teaching quality kimepteaching quality kimep----widewidewide · management summary regular ftes *...
Post on 06-Aug-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research
Teaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEP----widewidewidewide
Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
REPORT
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research
KIMEP, 2011
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Regular FTES* Spring 2011 was conducted during April 11–24 following the standard format: online
mode, voluntary approach, standard 15-item instrument.
Teaching quality assessment
− Teaching quality at KIMEP is assessed by students with 4.37 points out of the maximum 5.00.
− Assessments of academic units vary in ranges 4.57 (LC) - 4.32 (BCB).
− Assessing the various aspects of teaching process, students most frequently express the agreement
(“strongly agree” and “agree”) with positive statements of questionnaire - 83.29% of cases.
− Preparedness for classes, Ability to spend time on relevant issues and Clarity of course requirements
are identified as the most strong aspects of teaching process: 4.52, 4.44 and 4.43 correspondingly.
These are the traditional points of students’ appreciation since Fall 2007.
− Faculty’s ability to stimulate interest in the subject, Relevance of session materials to local
environment and Helpfulness of texts and other materials are appreciated relatively less: 4.22; 4.39
and 4.37 accordingly, which is also traditional trend of assessment since Fall 2007.
− Students’ willingness to recommend the courses and faculty members to friends is expressed with
grades 4.34 and 4.31.
Teaching quality dynamics during Fall 2007-Spring 2011
KIMEP-wide:
− Overall level of students’ satisfaction has risen from 4.27 in Fall 2007 to 4.37 in Spring 2011 with the
period of stagnation from Fall 2008 till Spring 2010 (~4.30 - 4.32).
− ‘Strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ of teaching quality, traditionally identified by students during the
observed period, completely coincide with those indicated in the current semester.
By separate departments/areas:
− LC and PS&IR demonstrate steady growth trajectories of teaching quality assessment with peak
results in Spring 2011
− Econ, Fin, MM and PA face changeable growth of teaching evaluations with peak results in Fall 2008
or Spring 2009; their Spring 2011 grades are higher than Fall 2007 ones
− OMIS, SGE and SL grades peaked in Spring 2010 and have since remained at the same level or
slowly declined
− Acc and Journ underwent several increases and decreases of student satisfaction; their Spring 2011
grades are lower than Fall 2007 ones.
By academic ranks of faculty members:
− Professorial courses, mostly evaluated by senior undergraduates and masters, reflect the continuous
improvement of teaching quality.
− Lecturers’ courses, assessed mostly by undergraduates, receive evaluations that form a changeable
growth trajectory (total amplitude = 0.15). Scores’ fluctuation could reflect the changes in faculty
composition, list of courses offered as well as respondents’ subjectivity due to their age and attitude.
− Instructors are mostly evaluated by freshmen, taking LC and SGE courses. Their grades follow a
changeable trajectory (total amplitude = 0.27). Taking into consideration the relative stability of LC and
SGE curriculum and faculty composition, the changeable assessment could be mostly attributed to
subjectivity of respondents’ opinion due to the lack of learning experience at KIMEP.
Resume
Analysis of teaching quality dynamics during the last four years allows suggesting the following ways to
further improve KIMEP academic services to students:
- identifying the reasons of decline in KIMEP’s strongest teaching quality – faculty preparedness for
classes
- providing faculty members with professional development opportunities in the sphere of teaching
methods and student psychology
- continuing work on improving the teaching materials with regard to general helpfulness and
applicability to Kazakhstani environment
- clarifying the reasons that cause fluctuations in student satisfaction with the teaching process in
separate departments/areas.
* Please, kindly consider the list of abbreviations on the next page.
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research
ABBREVIATIONS
Acc Area of Accounting, Bang College of Business
AY Academic year
BCB Bang College of Business
CISC Computer and Information Systems Center
CSS College of Social Sciences
Econ Department of Economics, College of Social Sciences
Fin Area of Finance, Bang College of Business
FTES Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey
Journ Department of International Journalism and Mass Communications,
College of Social Sciences
KSA KIMEP Students’ Association
LC Language Center
LCD Liquid Crystal Display
MM Area of Management and Marketing, Bang College of Business
OMIS Area of Operations Management and Information Systems, Bang College of Business
PA Department of Public Administration, College of Social Sciences
PS&IR Department of Political Science and International Relations, College of Social Sciences
QAIR Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research
SGE School of General Education
SL School of Law
SQL Structured Query Language
VPAA Vice President of Academic Affairs
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 2
CONTENT
Management summary
Abbreviations
Background 3
Purpose 3
Technique 3
Data treatment 3
Results presentation 3
Survey results 3
Response statistics 3
Unit’s results overview 3
CSS results overview by departments 4
Comparison of FTES results, Fall 2007 - Spring 2011 7
Purpose 7
Results 7
- KIMEP-wide 7
- By departments/areas 7
- By academic ranks of faculty member 8
Resume 9
Attachment 1: Questionnaire 16
Attachment 2: FTES results: tables 17
Attachment 3: FTES results, F2007-S2011: tables 18
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 3
Background
Purpose. FTES is conducted on semestrial basis to measure the quality of teaching at the Institute’s level
by retrieving students’ opinion on the instructional effectiveness, quality of teaching and learning
experience for every subject they are enrolled.
