHERN VIRGINA VA CHRISTOPHER NEWPORT UNIVERSITY VA SOUTH UNIVERSITY - RICHMOND VA SOUTHERN VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY - PILOT VT CHAMPLAIN COLLEGE WA ARGOSY UNIVERSITY - SEATTLE WA ART INSTITUTE OF SEATTLE WA EASTERN WASHTINGTON UNIVERSITY WA EVERETT COMMUNITY COLLEGE WI CARROLL UNIVERSITY WI GATEWAY TECHNICAL COLLEGE WI MARIAN UNIVERSITY OF FOND DU LAC WV APPALACHIAN BIBLE COLLEGE WV EASTERN WEST VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE WV FAIRMONT STATE COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGE WV FAIRMONT STATE UNIVERSITY WV UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON WV WHEELING JESUIT UNIVERSITY BC ART INSTITUTE OF VANCOUVER ON ART INSTITUTE OF TORONTO COLLEGE OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS GUAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE – PILOT