results of student evaluation of instruction (seoi) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter;...

67
Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) Spring 2007 Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research August 29, 2007

Upload: others

Post on 20-Sep-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Results of

Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI)

Spring 2007

Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research August 29, 2007

Page 2: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Spring 2007

Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction

Table of Contents Executive Summary Overview Analysis of SEOI Questions Full-Time/Part-Time Academic Instructors ……………… Tab 1 Full-Time/Part-Time Workforce Instructors ……………... Tab 2 Learning Resources Results………………………………………... Tab 3 Means Reports Academic ………………………………………………………. Tab 4 Workforce ……………………………………………………… Tab 5 Appendices ……………………………………………………………. Tab 6 Instructor and Student Proctor Directions SEOI Survey How to Read the Individual Instructor Report Please assist us by sharing all or parts of this document with colleagues who might find it useful. You may contact Dr. Linda Gibbs, Director (713) 718-8627, or Ray Golitko (713) 718-8629, if you have any questions or comments on this material.

GB: ToC.doc Prepared 8/29/07

Page 3: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Executive Summary Spring 2007 Administration: The Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) was administered to all full-time and part-time faculty. Approximately 96,255 surveys were sent out in 5,303 envelopes; 48,602 surveys were returned to the Office of Institutional Research. The return rate for the paper surveys was 51% including late submissions. Instructors’ reports were provided to academic, workforce deans and to the respective executive secretaries on May18, 2007 on a CD. Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The scanned data were analyzed by OIR using SPSS 15.0, and individual instructor reports were prepared. Also provided to students with the questionnaires were student comment sheets, which were later returned in their original hand-written form to the instructors via their respective deans’ offices. Library data were analyzed by subject and location and provided to library chairs for their use.

Page 4: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Overview of SEOI Responses, Spring 2007

In the responses discussed below, respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed, indicated that they were ‘neutral’, ‘had no basis for judgment’ or simply did not respond to the question. In Part I, Evaluation of Instruction:

• The course requirements in the syllabus were clearly stated; 91.4% of students agreed and 1.4% disagreed.

• The textbook used for this course is suitable; 86.4% of respondents agreed while 2.4% disagreed.

• Other instructional materials (tapes, handouts, web sites, etc.) used in this course enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed.

In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

• The instructor asks test questions that deal with material that is covered in the course; 92.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor communicates clearly; 89.2% agreed or strongly agreed, and 3.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The assignments were relevant to the course; 93.4% agreed or strongly agreed, and 1.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• My grades are an indication of learning; 85.6% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor treats students with respect; 93.4% agreed or strongly agreed, and 1.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor is available for student consultation; 89.0% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor grades impartially; 81.4% agreed or strongly agreed, and 7.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor gives me timely feedback on graded work; 87.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 3.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In Part III, Lab Evaluation: In the section below, students who indicated an opinion are calculated in the agreement/disagreement percentages; those who indicated ‘no basis for judgment’ or did not respond were assumed not to be enrolled in laboratory or clinical courses.

• The instructor explains appropriate safety procedures for this laboratory/clinical; 87.0% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor links the laboratory exercises to lecture; 85.5% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In Part IV, Overall Evaluation:

• The instructor encourages me to become actively engaged in the learning process; 89.1% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• I would recommend this instructor to other students; 86.6% agreed or strongly agreed, and 5.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Page 5: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

Question 1: The Course Requirements in the Syllabus Were Clearly Stated

1.37.0

91.7

1.57.4

91.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Yes (n=23885) Neutral (n=1868) No (n=356)

Responses (Total=26,109)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 2: The Textbook Used For This Course is Suitable

87.1

2.1

10.8

2.612.0

85.5

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=21945) Neutral (n=2852) No (n=585)

Responses (Total=25,382

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q1&2.xls Prepared:8/29/07

Page 6: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

Question 3: Other Instructional Materials (Tapes, Handouts, Web Sites, etc.) Used in This Course Enhanced My Learning of the Subject Matter

81.0

15.6

3.4

15.64.2

80.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=19587) Neutral (n=3786) No (n=900)Responses (Total=24,273)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q3.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 7: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 4: The Instructor Asks Test Questions That Deal With Material That is Covered in the Course

1.3

65.9

27.3

5.0 0.5

66.8

26.4

4.8 1.5 0.50.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=17273)

Agree (n=7030) Neutral(n=1295)

Disagree(n=354)

StronglyDisagree(n=126)Responses (Total=26,078)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 5: The Instructor Communicates Clearly

2.06.8

25.6

64.6

0.9 1.22.97.8

24.7

63.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=16883)

Agree (n=6661) Neutral(n=1899)

Disagree(n=629)

StronglyDisagree(n=272)Responses (Total=26,344)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q4&5.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 8: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 6: The Assignments Were Relevant to the Course

4.9

27.9

66.0

0.40.8 0.31.05.5

26.7

66.5

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=17372)

Agree (n=7187) Neutral(n=1347)

Disagree(n=232)

StronglyDisagree(n=92)

Responses (Total=26,230)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 7: My Grades Are an Indication of My Learning

1.13.1

10.4

29.3

56.0

1.12.9

10.5

28.3

57.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=14761)

Agree(n=7558)

Neutral(n=2728)

Disagree(n=800)

StronglyDisagree(n=284)Responses (Total=26,131)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q6&7.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 9: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 9: The Instructor is Available For Student Consultation

0.7

62.0

27.1

9.0 1.3 0.5

63.5

25.2 9.2

1.50.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=15836)

Agree (n=6676) Neutral(n=2303)

Disagree(n=347)

StronglyDisagree(n=153)Responses (Total=25,315)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 8: The Instructor Treats Students With Respect

0.60.94.8

22.6

71.1

0.71.14.4

21.1

72.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=18781)

Agree(n=5776)

Neutral(n=1221)

Disagree(n=258)

StronglyDisagree(n=159)Responses (Total=26,195)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q8&9.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 10: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 11: The Instructor Gives Me Timely Feedback on Graded Work

0.8

59.5

28.3

9.32.2

61.1

26.98.9

2.1 0.90.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=15493)

Agree (n=7157) Neutral(n=2356)

Disagree(n=552)

StronglyDisagree(n=218)Responses (Total=25,776)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 10: The Instructor Grades Impartially

55.4

25.1 11.94.8 2.9 3.05.1

56.7

24.0 11.2

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=14004)

Agree(n=6180)

Neutral(n=2909)

Disagree(n=1220)

StronglyDisagree(n=728)Responses (Total=25,041)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q10&11.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 11: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 3: Lab Evaluation