Technique. Standard approach: voluntary, online mode, 3-section instrument approved in Fall 2007 (att. 1).
Questionnaire access links at KIMEP website: Summer 1 registration page, main page banner, ‘U-mail’,
and ‘L-drive’.
The survey schedule (April 11– 24) avoids interference with final exams session.
To cover intensive courses of LC and SGE, an additional survey is conducted on February 16–22, 2011.
The information campaign employs regular channels: banners, posters, e-mails, LCD presentations, web-
site announcements, class announcements by KSA members, and info items in social networks. Also, this
semester students of “Introduction to PR” course have produced survey promo video with participation of
the key figures of the Institute’s community: VPAA, faculty members and KSA. This input is made under
the guidance of Dr. Kozhamkulova in cooperation with QAIR team.
Data treatment. The CISC renders technical support in data gathering and treatment. Student inputs are
stored in SQL server to be further processed and used for analysis.
Results presentation. The results were made accessible to faculty and academic management via Intranet
upon the submission of all final grades to the Registrar’s Office by faculty members (May 20, 2011).
Since Fall 2010, Intranet reports include total quality indexes calculated as a product of the average
faculty grade (quality index1) and share of student registrations (quantity index
2).
Survey results
Response statistics
The KIMEP-wide response rate comprises 30.58% of total number of student/course registrations: 5 084
out of 16 623. The response rates by units lie between ~25% (SL) and ~32% (LC and BCB; table A).
Table A. Response rate: KIMEP-wide and by units Units
Data BCB CSS Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE SL KIMEP
# of student registrations 7434 2687 771 363 458 1095 1275 4631 596 16623
# of student responses 2395 727 222 97 155 253 414 1401 147 5084
Response rate out of student
registrations, % 32.22 27.06 28.79 26.72 33.84 23.11 32.47 30.25 24.66 30.58
In general, the distribution of responses by units reflects the composition of the enrolled student body.
Thus, the answers of BCB students present the majority of responses (~47%), followed by students of
SGE and CSS courses (~28% and ~14% accordingly; graph 1). Among the evaluations of CSS courses, the
courses of PA respondents are prevailing (~35%; graph 2).
Units’ results overview
The KIMEP overall assessment comprises 4.37 points out of 5.00 (share of answer ‘strongly agree’ with
questionnaire’s positive statements comprises ~64% of all answers). Overall grades of different units also show
relatively high satisfaction level: 4.32 (BCB) - 4.57 (LC; graphs 3-4).
In general, students evaluate ‘Faculty’, ‘Class sessions’ and ‘Course’ (3 instrument’s sections) with high
grades: 4.36, 4.41 and 4.39 out of 5.00 accordingly. Across the units, LC is evaluated with maximum
grades (4.57-4.6), and BCB – with relative minimums (4.29-4.36; graph 5).
1 Quality index - weighed average calculated according to standard formula. 2 Quantity index – the ratio of student registrations in all courses of a faculty member to the total number of student registrations
in corresponding academic unit.
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 4
By separate aspects of teaching process, respondents identify the following stronger and weaker points
(graphs 6-8):
− Faculty’s preparedness for each class (Q1), their ability to spend time on relevant issues (Q10) and
the clarity of course requirements from the start of semester (Q11) are assessed with higher grades.
− Faculty ability to stimulate interest in subject (Q3), relevance of session materials to local
environment (Q9) and helpfulness of texts and other course materials (Q12) are evaluated with
relatively lower scores.
The above trend (most and least appreciated items) has been continuously reflected in FTES results since the
latest changes in survey instrument (Fall 2007).
Following exceptions are presented by Spring 2011 LC and SL students: in their opinion, the clarity of
session objectives compared with the relevance of session materials is the weaker aspect (Qs 8-9). Also,
LC students consider helpfulness of texts/materials as the strong point, and assignments’ contribution to
learning – as the weak one (Qs12-13; graphs 6-8).
Generally, the students are willing to recommend KIMEP courses and faculty (Qs 14-15): 4.34 and 4.31
correspondingly. By units, they mostly recommend the courses and faculty of LC and SL. Courses of
SGE and faculty of BCB are recommended the least (graph 10).
CSS results overview by departments
Within the CSS, PS&IR department was evaluated most highly (4.61), while Econ department got the
lowest assessment (4.31; graph 3).
By accessing the ‘Faculty’, ‘Class session’ and ‘Course’, CSS students mostly follow the KIMEP-wide
trends. Few exceptions are presented by evaluations of Journ and PS&IR departments (graph 11):
− Journ students highly appreciate ability of faculty members to encourage questions and class
participation (Q4) and relevance of session materials to local environment (Q9). They are least
satisfied with class sessions’ being spent on relevant issues (Q10) and assignments’ contribution to
learning (Q13).
