| Below is a sample results page.
Each instructor receives one of these pages for each
section he or she had evaluated. This one is
for Professor Gigliotti's Introduction to Microeconomics
lecture, in Fall 1996. |
RUTGERS
UNIVERSITY STUDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
RATING FORM
FALL 1996
|
| 01 |
220 |
102 |
00 |
99999 |
GIGLIOTTI |
G |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
ENROLL=400 |
RESP=185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Strongly Disagree
|
|
Neutral |
|
Strongly Agree
|
# of no
Responses |
MEAN of
Section |
MEAN of
Course |
MEAN of
Department |
MEAN of
100 level |
PART A:
UNIVERSITY-WIDE
QUESTIONS: |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1. The instructor was prepared for class and presented
material in an organized manner. |
0 |
2 |
3 |
33 |
143 |
4 |
4.75 |
4.24 |
4.22 |
4.27 |
| 2. The instructor responded effectively to student
comments and questions. |
1 |
6 |
15 |
65 |
95 |
3 |
4.36 |
3.90 |
3.99 |
3.93 |
| 3. The instructor generated interest in the course
material |
2 |
5 |
26 |
58 |
91 |
3 |
4.27 |
3.66 |
3.77 |
3.68 |
| 4. The instructor has a positive attitude toward assisting
all students in understanding course material. |
2 |
4 |
28 |
51 |
97 |
3 |
4.30 |
4.04 |
4.08 |
4.02 |
| 5. The instructor graded fairly. |
0 |
8 |
35 |
63 |
70 |
9 |
4.11 |
3.95 |
3.98 |
3.93 |
| 6. The instructional methods encouraged student learning. |
2 |
6 |
40 |
65 |
70 |
2 |
4.07 |
3.54 |
3.62 |
3.53 |
| 7. I learned a great deal in this course. |
1 |
9 |
33 |
78 |
62 |
2 |
4.04 |
3.69 |
3.77 |
3.69 |
| 8. I had a strong prior interest in the subject matter
and wanted to take this course. |
16 |
16 |
68 |
47 |
33 |
5 |
3.36 |
3.39 |
3.50 |
3.35 |
| 9. I rate the teaching effectiveness of the instructor. |
1 |
3 |
13 |
79 |
85 |
4 |
4.35 |
3.76 |
3.86 |
3.78 |
| 10. I rate the overall quality of the course. |
1 |
3 |
21 |
104 |
52 |
4 |
4.12 |
3.72 |
3.77 |
3.71 |
PART B:
QUESTIONS ADDED
BY DEPARTMENT
OR INSTRUCTOR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.57 |
4.11 |
4.03 |
| 12. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.50 |
3.73 |
3.72 |
| 13. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.60 |
4.14 |
4.14 |
| 14. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.00 |
3.97 |
3.97 |
| 15. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.25 |
3.74 |
3.78 |
| 16. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.33 |
4.14 |
4.14 |
| 17. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.00 |
4.29 |
4.29 |
| 18. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.33 |
4.33 |
4.33 |
| 19. |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
185 |
- |
4.00 |
4.40 |
4.25 |
| School code, department or program
code, course number, section number and instructor's
name appear in the first row of the results sheet.
For Professor Gigliotti's sheet we have |
| 01 |
220 |
102 |
00 |
99999 |
Gigliotti |
| 01 -
Faculty of Arts and Sciences
220 - Economics
Department 102
- Introduction to Microeconomics
00 - section
number. Courses with a 00 section number are lecture
courses, and the evaluations are distributed
in the lecture class. All other courses are
sorted by section number.
99999- index
number: there is no index number for lectures, so
this is a dummy number.
Gigliotti-
Instructor's name
ENROLL: This
is the enrollment for the course at the end of the
drop-add period, and is provided to the Center for Teaching Advancement and Assessment Research by RUCS. For Professor Gigliotti's
course, the enrollment was 400. |
|
RESP: This
is the number of forms scanned at the Center for Teaching Advancement and Assessment Research.
For Professor Gigliotti's class, 185 forms were
completed by students in class the day the evaluation
was conducted. These forms were scanned and processed
by the CTAAR.
The five columns immediately to the right of each
question show the frequency of response for each
choice. So, for question 1, no one responded with
a "1" or "strongly disagree",
two persons with a "2", three persons
with a "3" or neutral response, thirty-three
persons with a "4",and 143 with a "5"
or "strongly agree". |
PART A:
UNIVERSITY-WIDE
QUESTIONS: |
Strongly Disagree
|
|
Neutral
|
|
Strongly Agree
|
# of no
responses |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
1. The instructor was prepared
for class and presented the material
in an organized manner. |
0 |
2 |
3 |
33 |
143 |
4 |
|
# OF No Response:
This shows the number of forms scanned on which
there was no response to the question, or the response
was made in a way the scanner could not read. For
Question 1, Professor Gigliotti had 4 "no responses".
Mean of Section:
This shows the weighted average score for the
instructor of the section, on a scale of 1 to 5,
for each question. Just as a student's grade point
average represents the student's average grade points
per credit hour, the mean of section represents
the instructor's average response per student in
the section. Professor Gigliotti received a score
of 4.75 out of 5 for Question 1. |
PART A:
UNIVERSITY-WIDE
QUESTIONS: |
Strongly
Disagree |
|
Neutral |
|
Strongly Agree
|
# of
no responses |
MEAN of
Section |
MEAN of
Course |
MEAN of
Department |
MEAN of
100 Level |
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
1. The instructor was prepared for class and
presented the material in an organized manner. |
0 |
2 |
3 |
33 |
143 |
4 |
4.75 |
4.24 |
4.22 |
4.27 |
| Mean of Course:
This statistic shows the average score on the
questions for all sections of the course scanned with
the same school, departmental or program code, and
course code as the section being reviewed in Fall
96. For the Economics department in Fall 96, the Economics
102 sections as a whole received a score of 4.24 for
Question 1.
Mean of Dept: This
statistic shows the average score on the question
for all courses scanned with the same school and
departmental or program code as the section being
reviewed for Fall 96. The mean score of the Economics
department as a whole for Question 1 was 4.22.
Mean of xxx Level: This
statistic shows the mean score for all courses at
the same level as the course being reviewed in the
same school and department or program for Fall 96.
Professor gigliotti's course was a 100 level introductory
course. The mean score for all 100 level economics
courses for Fall 96 was 4.27 for Question 1.
The scores for all of the other questions can be
interpreted in the same way. The first ten questions
of the Student Instructional Rating Form are standardized
for all departments. Questions 11 through 19 may
be used by the individual instructor, or by a department.
For example, the English department adds questions
in the spaces marked 11-14, 16 and 17. The Physics
department has five different versions of the Student
Rating form, one for each type of course that they
teach. Many instructors add questions of their own.
In the result sheet for Professor Gigliotti shown
above, there are no responses for Questions 11-19
for his section, since he asked no questions number
11 through 19. Data does appear in the Mean
of Course, Mean of Department, and Mean of 100 Level
columns. Other instructors in Economics in
Fall 96 added questions in the spaces provided for
Questions 11 through 19.
Anyone with question concerning the reading of
the results sheets for a course should contact the
CTAAR at info@ctaar.rutgers.edu. |
|
|
You are using a web browser that does not
support "CSS". Please ignore the part of this page below this text. You
may be using an older version of web browsing software that is likely
to have severe security and identity-theft issues, as well as problems
displaying certain web pages. You should download a newer web browser
from Microsoft or Mozilla.