Question 12: The Instructor Explains Appropriate Safety Procedures For This Laboratory/Clinical

0.6

58.6

27.711.6

1.5

59.0

26.412.1

1.9 0.60.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=6778)

Agree (n=3130) Neutral(n=1359)

Disagree(n=192)

StronglyDisagree(n=68)Responses (Total=11,527)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 13: The Instructor Links the Laboratory Exercises to Lecture

0.61.9

12.7

27.0

57.8

0.72.0

13.626.0

57.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=6593)

Agree (n=3038) Neutral(n=1490)

Disagree(n=222)

StronglyDisagree(n=70)

Responses (Total=11,413)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q12&13.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 12: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 4: Overall Evaluation

Question 14: The Instructor Encourages Me to Become Actively Engaged in the Learning Process

0.81.68.3

27.0

62.3 62.4

0.82.08.5

26.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=16265)

Agree (n=6969) Neutral(n=2191)

Disagree(n=459)

StronglyDisagree(n=209)Responses (Total=26,093)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 15: I Would Recommend This Instructor to Other Students

2.12.58.3

22.9

64.2

2.42.88.721.5

64.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=16554)

Agree(n=5753)

Neutral(n=2172)

Disagree(n=664)

StronglyDisagree(n=564)Responses (Total=25,707)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring 07_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad, Acad_FTPT_Q14&15.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 13: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

Question 1: The Course Requirements in the Syllabus Were Clearly Stated

1.26.4

92.4

2.89.6

87.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Yes (n=6255) Neutral (n=496) No (n=111)Responses (Total=6,862)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 2: The Textbook Used For This Course is Suitable

10.4

2.3

87.3 82.7

13.24.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=5576) Neutral (n=722) No (n=177)

Responses (Total=6,475)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q1&2.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 14: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

Question 3: Other Instructional Materials (Tapes, Handouts, Web Sites, etc.) Used in This Course Enhanced My Learning of the Subject Matter

84.1

12.9

2.9

14.84.4

80.8

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=5376) Neutral (n=865) No (n=214)Reponses (Total=6,455

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q3.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 15: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 4: The Instructor Asks Test Questions That Deal With Material That is Covered in the Course

1.7

65.3

26.8

5.4 0.8

64.5

25.5

6.6 2.2 1.20.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4426)

Agree(n=1802)

Neutral(n=389)

Disagree(n=123)

StronglyDisagree(n=62)Responses (Total=6,802)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 5: The Instructor Communicates Clearly

1.0

63.8

26.1

6.7 2.3

62.3

22.57.5 4.7 3.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4394)

Agree(n=1748)

Neutral(n=476)

Disagree(n=204)

StronglyDisagree(n=107)

Responses (Total=6,929)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q4&5.xls Prepared:8/29/07

Page 16: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 6: The Assignments Were Relevant to the Course

5.2

27.6

65.3

0.71.2 1.21.86.0

25.3

65.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4493)

Agree(n=1855)

Neutral(n=373)

Disagree(n=90)

StronglyDisagree(n=57)Responses (Total=6,868)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 7: My Grades Are an Indication of My Learning

56.1

30.2

9.6

2.6 1.4

58.3

28.1

8.5 3.4 1.80.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=3885)

Agree(n=2034)

Neutral(n=640)

Disagree(n=194)

StronglyDisagree(n=103)Responses (Total=6,856)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q6&7.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 17: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 9: The Instructor is Available For Student Consultation

64.3

26.6

7.3 1.3 0.6 2.0

62.8

22.9 9.72.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4300)

Agree(n=1725)

Neutral(n=532)

Disagree(n=109)

StronglyDisagree(n=65)Responses (Total=6,731)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 8: The Instructor Treats Students With Respect

1.21.45.023.0

69.4

1.82.24.120.8

71.1

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4817)

Agree(n=1545)

Neutral(n=328)

Disagree(n=112)

StronglyDisagree(n=94)Responses (Total=6,896)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q8&9.xls Prepared:8/29/07

Page 18: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Question 11: The Instructor Gives Me Timely Feedback on Graded Work

1.0

60.7

26.7

8.7 2.9

62.0

23.6

8.6 3.5 2.30.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4113)

Agree(n=1745)

Neutral(n=585)

Disagree(n=206)

StronglyDisagree(n=89)Responses (Total=6,738)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 10: The Instructor Grades Impartially

59.5

25.4 9.33.5 2.3 2.83.6

58.0

24.3 11.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=3900)

Agree(n=1654)

Neutral(n=648)

Disagree(n=232)

StronglyDisagree(n=160)Responses (Total=6,594)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q10&11.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 19: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 3: Lab Evaluation

Question 12: The Instructor Explains Appropriate Safety Procedures For This Laboratory/Clinical

1.07.7

28.9

61.8

0.5 1.42.69.925.4

60.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=2695)

Agree(n=1227)

Neutral(n=363)

Disagree(n=62)

StronglyDisagree(n=33)Responses (Total=4,380)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 13: The Instructor Links the Laboratory Exercises to Lecture

60.7

28.8

8.6 1.3 0.5 1.7

61.3

23.8 10.23.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=2660)

Agree(n=1204)

Neutral(n=394)

Disagree(n=77)

StronglyDisagree(n=36)

Responses (Total=4,371)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q12&13.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 20: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2007Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 4: Overall Evaluation

Question 14: The Instructor Encourages Me to Become Actively Engaged in theLearning Process

0.92.07.0

27.0

63.1 63.8

1.82.98.6

22.8

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4354)

Agree (n=1786) Neutral (n=511) Disagree(n=152)

StronglyDisagree(n=76)Responses (Total=6,879)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Question 15: I Would Recommend This Instructor to Other Students

2.52.38.023.6

63.6

4.53.48.218.3

65.7

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree(n=4372)

Agree(n=1514)

Neutral(n=548)

Disagree(n=177)

StronglyDisagree(n=203)

Responses (Total=6,814)

Perc

enta

ge

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring07_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC, WFC_FTPT_Q14&15.xls Prepared: 8/29/07

Page 21: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

College Campus Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Central Distance Ed.-CE Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Row % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Willie L Gay Hall Count 163 119 57 20 9 81 449Row % 36.3% 26.5% 12.7% 4.5% 2.0% 18.0% 100.0%

Central Count 2745 2016 1416 243 103 1885 8408Row % 32.6% 24.0% 16.8% 2.9% 1.2% 22.4% 100.0%

Main Ctr - CE Count 31 10 15 4 0 43 103Row % 30.1% 9.7% 14.6% 3.9% 0.0% 41.7% 100.0%

