A Synthesis of Course Evaluations, Fall 2008-Spring 2010

Since the Fall 2008 semester I have collected all my course evaluation data using Google Spreadsheets. I ask the basic questions from the English Department’s Course Evaluation Form that asks students to respond on a 1-5 scale (1 = does not apply to this course and 5 = Excellent). The Fall 2008-Spring 2010 results of those questions are:

• Course Objectives: course objectives are clearly defined: 4.41
• Course Organization: Course syllabus, outline, and other materials are made available.4.23
• Time in Class: The full class period is used effectively: 3.74
• Instructional Materials: The instructional materials (textbooks, slides, tapes, films, reference books, etc.) are used effectively and are easily understood: 4.29
• Assignments: Assignments are clearly presented: 4.24
• Testing: Exams cover material on which I expect to be tested: 3.79
• Grading: Grades are assigned fairly: 4.24
• Students’ Progress: I am gaining a good understanding of the concepts and principles in this course: 4.35
• Knowledge of Subject: The instructor demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area of the course: 4.64
• Ability to Communicate: The instructor gives clear explanations and responds effectively to students’ needs for clarification:4.36
• Ability to Create Student Interest in Subject: The instructor encourages questions and/or participation and makes good use of examples and illustrations: 4.41
• Enthusiasm for Teaching: The instructor maintains a positive atmosphere in class and seems to enjoy teaching: 4.53
• Attitude Towards Students: The instructor displays respect for students: 4.61
• Instructor Availability: The instructor is accessible other than class time: 4.39

The two lowest scoring categories, the only two under a 4.0 average, (Time in Class, the full class period is used effectively and Testing, exams cover material on which I expect to be tested) sent me back to figure out what classes were being evaluated. These averages come from a variety of courses:

• ENG101: First Year Composition
• ENG102: First Year Composition
• HUM206: Intro to Television Arts
• HUM/WST209: Women & Films
• ENH241: American Literature before 1860
• CIS237: Web-Based Teaching & Learning II
• ENH255: Contemporary U.S. Literature & Film

In this time period, all of the ENG101 and ENG102 courses were taught online (as was the ENH241 and CIS237). HUM206 was a hybrid, and one out of four sections of HUM/WST209 was online, the other four face-to-face.  I sorted the results via course and I’m relieved to see that both areas, use of class time and testing, were above 4.0 in the HUM/WST209—the only course I consistently teach face-to-face and actually have “tests.” A lot of folks in online courses marked “1: does not apply to this course” on the use of class time question. Similarly, many writing students marked a 1 for the testing question. In both cases, that would lower the overall average when in reality the students were marking the question did not apply. (So I’m thinking maybe 0 needs to be the answer for that response so not to skew the results. Time to go talk to someone in institutional research and planning.)

I was happy to see my two highest ratings, both above a 4.5 average were: Knowledge of Subject: The instructor demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of the subject area of the course Attitude Towards Students: The instructor displays respect for students Although I’m happy to know that students are confident in my knowledge, I’m thrilled to know that they recognize that I respect their knowledge and experience as well.

As for the open ended responses, the four questions are: 

• Comments on the Instructor:
• What do you LIKE MOST about the course?
• What do you LIKE LEAST about the course?
• What changes would you suggest in class procedures?

I read through the comments and my general responses to the categories are as follow…

Comments on the Instructor:

The general vibe was a positive one! There were lots of repeated comments about students being engaged by my enthusiasm and passion. There were also lots of comments about me being knowledgeable about the topics. I sincerely appreciated the various comments about my promptness and helpfulness in responding to general calls for help.

That being said, the major negative thing that was repeated was my lack of promptness on grading. UGH…I know this is a problem (I really, really hate grading papers); however, reading through these make me realize I’ve got to start being much more disciplined about turning around graded papers in a prompt manner. This also resonates with the statistics about students higher satisfaction with their course management system when they are using the CMS more than once a week (from the 2009 ECAR Student Technology Usage study). In other words, I need to be more active in online course’s (specifically with grading major assignments; however, I know I need to make more general appearances/announcements as well). I’ll admit, part of the reason I’m returning to the classroom (I’m only teaching hybrid courses at MCC this fall) is because it is much harder to put off grading and returning papers when you’ve got to look students in the eye during class the next day.

What do you LIKE MOST about the course?

As usual with course evaluations, there were comments all over the place, some discussing very specific assignments and/or readings. In terms of repetitive comments, I got a lot of comments from my women & film students about the variety of films we watched. I’ll confess, the core design of my course is based off of Nancy Hellner’s course; however, I have swapped in and out various films over the 5+ years I’ve taught the course.

I really appreciated all the positive comments about peer reviews. I’ll admit, I also got negative comments in the later two open comment areas from people who did not get prompt and/or any peer reviews because of some students not participating.

There were also a sprinkling of comments appreciating the techiness of the courses. These students generally either thanked me for working with contemporary technologies and/or appreciated learning about them.

What do you LIKE LEAST about the course? and What changes would you suggest in class procedures?

The repeated message I got across the types of courses was “too much work.” Within those comments there were two general aspects: “this is a summer course and should be easier” as well as “to much fluff work, focus on the papers.”

I’ll admit, the comments about making summer classes easier makes me cranky! These courses have the same course competencies/outcomes as a traditional course and transfer with the same credits as a full course. For the past couple of years I developed online courses with 15 deadlines; these could function as one deadline a week for full semesters, two a week for 8 week courses, and 3 a week for 5 week courses. All this to say that I don’t intend to make these courses easier; I’ll just need to be much more explicit about this at the beginning of the shorter session (which I was this summer and promptly lost students the first couple of days).

The second comment was referring to all of the invention work in the writing classes. This makes me think I need to be much more explicit about what/how/why invention work is as well as the point of a writing course being to share some writing strategies that you may or may not use every time you compose. I already started talking with Devon about this…we’ll see how we develop this reasoning and how we share it with students in future courses.

June 21 2010 | Posted in MCC