Student evaluations summer 2025

Student evaluations of instructor, course, and course materials provide guidance for the institutions on areas of relative strengths and areas where there may be room for improvement. Term-on-term comparisons between summer 2025 and spring 2025 are confounded by the spring student evaluations only being distributed in online courses. The spring data does not include residential courses, with a few exceptions where a student chose to evaluate a residential course using the online evaluation form. 

This report presumes familiarity with the student evaluations form in use at the institution and the results typically seen. The responses were converted to numeric values:

1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree

Number of student responses by term

Means by evaluation section and term

Instructor evaluations

Click to enlarge

The overall average for the prompts in the instructor evaluation section was 4.618. While this was an improvement from the 4.502 mean spring 2025, the spring session reflected only online courses. The first prompt has traditionally underperformed all of the other prompts in this section. This term that long standing pattern returned after a one term hiatus. As noted in the past there may be value in understanding how students are interpreting this prompt such that the prompt consistently underperforms all other prompts in the instructor section. 

By calculating a t-statistic, the small differences can still be used as a first approximation to areas of relative strength and relative weakness. Prompts with a t-statistic between -2 and 2 can be considered to be functionally equivalent to the mean. 

Areas of relative strength were:

• The instructor presented the course content clearly
• The instructor made sure that the students were aware of the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for the course
• The instructor initiated regular contact with the student through discussions, review sessions, feedback on assignments, and/or emails.
• The instructor demonstrated thorough knowledge of the subject

The purple bar represents a prompt that was red spring 2025, below negative two, and is now above positive two. This, however, is undoubtedly an effect of returning the residential courses to this evaluation. Regular contact is baked into residential courses. 

Areas of relative weakness were:

• Overall, this instructor was effective
• The instructor emphasized the major points and concepts.
• The instructor presented data and information fairly and objectively, distinguishing between personal beliefs and professionally accepted views
• I received feedback on assignments/quizzes/exams in time to prepare for the next assignment/quiz/exam

Course evaluations

 

The average for the evaluations of the course was 4.607.

The course syllabi were deemed to be clear and complete. 

The prompt "There was enough time to finish assignments," flipped from performing below negative two to performing above positive two in terms of t-scores. Again, this likely represents the impact of the return of residential courses to this evaluation. 

The one area of relative weakness was for the prompt "The student learning outcomes helped me focus in this course." This prompt has historically underperformed. How students interpret this prompt is not clear to this author. From the student's point of view their focus is on getting assignments done, successfully answering questions on a tests, and completing other work as assigned in a course. How the student learning outcomes would help a student focus on these specific tasks seems unclear. 

Course materials evaluations

 

The section mean for the course materials evaluations was again the lowest of the three evaluation sections at 4.547 The strongest negative impact was for ease of access to the textbook. 

The one area of relative strength was the "The assigned readings were relevant and useful." 

Although the course readings were deemed relevant, these materials which were deemed to be relevant apparently did not include the textbook as the textbook was difficult to access. 

The prompt "I was easily able to access the textbook for this course" had the lowest mean at 4.41 among all of the prompts. This represented -5.28 standard errors below the mean, an extreme outlier.

To provide context for how low a 4.41 mean is for a prompt, the means for the 23 means are shown in a box plot above. The lone dot below 4.45 is the mean for accessibility of the textbook. 

And while the overall trend has been some improvement in this metric over time, in each term this mean is one of the lowest of the 23 means. 

To provide some context for the small improvement in textbook access, the overall mean for all 23 prompts has generally been rising since spring 2024. The overall mean has improved by 0.35 since spring 2024 while the textbook access mean has improved by 0.29. If a rising tide lifts all boats, then textbook access is a boat that is not being lifted at the rate of the rising tide.

Responses: Mixes versus straights

67% of the responses were strongly agree (5) and 28% were agree (4). There were only 30 instances of a prompt being marked with a strongly disagree (1), and 56 instances of a prompt being marked with a disagree (2). Of 11386 ratings less than 1% of the ratings were disagree or strongly disagree. The students prefer not to disagree or strongly disagree with the prompt. As a result, a student deciding to issue a score of four can be interpreted as a decision to downvote on that prompt.

In addition to the propensity to strongly agree, students also tend to mark "straights" where they choose the same rating for all 23 prompts. 

While in the spring term of 2025 straights versus mixes were split evenly at 50/50, this summer the proportion of straights dropped to 40%. 

Straights were still dominated by students marking prompts at 5 for all 23 prompts. This tends to suggest that students are not considering each prompt, perhaps in some cases not reading the prompt at all. This also drives the analysis where a 4.43 is considered an unusually low mark: students rarely give ratings below a 4.

Preferred Materials

As seen in the past, students still respond that they prefer in class lectures over other ways to convey content. 

Even the students in online courses list a preference for in class lectures.  As in the past, students dislike synchronous video sessions. Given that in class lectures are not an option in online courses, for online courses videos and presentations are preferred content delivery option. The textbook is a less preferred option. 

In the past students could be seen engaged in recreational reading around campus. Today that has completely vanished. Many students now watch serialized videos that are the modern day descendants of soap operas. Others engage in a variety of video games. When a student seeks information they turn to Google which frequently returns videos to watch on the questioned topic. The students are increasingly a part of a video information generation. While educators are concerned about the learning impact of not reading, and knowledge retention, two hundred years ago there was a lot of learning happening in these islands and none of it was accomplished by reading any text based information. Videos represent a return to an earlier system of visually based learning. 