Coleman HS-Off Campus Count 4 0 0 1 0 2 7Row % 57.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 28.6% 100.0%

Health Sci Ctr Count 942 714 459 48 61 775 2999Row % 31.4% 23.8% 15.3% 1.6% 2.0% 25.8% 100.0%

Northeast Automotive Tech. Ctr Count 128 123 55 10 8 9 333Row % 38.4% 36.9% 16.5% 3.0% 2.4% 2.7% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NE Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Row % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Northline Ctr Count 920 669 391 44 19 492 2535Row % 36.3% 26.4% 15.4% 1.7% 0.7% 19.4% 100.0%

Northeast Campus Count 63 59 24 4 3 31 184Row % 34.2% 32.1% 13.0% 2.2% 1.6% 16.8% 100.0%

NE Dual Credit Count 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Row % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Pinemont Ctr Count 311 201 97 13 14 209 845Row % 36.8% 23.8% 11.5% 1.5% 1.7% 24.7% 100.0%

Northwest NW Dual Credit Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Row % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Town&Country Ctr Count 1926 1372 1058 145 53 1525 6079Row % 31.7% 22.6% 17.4% 2.4% 0.9% 25.1% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NW Count 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Row % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Question LR1: "The library resources were adequate for the needs of this course."

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2007

TP: Spring07_library_means.xls 1 08-01-2007

Page 22: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

College Campus Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Question LR1: "The library resources were adequate for the needs of this course."

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2007

Westgate Ctr Count 902 616 498 53 19 1038 3126Row % 28.9% 19.7% 15.9% 1.7% 0.6% 33.2% 100.0%

Southeast Distance Ed.-SE Count 5 0 0 0 0 3 8Row % 62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 100.0%

Eastside Ctr Count 1936 1249 638 81 26 776 4706Row % 41.1% 26.5% 13.6% 1.7% 0.6% 16.5% 100.0%

Southwest Gulfton Ctr Count 62 32 15 10 4 3 126Row % 49.2% 25.4% 11.9% 7.9% 3.2% 2.4% 100.0%

Off Campus - Saigon Tech Count 15 46 57 42 5 15 180Row % 8.3% 25.6% 31.7% 23.3% 2.8% 8.3% 100.0%

SW Dual Credit Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Row % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Alief Ctr Count 1059 730 483 60 25 465 2822Row % 37.5% 25.9% 17.1% 2.1% 0.9% 16.5% 100.0%

Main Ctr - SW Count 1 1 1 0 0 3 6Row % 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Stafford Ctr Count 3070 1780 1290 151 85 1613 7989Row % 38.4% 22.3% 16.1% 1.9% 1.1% 20.2% 100.0%

Missouri City Ctr Count 18 6 0 2 0 22 48Row % 37.5% 12.5% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 45.8% 100.0%

West Loop Ctr Count 1502 955 537 88 34 860 3976Row % 37.8% 24.0% 13.5% 2.2% 0.9% 21.6% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-SW Count 0 2 1 0 0 0 3Row % 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

System SIS Building Count 4 1 3 0 0 3 11Row % 36.4% 9.1% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 27.3% 100.0%

TP: Spring07_library_means.xls 2 08-01-2007

Page 23: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

College Campus Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Central Distance Ed.-CE Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Row % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Willie L Gay Hall Count 147 125 59 14 5 96 446Row % 33.0% 28.0% 13.2% 3.1% 1.1% 21.5% 100.0%

Central Count 2635 1852 1433 145 75 2186 8326Row % 31.6% 22.2% 17.2% 1.7% 0.9% 26.3% 100.0%

Main Ctr - CE Count 28 12 16 3 0 43 102Row % 27.5% 11.8% 15.7% 2.9% 0.0% 42.2% 100.0%

Coleman HS-Off Campus Count 4 0 0 1 0 2 7Row % 57.1% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 28.6% 100.0%

Health Sci Ctr Count 860 621 486 40 45 906 2958Row % 29.1% 21.0% 16.4% 1.4% 1.5% 30.6% 100.0%

Northeast Automotive Tech. Ctr Count 112 127 56 13 4 19 331Row % 33.8% 38.4% 16.9% 3.9% 1.2% 5.7% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NE Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Row % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Northline Ctr Count 835 634 414 35 15 580 2513Row % 33.2% 25.2% 16.5% 1.4% 0.6% 23.1% 100.0%

Northeast Campus Count 62 50 29 2 2 39 184Row % 33.7% 27.2% 15.8% 1.1% 1.1% 21.2% 100.0%

NE Dual Credit Count 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Row % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Pinemont Ctr Count 296 183 107 13 4 235 838Row % 35.3% 21.8% 12.8% 1.6% 0.5% 28.0% 100.0%

Northwest NW Dual Credit Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Row % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Town&Country Ctr Count 1818 1238 1065 116 33 1730 6000Row % 30.3% 20.6% 17.8% 1.9% 0.6% 28.8% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NW Count 1 0 0 0 0 0 1Row % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2007

Question LR2: "The library instruction received for this course was adequate."

TP: Spring2007_library_means.xls 1 08-01-2007

Page 24: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

College Campus Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2007

Question LR2: "The library instruction received for this course was adequate."

Westgate Ctr Count 842 555 512 38 15 1135 3097Row % 27.2% 17.9% 16.5% 1.2% 0.5% 36.6% 100.0%

Southeast Distance Ed.-SE Count 5 0 0 0 0 3 8Row % 62.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 37.5% 100.0%

Eastside Ctr Count 1817 1185 661 64 22 908 4657Row % 39.0% 25.4% 14.2% 1.4% 0.5% 19.5% 100.0%

Southwest Gulfton Ctr Count 58 34 16 4 1 5 118Row % 49.2% 28.8% 13.6% 3.4% 0.8% 4.2% 100.0%

Off Campus - Saigon Tech Count 14 58 64 21 2 19 178Row % 7.9% 32.6% 36.0% 11.8% 1.1% 10.7% 100.0%

SW Dual Credit Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Row % 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Alief Ctr Count 1011 683 510 42 26 524 2796Row % 36.2% 24.4% 18.2% 1.5% 0.9% 18.7% 100.0%

Main Ctr - SW Count 1 2 0 0 0 3 6Row % 16.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Stafford Ctr Count 2888 1701 1323 120 68 1811 7911Row % 36.5% 21.5% 16.7% 1.5% 0.9% 22.9% 100.0%

Missouri City Ctr Count 18 6 1 1 0 22 48Row % 37.5% 12.5% 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% 45.8% 100.0%