− PS&IR respondents are most satisfied with assignments’ contribution to learning (Q13) and least –
with faculty’s ability to provide helpful feedback on assignments (Q6).
Graph 1. Responses’ composition by units Graph 2. CSS responses’ composition by department source: table A, p.3
BCB
47.11%
CSS
14.30%
LC
8.14%
SGE
27.56%
SL
2.89%
source: table A, p.3
Econ
30.54%
IJMC
13.34%
PS&IR
21.32%
PA
34.80%
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 5
Graph 3. Overall evaluation source: att. 2, table 1
4.324.43
4.57
4.35
4.54
4.37
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP
Weighed average grade
Graph 4. Distribution of ratings by units source: att. 2, table 2
20.7218.84 15.91
17.2414.83
18.93
67.08 73.04 65.6 72.38 64.3660.81
0%
100%
BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP
5 - strongly
agree
4 - agree
3 - neutral
2 - disagree
1 - strongly
disagree
Graph 5. Evaluation in sections “Faculty”, “Class sessions” and “Course” source: att. 2, table 1
4.36 4.364.43 4.46 4.434.57 4.57 4.6
4.344.41 4.37
4.54 4.584.49
4.36 4.41 4.394.29
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Faculty Class sessions Course
Weighed average grade
BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 6
Graph 6. Evaluation in individual questions, section “Faculty” source: att. 2, table 1
4.00
4.65
KIMEP
BCB
CSS
LC
SGE
SL
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Graph 7. Evaluation in individual questions, Graph 8. Evaluation in individual questions, section “Class sessions” section “Course” source: att. 2, table 1 source: att. 2, table 1
4.30
4.60
KIMEP
BCB
CSS
LC
SGE
SL
Q8
Q9
Q10
4.25
4.63KIMEP
BCB
CSS
LC
SGE
SL
Q11
Q12
Q13
Graph 9. Evaluation in questions “14. I would recommend this course” and “15. I would recommend this
faculty member” source: att. 2, table 1
4.25
4.4 4.37
4.54 4.53
4.26 4.3
4.54.59
4.34 4.314.33
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Recommend this course Recommend this faculty member
Weighed average grade
BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 7
Graph 10. Overall evaluations of CSS departments source: att. 2, table 1
4.43
4.61
4.434.31
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Econ Journ PS&IR PA
Weighed average grade
Graph 11. Evaluation of CSS departments in individual questions source: att. 2, table 1
4.0
4.5
5.0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15
Faculty Class sessions Course Summary
questions
Weighed average grade
Econ Journ PS&IR PA
Comparison of FTES results, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011
Purpose: to identify general tendencies in teaching quality dynamics since Fall 2007 (last revision of
questionnaire).
Results
KIMEP-wide overall satisfaction with teaching quality has increased from 4.27 in Fall 2007 to 4.37 in
Spring 2011 with the period of stagnation (Fall 2008-Spring 2010), with grades within ranges 4.30-4.32
(graph 12). Rise in evaluation is observed with regard to all aspects of teaching process, except for
faculty’s preparedness for classes (Q1): it dropped by 0.13 points in Spring 2008 and, despite following
increases, hasn’t yet reached the level of Fall 2007 (graph 13).
During the analyzed period, same strengths and weaknesses have been continuously identified by students
(graphs 13):
- Faculty’s preparedness for classes, Class time spent on relevant issues, and Clarity of course
requirements form the stable quality pillars.
- Faculty’s ability to stimulate interest, Relevance of session materials to local environment, and
Helpfulness of textbooks/course materials are the traditional areas of lower satisfaction.
By departments/areas
The analysis of 8-semeters’ evaluations of teaching by separate departments/areas allow distinguishing
four types of quality dynamics (graphs 14-17):
- Steady growth – LC and PS&IR: by Spring 2011 grades reached the highest levels since Fall 2007.
Growth trajectories are relatively smooth with no significant decreases.
- Changeable growth – Econ, Fin, MM and PA: Spring 2011 grades are higher than Fall 2007 ones. The
peak performance is demonstrated in Fall 2008 or Spring 2009.
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 8
- Stalled growth – OMIS, SGE and SL: grades reached the peak by Spring 2010 and since then have
remained at the same level (SL) or slowly declined (OMIS, SGE).
- Lowering evaluations – Acc and Journ: by Spring 2011 grades became lower than in Fall 2007.
During the period there were several noticeable fluctuations of students’ satisfaction.
By academic ranks of faculty members
Overview of teaching quality dynamics by separate ranks’ faculty – professors, lecturers and instructors –
shows some rank-specific peculiarities (graph 18) 1.
Professorial courses are mostly evaluated by senior undergraduates and masters. Students’ satisfaction
with their performance has been steadily increasing during the 8 semesters (total amplitude = 0.28).
Spring 2011 grades are higher than Fall 2007 ones (+0.27 points). This may reflect the continuous
improvement of teaching quality.
