Student evaluation rating scale grid results spring 2022

Students in courses at the college anonymously submitted responses to a student evaluation survey. Students were instructed to fill out the survey once for each course they were in. The data below derives from multiple choice items on 1058 surveys. 

Students tend to Agree (4) or Strongly agree (5) across almost all metrics. The overall average for all sections on a five point scale where 1 is strongly disagree and 5 is strongly agree was a 4.32 with a standard deviation of 0.08. The data is distributed remarkably narrowly around the mean. In general, students tend to favor agreeing with statements rather than disagreeing. This makes determining areas of strength and weakness harder to discern. 

To better identify differences in the metrics, areas of relative strength and weakness, the horizontal access for the charts below is essentially a form of a t-statistic. The value is the number of standard errors of the mean above or below the overall mean for that particular average. Areas of strength are denoted by green bars and extend above positive two standard errors on the right. Areas of relative weakness are denoted by red bars and extend below negative two standard errors on the left. Brown bars are areas close to the mean for that section of the survey.

Instructor evaluation

1. Overall, this instructor was effective.
2. The instructor presented the course content clearly.
3. The instructor emphasized the major points and concept.
4. The instructor was always well prepared.
5. The instructor made sure that the students were aware of the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) for the course.
6. The instructor gave clear directions and explained activities or assignments that emphasized the course SLOs.
7. The instructor initiated regular contact with the student through discussions, review sessions, feedback on assignments, and/or emails.
8. The instructor presented data and information fairly and objectively, distinguishing between personal beliefs and professionally accepted views.
9. The instructor demonstrated thorough knowledge of the subject.
10. I received feedback on assignments/quizzes/exams in time to prepare for the next assignment/quiz/exam.

Click on the charts and images to enlarge them

Note that the first metric above was so close to the mean for this section that almost no horizontal bar can be seen. Instructor strengths include emphasizing major points, being well prepared, making students aware of the student learning outcomes, and giving clear directions. Areas of relative weakness include initiating regular contact and presenting information fairly and objectively. 

The last metric, receiving feedback in time to prepare for the next assignment was the area that was, relatively speaking, the weakest. There are no days off when students are submitting assignments into a learning management system. 

Averages for the metrics in the instructor evaluation section

Course evaluation

1. Overall, this course was a valuable learning experience
2. The course syllabus was clear and complete.
3. The student learning outcomes were clear.
4. The SLOs helped me focus in this course.
5. This course delivered online was equal or better value than if I had taken it face-to-face
6. Assignments, quizzes, and exams allowed me to demonstrate my knowledge and skills.
7. The testing and evaluation procedures were fair.
8. There was enough time to finish assignments.
9. Expectations were clearly stated.

All of the course evaluations metrics were close to the section average of 4.31 with the exception of "This course delivered online was equal or better value than if I had taken it face-to-face." One might then expect that students strongly favor face-to-face instruction. 

Oddly enough, on an earlier question that asked which mode of delivery the students preferred, there was a near equal split between online and face-to-face. 

Chart based on earlier analysis of  909 responses that answered both mode preference and the value question

The above chart is a rough first look at the interaction between the mode preference of the students and their responses to "This course delivered online was equal or better value than if I had taken it face-to-face." As might be expected, the students who prefer face-to-face were more likely to disagree or strongly disagree with the statement. Bear in mind that the underlying sample sizes for each mode of delivery are similar. With 1058 surveys submitted, 572 students preferred face-to-face while 484 preferred online. Thus there is no strong benefit to shifting to a relative frequency distribution. The above analysis does not tell us whether the student who is answering is in their preferred mode. One might presume that a student who prefers face-to-face and is in an online class will be more likely to strongly disagree, but that data is not available from this survey.

Averages for the metrics in the course evaluation section

Course materials

1. Course materials were relevant and useful.
2. The textbook for this course was appropriate to the course content
3. I was easily able to access the textbook for this course.
4. The assigned readings were relevant and useful.
5. The on-line resources were relevant and useful.
6. The course online grade book was satisfactory.

In this third and final section of rating scale questions students concurred that course materials were relevant and useful. Students also found the assigned readings to be appropriate for the course. The only area that suggested an unusual level of relative weakness was the course online gradebook. That question does not sort out which gradebook is being used. In an analysis of the fall 2021 data there was a split with Schoology rated relatively negative to Canvas which was relatively positive. 

The concept of asking directly which learning management systems the students preferred was entertained, but some students are only using one or the other learning management system, while some students are using both. Students who are using only Schoology would be unable to answer such a question. In addition, students who are familiar with Schoology may prefer Schoology because of that familiarity. The reasons driving the transition relate to systems integration, accreditation, data analysis and assessment capabilities, and delivery of online courses under the new distance education authorization. Schoology is now a K12 focused learning management system and is not an option going forward.

Averages for the metrics in the course materials evaluation section

This report is only meant to provide a broad brush guidance to areas where improvements might be made and where strengths already exist.