West Loop Ctr Count 1414 885 521 63 22 1027 3932Row % 36.0% 22.5% 13.3% 1.6% 0.6% 26.1% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-SW Count 0 2 1 0 0 0 3Row % 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

System SIS Building Count 4 1 2 0 0 4 11Row % 36.4% 9.1% 18.2% 0.0% 0.0% 36.4% 100.0%

TP: Spring2007_library_means.xls 2 08-01-2007

Page 25: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ANTH Central

N 27 27 25 27 28 28 27 27 27 25 26 6 6 28 28 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.16 1.30 1.18 1.29 1.44 1.11 1.37 1.56 1.38 1.83 1.83 1.29 1.29

Northeast

N 10 11 9 13 13 12 12 12 9 10 12 1 1 12 12 Mean 1.20 1.45 1.00 1.46 1.69 1.75 2.08 1.33 2.00 1.90 1.92 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.67

Northwest

N 58 58 58 58 58 58 57 58 54 57 56 10 12 58 56 Mean 1.09 1.05 1.10 1.53 1.48 1.45 1.79 1.24 1.39 1.72 1.61 1.20 1.25 1.33 1.61

Southeast

N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 10 2 2 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.40 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.50 1.90 1.20 1.67 1.89 1.80 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.40

Southwest

N 60 60 55 60 60 60 59 60 59 59 56 12 12 59 59 Mean 1.08 1.13 1.11 1.32 1.37 1.33 1.61 1.27 1.37 1.47 1.39 1.50 1.50 1.41 1.39

N 165 166 157 168 169 168 165 167 158 160 160 31 33 167 165 Mean 1.08 1.14 1.11 1.39 1.39 1.40 1.70 1.23 1.43 1.63 1.53 1.52 1.52 1.39 1.47

ARAB Northwest

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 20 18 19 8 7 20 20 Mean 1.15 1.30 1.10 1.30 1.65 1.35 1.63 1.25 1.20 1.33 1.53 1.38 1.29 1.35 1.55

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 20 18 19 8 7 20 20 Mean 1.15 1.30 1.10 1.30 1.65 1.35 1.63 1.25 1.20 1.33 1.53 1.38 1.29 1.35 1.55

ARTS Central

N 295 243 271 270 301 299 296 300 287 284 292 133 127 298 296 Mean 1.12 1.25 1.18 1.40 1.45 1.30 1.52 1.33 1.38 1.76 1.53 1.41 1.51 1.46 1.44

Northeast

N 149 140 143 145 152 151 152 152 149 142 151 50 48 152 151 Mean 1.02 1.07 1.08 1.30 1.31 1.23 1.38 1.14 1.34 1.80 1.38 1.60 1.52 1.31 1.28

Northwest

N 349 290 332 333 354 351 353 353 339 342 345 115 110 352 347 Mean 1.11 1.19 1.17 1.47 1.51 1.47 1.65 1.38 1.51 1.80 1.54 1.63 1.73 1.53 1.62

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 1 08/01/2007

Page 26: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ARTS Southeast

N 137 124 127 129 137 136 134 135 132 124 133 35 34 136 135 Mean 1.11 1.15 1.22 1.54 1.58 1.42 1.49 1.29 1.52 1.71 1.56 1.49 1.53 1.52 1.48

Southwest

N 411 359 391 396 418 416 415 413 397 389 406 158 153 416 410 Mean 1.11 1.16 1.17 1.45 1.53 1.41 1.65 1.42 1.50 1.71 1.52 1.52 1.50 1.55 1.69

N 1341 1156 1264 1273 1362 1353 1350 1353 1304 1281 1327 491 472 1354 1339 Mean 1.10 1.18 1.17 1.44 1.49 1.38 1.57 1.35 1.46 1.76 1.52 1.52 1.56 1.50 1.55

ASTR Central

N 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 2 3 8 8 Mean 1.25 1.33 1.13 1.25 2.13 1.38 1.25 1.38 1.57 2.38 2.50 1.50 1.33 1.75 2.00

Northwest

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 6 6 Mean 1.17 1.17 1.33 1.50 2.17 1.33 1.50 1.17 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.17 1.67

Southeast

N 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 3 3 8 8 Mean 2.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 3.63 2.75 2.75 2.38 2.43 3.14 3.29 3.33 3.33 3.13 3.63

Southwest

N 18 18 16 18 18 18 18 17 15 16 18 9 9 18 18 Mean 1.33 1.28 1.25 1.56 1.94 1.50 1.89 1.65 1.47 1.94 1.50 2.11 2.11 1.72 1.83

N 40 35 36 40 40 40 40 39 35 37 39 16 17 40 40 Mean 1.43 1.31 1.36 1.78 2.35 1.70 1.88 1.67 1.63 2.11 1.95 2.13 2.18 1.93 2.20

BCIS Central

N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.29 1.43 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.17 1.00 1.00

Northwest

N 96 95 94 96 96 96 96 97 93 90 94 32 33 94 92 Mean 1.14 1.09 1.16 1.35 1.69 1.36 1.53 1.59 1.54 1.66 1.61 1.59 1.64 1.71 1.84

Southeast

N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 6 6 13 13 Mean 1.23 1.15 1.23 1.38 1.54 1.38 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.38 1.62 1.00 1.00 1.31 1.69

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 2 08/01/2007

Page 27: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

BCIS Southwest

N 191 187 180 191 190 189 191 190 181 185 189 144 141 189 187 Mean 1.10 1.16 1.38 1.63 1.83 1.57 1.77 1.50 1.70 1.86 1.76 1.89 1.73 1.87 1.92

N 307 302 294 307 306 305 307 307 294 295 303 188 186 303 299 Mean 1.12 1.14 1.31 1.52 1.76 1.49 1.67 1.51 1.62 1.76 1.69 1.79 1.67 1.78 1.86

BIOL Central

N 505 488 484 511 512 500 503 507 496 492 505 408 406 505 503 Mean 1.07 1.09 1.20 1.47 1.66 1.43 1.75 1.39 1.58 1.77 1.56 1.45 1.46 1.53 1.64

Coleman

N 43 41 41 44 44 43 44 44 43 42 43 42 42 43 43 Mean 1.07 1.12 1.15 1.27 1.70 1.30 1.45 1.16 1.23 1.36 1.21 1.33 1.38 1.26 1.21

Northeast

N 465 449 449 468 467 468 463 464 452 449 459 455 449 466 465 Mean 1.05 1.08 1.15 1.36 1.38 1.32 1.46 1.21 1.35 1.71 1.40 1.28 1.33 1.39 1.36