Lecturers’ courses, assessed mostly by undergraduates (freshmen to seniors), receive evaluations that form
a changeable growth trajectory (total amplitude = 0.15). The peak grades were assigned between Springs
2008-09 and the bottom ones - between Fall 2009–Spring 2010. Spring 2011 grades are close to Fall 2007
ones (+0.01 points).
Scores’ fluctuation could be the result of changes in faculty composition, list of courses offered and, to
some degree, respondents’ subjectivity due to their age and attitude.
Instructors are mostly evaluated by freshmen, taking LC and SGE courses. Similar to lecturers’
evaluations, their grades follow a changeable trajectory (total amplitude = 0.27). The highest results were
achieved in AY 2009-10 and the lowest ones – in AY 2010-11. Spring 2011 grades are close to Fall 2007
ones (+0.01 points).
Taking into consideration the relative stability of LC and SGE curriculum and faculty composition, the
changeable assessment could be mostly attributed to subjectivity of respondents’ opinion due to the lack
of learning experience at KIMEP.
In terms of strongest and weakest items of teaching performance, the evaluations of all ranks’ faculty are
very close to the common KIMEP-wide trends mentioned earlier (p. 7; graphs 19-21).
The distinctive features of each rank’s evaluation are presented below.
Professorial faculty (graph 19)
- ‘Faculty’: gap between professors’ preparedness for classes (Q1) and their ability to stimulate
students’ interest in the subject (Q3) has almost twice narrowed: from 0.69 points in Fall 2007 to 0.32
points in Spring 2011. Provision of helpful feedback on assignments (Q6) and clarity of explanation
(Q2) are consistently indicated as the relatively weak qualities.
- ‘Class sessions’: during the period, students’ appreciation for the least satisfactory item - relevance of
materials to local environment (Q9) - has grown the most (0.32 points) compared to the rest of items.
- ‘Course’: each semester respondents assess the helpfulness of study materials (Q12) and assignments’
contribution to learning (Q13) very closely (difference <=0.04 points).
- ‘Summary questions’: gap between willingness to recommend courses (Q14) and faculty members
(Q15) has gradually narrowed from 0.09-0.14 in AY 2007-08 to 0.02 in AY 2010-11.
Lecturers (graph 20)
- ‘Faculty’: student satisfaction with preparedness for classes (Q1) has declined by 0.13 points from
Fall 2007 to Spring 2011. Clarity of explanation (Q2), appreciated by students in AYs 2007-09, has
turned into one of the least satisfactory items in AYs 2009-11.
- ‘Class sessions’: students’ evaluation has risen with regard to relevance of materials to local
environment (Q9; overall +0.07 points), while assessment of the rest of section’s aspects has decreased.
- ‘Course’: the grade assigned to clarity of course requirements (Q11) lowered by 0.04 points from Fall
2007 to Spring 2011, while the scores of two other aspects have grown.
1 Calculation of ranks’ results was based on corresponding ‘Faculty lists’ and excluded the courses taught by more
than one faculty member.
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 9
- ‘Summary questions’: in Fall 2007 students were more willing to recommend faculty members (Q15)
than courses (Q14). In the rest of the period, courses (Q14) are more strongly recommended than
faculty members (Q15).
Instructors (graph 21)
- ‘Faculty’: over the period, evaluations declined with regard to two items - instructors’ preparedness
for classes (Q1) and the clarity of explanation (Q2). Faculty accessibility outside the class (Q7) has
increased the most (0.12 points).
- ‘Class sessions’: appreciation for relevance of materials to local environment (Q9) has grown by 0.10
points. Spring 2011 satisfaction with other aspects is close to the Fall 2007 level (±0.01 points).
- ‘Course’: while evaluations of all aspects changed significantly within the observed period (both up
and down), by the end of it they have almost returned to the Fall 2007 level.
- ‘Summary questions’: students’ willingness to recommend courses (Q14) and faculty members (Q15)
at the end of discussed period was lower than at its beginning (by 0.09 and 0.07 points accordingly).
Resume
Analysis of teaching quality dynamics during the last four years allows suggesting the following ways to
further improve KIMEP academic services to students:
- identifying the reasons of decline in KIMEP’s strongest teaching quality – faculty preparedness for
classes
- providing faculty members with professional development opportunities in the sphere of teaching
methods and student psychology
- continuing work on improving the teaching materials with regard to general helpfulness and
applicability to Kazakhstani environment
- clarifying the reasons that cause fluctuations in student satisfaction with the teaching process in
separate departments/areas.