Course delivery mode delivered versus desired

The above chart is the delivery mode that students self-report as being in this term.

The above chart is the delivery mode the students self-report as desiring. Synchronous online is not a favored mode. 

Although 78% of the respondents claim to prefer residential instruction, during registration students consistently inquire about the availability of online sections. Online sections often fill prior to their residential counterparts. What the students report wanting and what they choose during registration appears contradictory. 

25 July 2025 additional material

When viewing individual instructor results a couple of numbers to keep in mind are 4.6 and 4.5. 4.6 is the overall average this summer. Averages above 4.6 are above average, averages below 4.6 are below average. The other number is 4.5: 75% of the averages are above 4.5 (the distribution is skewed towards responses of "Strongly agree"). The bottom 25% of the averages are 4.5 and below with only 16% below a 4.0. Therefore averages down around 4.0 and below are unusually low (provided there are at least five evaluations!).

Comments

The following summaries were generated by Gemini AI.

Comments on instructors

• Feedback on teaching style and pace: Many comments ask for clearer explanations, a slower pace on complex topics, and more engaging/interactive elements like discussions, quizzes, or real-life examples.
• Availability and punctuality: Frequent suggestions are for instructors to be on time, be available for questions, and stay in class until dismissed.
• Feedback on assignments: Students repeatedly request more detailed and quicker feedback on assignments to understand strengths and areas for improvement.
• Kindness and encouragement: Numerous comments praise instructors for being kind, helpful, understanding, and encouraging. Some suggest maintaining these qualities.
• Class management: A few comments touch on managing student behavior (e.g., being more strict, encouraging quietness) and balancing personal stories with course content.
• Logistical suggestions: These include posting announcements on the dashboard, providing study guides, considering online video explanations for assignments, and textbook availability.
• Overall positive sentiment: Many comments express satisfaction, stating that "everything is good," "no changes needed," or praising the instructor as "amazing," "great," or "professional." Some explicitly ask for the instructor to continue teaching the course.

Comments on the course

• Course Design & Pacing: Suggestions involve spacing out topics more evenly, providing clearer outlines of weekly goals, and adjusting the pace for difficult units to reduce overwhelm.
• Learning Activities: There's a strong desire for more interactive elements such as group discussions, case studies, hands-on projects, fieldwork, debates, fun games, and presentations. Conversely, some suggest less reading and writing, or fewer assignments overall.
• Clarity and Support: Students request clearer explanations, specific instructions on assignments, and more study notes. Some mention challenges with Moodle and suggest email as an alternative for communication.
• Course Value: Many students found the course helpful, useful, understandable, and beneficial for skill development (e.g., reading comprehension, writing, critical thinking). Some explicitly state no changes are needed, praising the course as well-organized and effective.
• Logistical & Other: Minor points include class start times, desire for face-to-face instruction, and availability of the course in future sessions. Some comments also touch on the overall difficulty or ease of the course.

Comments on course materials

Positive Feedback: Many students found the course materials helpful, useful, well-organized, pertinent, and effective, often stating that no changes were needed. They appreciated the clarity and ease of access for existing materials.

Suggestions for Improvement:

• Content Updates: Frequent requests for more current, updated readings, articles, videos, podcasts, and local examples to make the material more relatable and relevant.
• Clarity and Accessibility: Calls for clearer instructions for assignments, simpler explanations for technical language, summarized notes, video tutorials, more visual aids and diagrams, and downloadable materials for offline access.
• Textbook Access and Cost: A significant number of comments revolve around textbooks—their availability, cost (asking for free or cheaper options), and whether they should be provided by the college. Some suggest using the textbook more often, while others mention not using it at all.
• Interactive Elements: Suggestions for incorporating more group projects, school projects, presentations, quizzes, and "practicing games" to enhance learning and engagement.
• Physical Resources: Requests for more markers, additional computers, and better classroom conditions (e.g., AC, new chairs, clean area).
• Assignment Management: A desire for more time to complete and submit assignments due to multiple responsibilities, and more examples for specific assignments (e.g., graph assignments).

Overall comments

• Overall Positive Experience: Many students express gratitude, enjoyment, and satisfaction with their courses, instructors, and the college environment, often noting they learned a lot and felt supported. Phrases like "All good," "Excellent," and "grateful for the experience" are common.
• Instructor Effectiveness: Instructors are frequently praised for being supportive, kind, helpful, clear in explanations, good at teaching, and encouraging. Students appreciate prompt feedback and efforts to engage them.
• Course Benefits: Students highlight improvements in reading, writing, and math skills, learning new vocabulary, and gaining confidence in presenting. Courses are described as helpful, well-organized, and challenging in a positive way.
• Distance Learning: While generally effective and convenient, some challenges with distance learning are mentioned, such as connectivity issues and the need for clearer schedules/reminders. Suggestions for improvement include more interactive elements (quizzes, breakout rooms) and better tech support.
• College-wide Comments: Some feedback addresses broader college aspects like high tuition/textbook costs, low Pell awards, and issues with financial aid affecting registration. There are also suggestions for campus improvements, such as better internet, bathroom repairs, bus stop shelters, and more benches/trash bins.
• Personal Growth: Many students reflect on their personal growth, enjoyment, and the friendships made during their time at COM-FSM, describing it as a welcoming and encouraging learning environment.