Northwest

N 845 822 786 851 853 844 849 849 808 809 830 818 820 843 830 Mean 1.09 1.10 1.17 1.38 1.56 1.39 1.65 1.34 1.47 1.74 1.47 1.39 1.40 1.47 1.49

Southeast

N 568 562 530 560 561 554 557 562 546 518 550 508 505 564 538 Mean 1.08 1.09 1.18 1.44 1.60 1.35 1.62 1.32 1.49 1.83 1.49 1.42 1.40 1.44 1.51

Southwest

N 1115 1098 1058 1118 1110 1094 1100 1110 1071 1072 1097 981 978 1107 1081 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.27 1.63 1.82 1.57 1.88 1.47 1.64 1.83 1.69 1.62 1.64 1.74 1.89

N 3541 3460 3348 3552 3547 3503 3516 3536 3416 3382 3484 3212 3200 3528 3460 Mean 1.09 1.11 1.21 1.48 1.64 1.43 1.71 1.36 1.52 1.78 1.54 1.46 1.47 1.54 1.62

CHEM Central

N 219 217 205 223 222 219 222 223 219 218 221 223 220 220 219 Mean 1.16 1.23 1.41 1.53 2.00 1.60 1.88 1.50 1.70 1.80 1.71 1.49 1.79 1.80 1.94

Northeast

N 51 48 47 51 50 51 49 49 51 49 51 51 51 51 50 Mean 1.18 1.17 1.26 1.45 1.62 1.49 1.61 1.51 1.75 1.55 1.51 1.49 1.49 1.47 1.70

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 3 08/01/2007

Page 28: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

CHEM Northwest

N 379 373 358 385 386 386 385 386 379 378 384 381 379 385 378 Mean 1.07 1.25 1.23 1.55 1.72 1.53 1.86 1.48 1.62 1.75 1.65 1.38 1.55 1.59 1.75

Southeast

N 185 184 178 186 183 182 182 186 180 179 178 182 181 183 183 Mean 1.16 1.15 1.28 1.47 1.97 1.52 1.71 1.65 1.81 1.75 1.65 1.54 1.71 1.79 1.81

Southwest

N 397 374 375 397 397 394 392 394 379 387 392 393 388 395 382 Mean 1.08 1.31 1.19 1.43 1.62 1.47 1.74 1.34 1.45 1.75 1.63 1.27 1.36 1.58 1.62

N 1231 1196 1163 1242 1238 1232 1230 1238 1208 1211 1226 1230 1219 1234 1212 Mean 1.11 1.25 1.26 1.49 1.77 1.52 1.79 1.47 1.62 1.75 1.65 1.39 1.55 1.65 1.75

COMM Central

N 32 32 32 32 32 32 30 32 31 32 31 5 5 32 31 Mean 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.41 1.44 1.38 1.70 1.34 1.42 1.78 1.35 1.80 1.80 1.16 1.35

Northwest

N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 16 6 6 17 17 Mean 1.12 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.18 1.25 1.47 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.24 1.24

Southwest

N 44 43 39 43 43 43 43 43 40 41 43 17 16 43 43 Mean 1.00 1.02 1.15 1.21 1.21 1.14 1.44 1.09 1.38 1.61 1.26 1.35 1.38 1.21 1.26

N 93 92 88 92 92 92 90 92 87 90 90 28 27 92 91 Mean 1.03 1.03 1.10 1.27 1.30 1.25 1.50 1.20 1.37 1.64 1.28 1.36 1.37 1.20 1.29

COSC Northwest

N 19 18 18 19 19 19 18 19 19 18 19 9 9 19 19 Mean 1.16 1.11 1.17 1.89 1.84 1.58 1.83 1.95 1.84 1.61 1.74 1.67 1.67 1.89 1.89

Southwest

N 43 42 40 43 43 43 43 43 40 40 43 21 24 43 42 Mean 1.12 1.10 1.18 1.56 1.77 1.53 1.88 1.49 1.40 1.70 1.58 1.81 1.63 1.70 1.76

N 62 60 58 62 62 62 61 62 59 58 62 30 33 62 61 Mean 1.13 1.10 1.17 1.66 1.79 1.55 1.87 1.63 1.54 1.67 1.63 1.77 1.64 1.76 1.80

CRIJ Central

N 38 36 35 38 36 37 36 37 37 36 37 14 12 38 37

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 4 08/01/2007

Page 29: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.03 1.17 1.03 1.08 1.06 1.08 1.14 1.03 1.08 1.33 1.11 1.21 1.17 1.11 1.08

CRIJ Northeast

N 6 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 6 1 1 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Northwest

N 28 28 27 28 28 28 26 27 28 27 28 2 2 28 28 Mean 1.04 1.04 1.07 1.07 1.11 1.14 1.31 1.22 1.25 1.52 1.25 2.00 2.00 1.32 1.21

Southeast

N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 5 4 12 11 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.17 1.25 1.25 1.17 1.25 1.64 1.10 1.20 1.25 1.17 1.09

Southwest

N 47 47 46 48 49 49 48 49 47 47 48 15 15 49 48 Mean 1.02 1.00 1.07 1.27 1.22 1.33 1.31 1.16 1.38 1.77 1.42 1.80 1.80 1.35 1.23

N 131 128 124 132 131 132 128 131 130 125 129 37 34 133 130 Mean 1.02 1.05 1.05 1.15 1.14 1.20 1.24 1.13 1.24 1.56 1.26 1.49 1.50 1.24 1.16

DANC Central

N 87 52 86 81 88 85 85 88 86 86 83 46 45 86 85 Mean 1.13 1.38 1.13 1.44 1.63 1.46 1.54 1.63 1.62 1.94 1.59 1.72 1.60 1.56 1.72

Northwest

N 29 6 23 22 31 30 29 30 30 28 27 9 7 30 29 Mean 1.34 1.83 1.30 1.68 1.58 1.67 1.69 1.63 2.07 2.21 2.04 1.33 1.43 1.40 1.59

N 116 58 109 103 119 115 114 118 116 114 110 55 52 116 114 Mean 1.18 1.43 1.17 1.50 1.61 1.51 1.58 1.63 1.73 2.01 1.70 1.65 1.58 1.52 1.68

DRAM Central

N 34 30 34 29 35 35 33 35 35 34 34 23 23 34 35 Mean 1.09 1.17 1.09 1.31 1.34 1.31 1.30 1.31 1.66 1.68 1.53 1.39 1.39 1.24 1.37

Northeast

N 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 15 15 4 4 15 15 Mean 1.00 1.21 1.20 1.60 1.27 1.33 1.40 1.27 1.29 1.87 1.73 1.00 1.00 1.27 1.27