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 10
Graph 12. KIMEP-wide teaching quality: overall grade dynamics, F2007-S2011 source: att. 3, table 1
4.27 4.28
4.32 4.31 4.34.32
4.354.37
4.0
4.4
F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Weighed average grade
Graph 13. KIMEP-wide teaching quality: grade dynamics by questions, F2007-S2011 source: att. 3, table 1
Faculty section Class session section
4.0
4.6
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Q5 Q6 Q7
4.2
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q8 Q9 Q10
Course section Summary questions
4.2
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q11 Q12 Q13
4.2
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q14 Q15
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 11
Graph 14. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with steady growth source: att. 3, table 2
4.0
4.8
Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Weighed average grade
LC PS&IR
Graph 15. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with changeable growth source: att. 3, table 2
4.0
4.8
Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Weighed average grade
Econ Fin MM PA
Graph 16. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with stalled growth source: att. 3, table 2
4.0
4.8
Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Weighed average grade
OMIS SGE SL
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 12
Graph 17. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with lowering evaluations source: att. 3, table 2
4.0
4.8
Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Weighed average grade
Acc Journ
Graph 18. Teaching quality dynamics by faculty ranks, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3
4.13 4.19
4.19
4.28 4.32 4.37 4.41
4.28
4.38
4.39
4.40
4.25
4.26
4.33
4.29
4.39
4.37
4.50
4.45 4.51
4.52
4.25
4.40
4.14
4.0
4.6
Fall '07
Spring '08
Fall '08
Spring '09
Fall '09
Spring '10
Fall '10
Spring '11
Fall '07
Spring '08
Fall '08
Spring '09
Fall '09
Spring '10
Fall '10
Spring '11
Fall '07
Spring '08
Fall '08
Spring '09
Fall '09
Spring '10
Fall '10
Spring '11
Professors Lecturers Instructors
Weighed average grade
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 13
Graph 19. Professorial teaching quality dynamics, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3
Faculty section Class session section Course section Summary questions
3.8
4.6
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Q5 Q6 Q7
4.0
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q8 Q9 Q10
4.0
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q11 Q12 Q13
4.0
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q14 Q15
Legend
Faculty Course
Q1. Is prepared for each class Q11. Course requirements are made clear at the start of the course
Q2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly Q12. Texts and other course materials are helpful
Q3. Stimulates my interest in the subject Q13. Assignments contribute to my learning
Q4. Encourages questions and class participation
Q5. Evaluates work fairly Summary questions
Q6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments Q14. I would recommend this course
Q7. Is accessible outside the class Q15. I would recommend this faculty member
Class sessions
Q8. Session objectives are made clear at the start
Q9. Sessions relate materials to local environment where appropriate
Q10. Class time is spent on relevant issues
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 14
Graph 20. Lecturers’ teaching quality dynamics, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3
Faculty section Class session section Course section Summary questions
4.0
4.6
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Q5 Q6 Q7
4.1
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q8 Q9 Q10
4.1
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q11 Q12 Q13
4.1
4.5
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q14 Q15
Legend
Faculty Course
Q1. Is prepared for each class Q11. Course requirements are made clear at the start of the course
Q2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly Q12. Texts and other course materials are helpful
Q3. Stimulates my interest in the subject Q13. Assignments contribute to my learning
Q4. Encourages questions and class participation
Q5. Evaluates work fairly Summary questions
Q6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments Q14. I would recommend this course
Q7. Is accessible outside the class Q15. I would recommend this faculty member
Class sessions
Q8. Session objectives are made clear at the start
Q9. Sessions relate materials to local environment where appropriate
Q10. Class time is spent on relevant issues
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 15
Graph 21. Instructors’ teaching quality dynamics, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3
Faculty section Class session section Course section Summary questions
4.1
4.7
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Q5 Q6 Q7
4.1
4.6
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q8 Q9 Q10
4.1
4.6
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q11 Q12 Q13
4.1
4.6
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
Fall
Spring
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Q14 Q15
Legend
Faculty Course
Q1. Is prepared for each class Q11. Course requirements are made clear at the start of the course
Q2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly Q12. Texts and other course materials are helpful
Q3. Stimulates my interest in the subject Q13. Assignments contribute to my learning
Q4. Encourages questions and class participation
Q5. Evaluates work fairly Summary questions
Q6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments Q14. I would recommend this course
Q7. Is accessible outside the class Q15. I would recommend this faculty member
Class sessions
Q8. Session objectives are made clear at the start
Q9. Sessions relate materials to local environment where appropriate
Q10. Class time is spent on relevant issues
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 16
Attachment 1
QUESIONNAIRE
Dear Student,
We kindly invite you to take part in regular Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey Fall 2010, which is a
critical tool to maintain and promote the quality of teaching at our Institute.
As recognition grows in Kazakhstan and internationally of KIMEP as an institution educating tomorrow's
leaders, your input and commitment to institute's development become critical to prove this good
reputation. Take the lead with your education. Have your say.
Please, note: your personal data will be treated strictly confidentially – Department of Quality Assurance
and Institutional Research will process and analyze the survey responses without the access to your
individual information.
Course _____________________________ Faculty member _________________________________
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Faculty
1. Is prepared for each class
2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly
3. Stimulates my interest in the subject
4. Encourages questions and class
participation
5. Evaluates work fairly
6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments
7. Is accessible outside the class
Class Sessions
8. Session objectives are made clear at the
start
9. Sessions relate materials to local
environment where appropriate
10. Class time is spent on relevant issues
Course
11. Course requirements are made clear at the
start of the course
12. Texts and other course materials are
helpful
13. Assignments contribute to my learning
Summary Questions
14. I would recommend this course
15. I would recommend this faculty member
Is there anything that you would like to tell us about your faculty member?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Is there anything you want to tell us about the course or the class sessions?
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for you valuable contribution!
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 17
Attachment 2
FTES RESULTS: TABLES
Table 1. Assessment of KIMEP units Units
Survey results BCB CSS Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE SL KIMEP
Section ‘Faculty’
AVG 4.47 4.57 4.49 4.49 4.75 4.57 4.67 4.52 4.65 4.52 1. Is prepared for each class
StDev 0.90 0.86 0.96 0.94 0.61 0.86 0.68 0.96 0.72 0.89
AVG 4.26 4.40 4.23 4.42 4.65 4.40 4.56 4.34 4.60 4.33 2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly
StDev 1.09 1.03 1.14 1.09 0.69 1.05 0.83 1.11 0.83 1.06
AVG 4.15 4.31 4.14 4.36 4.55 4.30 4.48 4.20 4.46 4.22 3. Stimulates my interest in the subject
StDev 1.19 1.10 1.19 1.15 0.87 1.10 0.94 1.21 1.00 1.16
AVG 4.31 4.42 4.28 4.53 4.52 4.45 4.66 4.30 4.57 4.36 4. Encourages questions and class participation
StDev 1.02 1.01 1.13 0.93 0.89 0.99 0.68 1.13 0.81 1.03
AVG 4.35 4.44 4.38 4.44 4.62 4.38 4.50 4.37 4.46 4.38 5. Evaluates work fairly
StDev 1.00 0.98 1.03 1.04 0.70 1.05 0.90 1.07 1.02 1.01
AVG 4.22 4.39 4.32 4.41 4.51 4.39 4.53 4.30 4.52 4.30 6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments
StDev 1.10 1.02 1.08 1.09 0.85 1.04 0.89 1.12 0.85 1.08
AVG 4.28 4.48 4.40 4.48 4.61 4.47 4.59 4.38 4.54 4.37 7. Is accessible outside the class
StDev 1.03 0.95 1.04 0.98 0.71 0.97 0.80 1.04 0.85 1.00
AVG 4.29 4.43 4.32 4.45 4.60 4.42 4.57 4.34 4.54 4.36 Overall section grade
StDev 1.05 1.00 1.09 1.03 0.77 1.01 0.83 1.10 0.88 1.04
Section ‘Class sessions’
AVG 4.35 4.45 4.30 4.46 4.64 4.46 4.55 4.40 4.55 4.40 8. Session objectives are made clear at the start
StDev 0.99 0.96 1.06 1.06 0.71 0.94 0.84 1.03 0.80 0.99
AVG 4.34 4.43 4.30 4.47 4.61 4.40 4.57 4.39 4.57 4.39 9. Sessions relate materials to local environment
where appropriate StDev 0.99 0.99 1.07 1.03 0.73 1.01 0.76 1.02 0.79 0.98
AVG 4.39 4.50 4.41 4.44 4.65 4.49 4.61 4.44 4.61 4.44 10. Class time is spent on relevant issues
StDev 0.98 0.94 0.99 1.05 0.66 0.98 0.75 1.02 0.75 0.96
AVG 4.36 4.46 4.34 4.46 4.63 4.45 4.57 4.41 4.58 4.41 Overall section grade
StDev 0.99 0.96 1.04 1.04 0.70 0.98 0.79 1.02 0.78 0.98
Section ‘Course’
AVG 4.39 4.45 4.33 4.43 4.61 4.47 4.59 4.43 4.52 4.43 11. Course requirements are made clear at the
start of the course StDev 0.98 0.98 1.06 1.09 0.78 0.97 0.78 1.02 0.89 0.97
AVG 4.34 4.39 4.23 4.41 4.55 4.43 4.63 4.33 4.46 4.37 12. Texts and other course materials are helpful
StDev 1.02 1.03 1.13 1.09 0.83 1.02 0.78 1.09 0.95 1.03
AVG 4.34 4.44 4.32 4.35 4.63 4.47 4.58 4.34 4.50 4.38 13. Assignments contribute to my learning
StDev 1.03 0.98 1.07 1.12 0.75 0.94 0.82 1.09 0.92 1.02
AVG 4.36 4.43 4.29 4.40 4.60 4.46 4.60 4.37 4.49 4.39 Overall section grade
StDev 1.01 1.00 1.09 1.10 0.78 0.97 0.79 1.07 0.92 1.01
Summary questions
AVG 4.33 4.40 4.31 4.32 4.60 4.39 4.54 4.26 4.50 4.34 14. I would recommend this course
StDev 1.05 1.04 1.15 1.17 0.77 1.01 0.89 1.20 0.97 1.08
AVG 4.25 4.37 4.23 4.35 4.59 4.38 4.53 4.30 4.59 4.31 15. I would recommend this faculty member
StDev 1.16 1.08 1.20 1.20 0.80 1.06 0.93 1.19 0.89 1.14
AVG 4.32 4.43 4.31 4.43 4.61 4.43 4.57 4.35 4.54 4.37 Overall weighed average grade
StDev 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.07 0.76 1.00 0.82 1.09 0.87 1.03
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 18
Table 2. Distribution of rating by units Rating
Units
5
Strongly
Agree
4
Agree
3
Neutral
2
Disagree