Northwest

N 38 32 32 28 38 38 32 37 36 28 26 13 13 38 37 Mean 1.00 1.16 1.03 1.25 1.05 1.18 1.22 1.14 1.14 1.29 1.50 1.38 1.38 1.13 1.08

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 5 08/01/2007

Page 30: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

DRAM Southwest

N 13 13 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 1 1 14 14 Mean 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.21 1.21 1.14 1.50 1.14 1.14 1.71 1.43 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.36

N 100 89 93 86 102 102 94 101 99 91 89 41 41 101 101 Mean 1.04 1.15 1.09 1.33 1.21 1.25 1.32 1.22 1.34 1.59 1.54 1.34 1.34 1.19 1.25

ECON Central

N 115 111 98 116 114 115 113 114 107 111 111 37 36 116 114 Mean 1.04 1.25 1.23 1.34 1.33 1.31 1.53 1.25 1.35 1.59 1.32 1.41 1.47 1.36 1.35

Northeast

N 33 33 29 33 33 32 33 33 32 29 32 3 3 33 33 Mean 1.00 1.24 1.14 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.52 1.24 1.22 1.55 1.31 1.67 2.00 1.30 1.33

Northwest

N 210 207 181 208 210 206 207 208 200 202 203 45 42 209 207 Mean 1.06 1.15 1.40 1.64 1.78 1.60 1.92 1.55 1.62 1.90 1.63 1.60 1.64 1.59 1.86

Southeast

N 81 81 73 81 81 81 81 81 76 79 80 25 23 81 80 Mean 1.04 1.11 1.32 1.42 1.69 1.47 1.59 1.36 1.59 2.05 1.59 1.84 1.91 1.49 1.55

Southwest

N 377 370 336 373 377 374 375 376 357 361 366 103 102 376 370 Mean 1.12 1.26 1.33 1.60 1.66 1.56 1.79 1.40 1.58 1.75 1.68 1.88 1.91 1.66 1.77

N 816 802 717 811 815 808 809 812 772 782 792 213 206 815 804 Mean 1.08 1.22 1.32 1.54 1.63 1.52 1.76 1.41 1.54 1.79 1.59 1.73 1.78 1.57 1.69

EDUC Central

N 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 22 21 22 22 13 13 22 21 Mean 1.05 1.09 1.09 1.41 1.36 1.36 1.43 1.23 1.38 1.55 1.45 1.69 1.54 1.50 1.33

Northeast

N 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 3 3 18 18 Mean 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.17 1.22 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.67 2.00 1.17 1.22

Northwest

N 19 18 18 19 20 20 18 18 17 19 19 3 3 19 20 Mean 1.32 1.44 1.33 1.84 2.10 1.90 2.17 1.28 1.71 1.84 1.68 2.67 2.67 1.58 2.10

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 6 08/01/2007

Page 31: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

EDUC Southeast

N 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 16 15 15 16 4 4 16 16 Mean 1.06 1.06 1.27 1.44 1.63 1.44 1.44 1.38 1.47 1.80 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.44 1.50

Southwest

N 59 58 52 58 60 60 59 60 59 53 59 12 11 60 60 Mean 1.02 1.02 1.10 1.09 1.02 1.05 1.24 1.02 1.14 1.58 1.24 1.42 1.45 1.10 1.07

N 134 132 125 133 136 136 132 134 130 127 134 35 34 135 135 Mean 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.30 1.33 1.29 1.41 1.15 1.29 1.58 1.36 1.66 1.65 1.28 1.33

ENGD Central

N 193 185 173 192 196 195 193 194 190 175 190 110 108 196 192 Mean 1.06 1.13 1.23 1.44 1.36 1.33 1.49 1.28 1.40 2.14 1.48 1.60 1.59 1.40 1.43

Northeast

N 160 155 149 161 160 161 162 159 157 152 160 58 56 160 157 Mean 1.14 1.13 1.36 1.61 1.70 1.68 1.72 1.52 1.75 2.14 1.79 1.98 2.05 1.81 1.93

Northwest

N 145 144 138 144 145 143 143 141 141 139 144 60 57 136 136 Mean 1.22 1.28 1.35 1.77 1.82 1.73 1.94 1.55 1.72 1.96 1.83 2.17 2.00 1.86 1.96

Southeast

N 181 178 171 181 181 180 180 179 177 176 177 66 65 181 178 Mean 1.27 1.37 1.39 1.64 1.68 1.58 1.73 1.50 1.72 1.97 1.73 1.85 1.94 1.77 1.88

Southwest

N 354 345 341 354 353 356 352 351 349 346 345 233 231 352 345 Mean 1.07 1.17 1.23 1.44 1.38 1.40 1.55 1.33 1.47 1.67 1.48 1.62 1.61 1.39 1.42

N 1033 1007 972 1032 1035 1035 1030 1024 1014 988 1016 527 517 1025 1008 Mean 1.13 1.21 1.29 1.55 1.54 1.51 1.65 1.41 1.58 1.92 1.62 1.75 1.74 1.59 1.65

ENGF Central

N 152 149 145 153 156 155 155 156 152 151 149 101 102 151 148 Mean 1.22 1.32 1.33 1.67 1.63 1.75 1.78 1.60 1.70 1.74 1.73 1.65 1.78 1.75 1.80

Northwest

N 69 69 65 71 73 73 74 73 73 70 71 35 35 72 72 Mean 1.12 1.19 1.37 1.61 1.45 1.56 1.82 1.48 1.53 1.71 1.65 1.74 1.86 1.58 1.53

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 7 08/01/2007

Page 32: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ENGF Southwest

N 333 327 315 335 335 334 334 333 329 328 332 180 186 333 324 Mean 1.13 1.24 1.25 1.47 1.44 1.49 1.61 1.48 1.51 1.68 1.57 1.69 1.73 1.53 1.61

N 554 545 525 559 564 562 563 562 554 549 552 316 323 556 544 Mean 1.15 1.26 1.29 1.54 1.50 1.57 1.69 1.51 1.57 1.70 1.62 1.69 1.76 1.60 1.65

ENGL Central

N 720 713 659 696 735 734 713 729 710 695 723 226 213 729 725 Mean 1.12 1.12 1.19 1.47 1.49 1.46 1.65 1.33 1.52 1.83 1.68 1.72 1.77 1.49 1.59

Northeast

N 302 299 270 292 305 306 302 305 299 286 300 92 92 306 300 Mean 1.09 1.12 1.29 1.42 1.46 1.38 1.67 1.33 1.51 2.01 1.58 1.72 1.73 1.47 1.56

Northwest

N 788 760 729 727 788 790 770 787 742 745 765 161 161 786 780 Mean 1.15 1.19 1.28 1.62 1.78 1.56 1.95 1.56 1.75 1.90 1.77 1.84 1.89 1.75 1.96

Southeast

N 411 407 399 399 413 411 410 412 406 393 412 119 115 412 405 Mean 1.10 1.10 1.16 1.44 1.42 1.31 1.58 1.35 1.39 1.80 1.55 1.56 1.63 1.44 1.55

Southwest

N 1365 1349 1287 1298 1372 1366 1355 1361 1319 1280 1350 388 386 1360 1341 Mean 1.10 1.12 1.20 1.48 1.49 1.40 1.66 1.39 1.46 1.82 1.57 1.64 1.68 1.51 1.63

N 3586 3528 3344 3412 3613 3607 3550 3594 3476 3399 3550 986 967 3593 3551 Mean 1.11 1.13 1.22 1.50 1.54 1.44 1.71 1.41 1.53 1.85 1.63 1.69 1.73 1.55 1.68

ENGR Southeast

N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.75 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Southwest

N 27 27 24 27 26 27 27 26 24 26 27 6 6 26 25 Mean 1.22 1.33 1.46 1.52 1.81 1.74 2.22 1.35 1.75 1.62 2.00 1.67 1.83 1.50 2.00

N 31 31 28 31 30 31 31 30 28 30 31 7 7 30 29 Mean 1.19 1.29 1.39 1.45 1.70 1.65 2.10 1.30 1.64 1.63 1.87 1.71 1.71 1.43 1.86

ENVR Central

N 57 55 48 59 58 58 59 58 54 57 58 18 18 57 58

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 8 08/01/2007

Page 33: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.12 1.15 1.23 1.92 2.02 1.64 2.02 1.47 1.78 1.98 1.78 1.83 1.89 1.82 2.05

ENVR Northwest

N 41 40 41 41 41 41 38 39 39 39 40 13 10 36 37 Mean 1.15 1.18 1.51 1.46 1.76 1.51 1.68 1.67 1.85 1.79 1.68 1.69 1.40 1.83 1.73

Southeast

N 34 33 26 34 34 34 33 32 31 31 31 6 4 33 32 Mean 1.06 1.03 1.31 1.79 2.15 1.65 1.94 1.50 1.71 2.00 1.68 1.00 1.00 1.85 2.03

Southwest

N 75 74 71 75 75 75 75 74 71 73 74 23 24 75 75 Mean 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.43 1.60 1.43 1.45 1.32 1.58 1.62 1.69 1.65 1.63 1.57 1.52

N 207 202 186 209 208 208 205 203 195 200 203 60 56 201 202 Mean 1.09 1.10 1.24 1.63 1.84 1.54 1.74 1.46 1.71 1.82 1.71 1.65 1.63 1.74 1.79

ESOL Central

N 492 481 470 501 504 498 502 495 499 496 495 447 443 490 472 Mean 1.27 1.35 1.34 1.66 1.65 1.71 1.75 1.61 1.65 1.74 1.72 1.78 1.85 1.68 1.69

Northeast

N 232 229 214 238 242 245 243 244 241 243 237 78 91 239 237 Mean 1.19 1.23 1.32 1.55 1.47 1.54 1.61 1.44 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.64 1.60 1.58

Northwest

N 201 200 196 202 203 200 199 201 201 202 199 190 188 203 204 Mean 1.14 1.18 1.22 1.53 1.42 1.52 1.50 1.40 1.45 1.45 1.49 1.63 1.66 1.51 1.59

Southeast

N 498 498 488 502 504 502 486 504 495 479 494 339 331 487 475 Mean 1.19 1.18 1.25 1.52 1.49 1.66 1.54 1.44 1.54 1.53 1.58 1.63 1.68 1.57 1.56

Southwest

N 387 383 379 408 407 404 402 405 405 403 396 143 131 387 386 Mean 1.14 1.19 1.18 1.46 1.49 1.51 1.50 1.47 1.52 1.51 1.54 1.71 1.58 1.47 1.50

N 1810 1791 1747 1851 1860 1849 1832 1849 1841 1823 1821 1197 1184 1806 1774 Mean 1.20 1.23 1.27 1.55 1.52 1.61 1.59 1.49 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.69 1.73 1.57 1.59

FREN Central

N 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 25 24 28 6 8 26 26 Mean 1.15 1.78 1.33 1.29 1.50 1.21 1.75 1.75 1.72 2.04 1.71 2.00 2.00 1.38 1.77

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 9 08/01/2007

Page 34: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

FREN Southwest

N 28 27 27 28 27 27 27 27 26 27 26 7 6 23 22 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.04 1.18 1.52 1.22 1.26 1.26 1.31 1.41 1.19 1.43 1.50 1.09 1.32

N 55 54 54 56 55 55 55 55 51 51 54 13 14 49 48 Mean 1.07 1.44 1.19 1.23 1.51 1.22 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.71 1.46 1.69 1.79 1.24 1.56

GEOG Central

N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 2 1 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.43 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Northeast

N 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 6 1 1 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.50 1.40 1.25 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33

Northwest

N 38 37 37 38 38 38 38 36 36 37 37 4 5 38 38 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.29 1.24 1.13 1.68 1.11 1.28 1.49 1.32 2.25 2.00 1.37 1.34

Southeast

N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.22 1.11 1.78 1.11 . . 1.00 1.00

Southwest

N 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 4 4 9 9 Mean 1.30 1.10 1.22 1.80 2.00 1.80 2.00 1.50 1.60 1.78 1.80 1.50 1.50 1.56 2.00

N 69 68 67 70 70 70 70 68 67 66 68 11 11 69 69 Mean 1.04 1.03 1.12 1.30 1.30 1.21 1.56 1.21 1.30 1.55 1.37 1.64 1.64 1.28 1.35

GEOL Central

N 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 4 5 6 1 1 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.17 1.20 1.33 1.60 1.60 1.83 1.50 1.25 1.40 1.33 2.00 2.00 1.60 1.60

Northwest

N 62 57 60 62 61 61 62 62 58 58 61 51 55 62 60 Mean 1.00 1.23 1.02 1.10 1.10 1.08 1.27 1.08 1.26 1.43 1.11 1.25 1.20 1.18 1.13

Southeast

N 10 9 9 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 10 9 9 10 10 Mean 1.70 1.44 1.67 2.90 2.90 2.50 2.33 1.80 2.00 2.30 2.50 2.33 2.56 2.50 2.70