1
Strongly
Disagree
Total
# 21844 7441 4092 1271 1272 35920 BCB
% 60.81 20.72 11.39 3.54 3.54 100
# 7315 2055 833 317 385 10905 CSS
% 67.08 18.84 7.64 2.91 3.53 100
# 2063 674 304 139 150 3330 Econ
% 61.95 20.24 9.13 4.17 4.5 100
# 999 271 67 42 76 1455 Journ
% 68.66 18.63 4.6 2.89 5.22 100
# 1714 386 158 56 11 2325 PS&IR
% 73.72 16.6 6.8 2.41 0.47 100
# 2539 724 304 80 148 3795 PA
% 66.9 19.08 8.01 2.11 3.9 100
# 4536 988 461 154 71 6210 LC
% 73.04 15.91 7.42 2.48 1.14 100
# 13786 3624 1829 797 979 21015 SGE
% 65.6 17.24 8.7 3.79 4.66 100
# 1596 327 197 47 38 2205 SL
% 72.38 14.83 8.93 2.13 1.72 100
# 49077 14435 7412 2586 2745 76255 KIMEP
% 64.36 18.93 9.72 3.39 3.6 100
Attachment 3
FTES RESULTS, F2007-S2011: TABLES
Table 1. KIMEP-wide assessment, F2007-S2011 Semesters
Survey results F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011
Section ‘Faculty’
AVG 4.57 4.44 4.45 4.49 4.47 4.48 4.53 4.52 1. Is prepared for each class
StDev 0.76 0.93 0.94 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.88 0.89
AVG 4.25 4.26 4.29 4.26 4.26 4.27 4.32 4.33 2. Explains concepts and ideas
clearly StDev 1.01 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.07 1.06
AVG 4.02 4.15 4.2 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.19 4.22 3. Stimulates my interest in the
subject StDev 1.13 1.16 1.15 1.19 1.2 1.2 1.19 1.16
AVG 4.22 4.26 4.31 4.31 4.28 4.32 4.34 4.36 4. Encourages questions and class
participation StDev 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.03
AVG 4.28 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.31 4.32 4.38 4.38 5. Evaluates work fairly
StDev 0.97 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.05 1.07 1.02 1.01
AVG 4.13 4.23 4.26 4.24 4.23 4.25 4.28 4.30 6. Provides helpful feedback on
assignments StDev 1.04 1.09 1.09 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.08
AVG 4.19 4.27 4.31 4.33 4.29 4.31 4.34 4.37 7. Is accessible outside the class
StDev 1.00 1.04 1.03 1.01 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.00
Section ‘Class sessions’
AVG 4.36 4.34 4.36 4.36 4.34 4.35 4.39 4.40 8. Session objectives are made
clear at the start StDev 0.89 1.00 1.02 1 1.02 1.03 1.00 0.99
AVG 4.23 4.30 4.34 4.33 4.33 4.34 4.37 4.39 9. Sessions relate materials to local
environment where appropriate StDev 0.93 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.00 0.98
AVG 4.40 4.35 4.38 4.39 4.38 4.39 4.41 4.44 10. Class time is spent on relevant
issues StDev 0.86 1.00 1 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.96
Section ‘Course’
AVG 4.37 4.35 4.37 4.38 4.36 4.37 4.41 4.43 11. Course requirements are made
clear at the start of the course StDev 0.88 1.00 1 0.99 1.02 1.02 0.98 0.97
AVG 4.22 4.26 4.31 4.29 4.3 4.32 4.35 4.37 12. Texts and other course
materials are helpful StDev 1.01 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03
Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011
Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 19
Semesters
Survey results F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011
AVG 4.23 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.31 4.32 4.36 4.38 13. Assignments contribute to my
learning StDev 0.95 1.04 1.04 1.07 1.05 1.06 1.03 1.02
Summary questions
AVG 4.26 4.27 4.32 4.29 4.29 4.3 4.34 4.34 14. I would recommend this course
StDev 1.05 1.09 1.07 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.09 1.08
AVG 4.26 4.22 4.27 4.26 4.23 4.25 4.29 4.31 15. I would recommend this
faculty member StDev 1.12 1.16 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.14
AVG 4.27 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.30 4.32 4.35 4.37 Overall weighed average grade
StDev 0.98 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.03
Table 2. Overall assessment of KIMEP units/areas, F2007-S2011
Unit
Semester Acc Fin MM OMIS SL Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE KIMEP
Fall 2007 4.41 4.03 4.32 4.09 4.16 4.56 4.29 4.24 4.36 4.27
Spring 2008 4.31 4.18 4.20 4.28 4.20 4.45 4.36 4.34 4.34 4.28
Fall 2008 4.28 4.18 4.26 4.07 4.44 4.40 4.24 4.31 4.48 4.47 4.11 4.32
Spring 2009 4.31 4.28 4.31 4.09 4.14 4.34 4.45 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.13 4.31
Fall 2009 4.05 4.23 4.14 4.27 4.55 4.23 4.19 4.43 4.35 4.49 4.38 4.30
Spring 2010 4.18 4.17 4.20 4.36 4.55 4.25 4.19 4.46 4.32 4.48 4.40 4.32
Fall 2010 4.24 4.23 4.32 4.34 4.55 4.26 4.54 4.57 4.25 4.51 4.39 4.35
Spring 2011 4.26 4.24 4.47 4.23 4.54 4.31 4.43 4.61 4.43 4.57 4.35 4.37
Table 3. Teaching quality assessment by faculty academic ranks, F2007-S2011
Question
Semester Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Total
Professors
Fall 2007 4.51 4.03 3.82 4.06 4.20 3.96 4.13 4.25 4.09 4.31 4.28 4.08 4.12 4.17 4.08 4.14
Spring 2008 4.32 4.07 3.96 4.09 4.14 4.04 4.14 4.19 4.13 4.21 4.22 4.12 4.15 4.16 4.02 4.13
Fall 2008 4.36 4.12 4.03 4.18 4.20 4.11 4.23 4.24 4.21 4.27 4.26 4.18 4.19 4.21 4.12 4.19
Spring 2009 4.41 4.10 3.97 4.17 4.23 4.10 4.27 4.25 4.19 4.30 4.28 4.17 4.18 4.17 4.13 4.19
Fall 2009 4.46 4.23 4.11 4.27 4.31 4.19 4.25 4.32 4.29 4.36 4.34 4.27 4.28 4.27 4.21 4.28
Spring 2010 4.49 4.26 4.15 4.31 4.35 4.25 4.32 4.35 4.33 4.42 4.37 4.32 4.32 4.30 4.27 4.32
Fall 2010 4.54 4.34 4.20 4.32 4.42 4.31 4.37 4.40 4.37 4.42 4.42 4.36 4.39 4.34 4.32 4.37
Spring 2011 4.59 4.38 4.27 4.38 4.45 4.35 4.43 4.45 4.41 4.48 4.48 4.40 4.42 4.38 4.36 4.41
Lecturers
Fall 2007 4.57 4.31 4.03 4.23 4.29 4.15 4.18 4.39 4.27 4.43 4.40 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.28 4.28
Spring 2008 4.51 4.38 4.27 4.36 4.37 4.33 4.33 4.43 4.42 4.44 4.44 4.36 4.39 4.37 4.33 4.38
Fall 2008 4.50 4.38 4.28 4.37 4.38 4.34 4.34 4.42 4.42 4.44 4.44 4.38 4.40 4.38 4.35 4.39
Spring 2009 4.56 4.38 4.23 4.39 4.37 4.33 4.35 4.44 4.44 4.48 4.45 4.40 4.41 4.40 4.37 4.40
Fall 2009 4.43 4.19 4.06 4.21 4.24 4.17 4.24 4.30 4.30 4.35 4.33 4.28 4.27 4.25 4.16 4.25
Spring 2010 4.43 4.21 4.08 4.26 4.26 4.18 4.24 4.30 4.30 4.33 4.32 4.27 4.26 4.25 4.17 4.26
Fall 2010 4.52 4.29 4.15 4.34 4.34 4.24 4.29 4.38 4.37 4.42 4.41 4.34 4.34 4.33 4.24 4.33
Spring 2011 4.42 4.24 4.12 4.29 4.30 4.22 4.28 4.32 4.34 4.38 4.36 4.32 4.31 4.28 4.22 4.29
Instructors
Fall 2007 4.64 4.44 4.24 4.41 4.38 4.30 4.28 4.45 4.34 4.46 4.44 4.36 4.36 4.38 4.43 4.39
Spring 2008 4.53 4.38 4.26 4.40 4.37 4.35 4.39 4.42 4.40 4.42 4.39 4.31 4.33 4.29 4.36 4.37
Fall 2008 4.59 4.49 4.42 4.53 4.50 4.47 4.49 4.52 4.52 4.54 4.52 4.48 4.49 4.47 4.49 4.50
Spring 2009 4.60 4.44 4.32 4.50 4.43 4.41 4.50 4.49 4.50 4.47 4.49 4.41 4.42 4.37 4.40 4.45
Fall 2009 4.64 4.50 4.42 4.53 4.51 4.48 4.54 4.51 4.52 4.55 4.51 4.48 4.51 4.46 4.48 4.51
Spring 2010 4.62 4.53 4.43 4.55 4.50 4.52 4.55 4.53 4.54 4.57 4.54 4.49 4.51 4.46 4.51 4.52
Fall 2010 4.42 4.27 4.14 4.27 4.20 4.20 4.30 4.30 4.28 4.26 4.30 4.21 4.23 4.23 4.14 4.25
Spring 2011 4.53 4.38 4.32 4.48 4.38 4.36 4.40 4.44 4.44 4.45 4.42 4.34 4.41 4.29 4.36 4.40
top related