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 10 08/01/2007

Page 35: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

GEOL Southwest

N 94 93 92 95 95 95 95 95 89 89 94 80 81 94 93 Mean 1.07 1.05 1.16 1.38 1.57 1.27 1.51 1.34 1.38 1.63 1.56 1.26 1.23 1.47 1.49

N 172 165 166 173 171 171 172 173 160 162 171 141 146 171 168 Mean 1.08 1.14 1.14 1.36 1.48 1.29 1.48 1.28 1.37 1.59 1.45 1.33 1.31 1.43 1.44

GERM Central

N 17 17 16 17 17 17 17 16 15 15 17 6 7 17 16 Mean 1.06 1.29 1.19 1.12 1.12 1.06 1.59 1.00 1.20 1.33 1.29 1.17 1.14 1.29 1.13

N 17 17 16 17 17 17 17 16 15 15 17 6 7 17 16 Mean 1.06 1.29 1.19 1.12 1.12 1.06 1.59 1.00 1.20 1.33 1.29 1.17 1.14 1.29 1.13

GOVT Central

N 296 291 261 301 297 297 300 298 281 287 284 96 90 300 293 Mean 1.17 1.19 1.31 1.71 1.84 1.62 1.83 1.46 1.70 1.91 1.80 1.78 1.94 1.74 1.87

Northeast

N 188 187 160 191 190 190 191 189 180 170 187 44 41 185 187 Mean 1.11 1.06 1.25 1.39 1.52 1.39 1.54 1.40 1.64 1.81 1.55 1.55 1.61 1.52 1.52

Northwest

N 672 659 618 681 683 679 681 673 639 643 669 127 118 677 676 Mean 1.06 1.14 1.22 1.45 1.52 1.42 1.76 1.34 1.47 1.79 1.54 1.80 1.81 1.54 1.56

Southeast

N 284 281 271 280 284 280 278 281 268 264 273 67 59 279 277 Mean 1.03 1.08 1.16 1.37 1.36 1.37 1.54 1.25 1.37 1.70 1.45 1.64 1.75 1.38 1.34

Southwest

N 1207 1194 1099 1217 1218 1199 1209 1215 1165 1157 1176 307 293 1209 1192 Mean 1.07 1.14 1.22 1.42 1.40 1.37 1.62 1.30 1.44 1.64 1.52 1.58 1.60 1.46 1.45

N 2647 2612 2409 2670 2672 2645 2659 2656 2533 2521 2589 641 601 2650 2625 Mean 1.08 1.13 1.22 1.46 1.48 1.41 1.67 1.33 1.48 1.73 1.55 1.66 1.71 1.51 1.52

GUST Central

N 580 561 543 587 589 588 583 585 579 551 568 297 289 582 569 Mean 1.11 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.34 1.39 1.54 1.29 1.48 1.79 1.53 1.61 1.67 1.42 1.41

Northeast

N 346 340 323 349 346 347 348 347 340 329 342 212 215 347 341

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 11 08/01/2007

Page 36: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.09 1.17 1.23 1.39 1.43 1.44 1.60 1.47 1.65 1.93 1.60 1.70 1.67 1.45 1.55

GUST Northwest

N 596 598 571 604 610 608 609 602 589 583 595 220 212 600 592 Mean 1.08 1.10 1.22 1.32 1.37 1.34 1.49 1.25 1.37 1.59 1.52 1.66 1.75 1.43 1.41

Southeast

N 353 345 336 353 351 352 350 346 345 339 345 228 225 344 335 Mean 1.09 1.09 1.23 1.36 1.36 1.34 1.47 1.29 1.39 1.69 1.48 1.63 1.67 1.36 1.39

Southwest

N 1208 1195 1165 1219 1217 1213 1205 1206 1191 1167 1188 804 800 1214 1171 Mean 1.11 1.12 1.22 1.38 1.43 1.40 1.53 1.36 1.49 1.73 1.59 1.54 1.55 1.42 1.49

N 3083 3039 2938 3112 3113 3108 3095 3086 3044 2969 3038 1761 1741 3087 3008 Mean 1.10 1.12 1.22 1.36 1.39 1.38 1.53 1.33 1.47 1.73 1.55 1.60 1.62 1.42 1.45

HIST Central

N 572 562 537 574 575 571 573 570 553 558 558 193 189 564 560 Mean 1.08 1.24 1.23 1.33 1.32 1.35 1.55 1.28 1.42 1.65 1.51 1.65 1.66 1.49 1.43

Northeast

N 243 241 230 248 246 244 245 242 240 233 242 70 67 244 245 Mean 1.06 1.10 1.24 1.52 1.63 1.57 1.72 1.50 1.63 1.85 1.64 1.81 1.75 1.68 1.72

Northwest

N 809 789 756 817 814 808 808 806 766 758 797 134 129 800 797 Mean 1.08 1.33 1.23 1.57 1.53 1.50 1.86 1.40 1.57 1.82 1.72 1.78 1.79 1.62 1.74

Southeast

N 294 289 276 295 295 294 292 294 292 274 294 78 76 292 290 Mean 1.09 1.16 1.18 1.38 1.34 1.38 1.55 1.25 1.38 1.72 1.41 1.64 1.63 1.46 1.40

Southwest

N 1132 1083 1072 1134 1133 1128 1126 1125 1071 1068 1095 309 301 1124 1106 Mean 1.07 1.26 1.17 1.42 1.39 1.40 1.61 1.30 1.45 1.77 1.54 1.56 1.66 1.55 1.49

N 3050 2964 2871 3068 3063 3045 3044 3037 2922 2891 2986 784 762 3024 2998 Mean 1.08 1.25 1.20 1.45 1.43 1.43 1.67 1.33 1.48 1.76 1.58 1.65 1.69 1.56 1.55

HUMA Central

N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 4 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.14 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.14 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.25 1.25 1.29 1.29

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 12 08/01/2007

Page 37: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

HUMA Northeast

N 25 25 25 24 25 25 23 25 24 24 24 7 7 25 24 Mean 1.72 1.84 1.72 2.50 2.64 2.48 2.61 1.76 2.13 2.29 2.50 2.57 3.14 2.44 2.71

Northwest

N 32 32 32 31 32 31 29 32 29 29 30 6 5 32 32 Mean 1.31 1.28 1.31 1.90 2.09 1.87 2.28 1.44 1.83 2.21 2.53 2.50 2.20 1.97 2.09

Southeast

N 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 24 23 21 22 5 5 24 24 Mean 1.29 1.42 1.21 1.67 2.17 1.83 1.87 1.50 1.65 1.86 1.86 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.13

Southwest

N 41 42 41 42 42 42 42 42 42 41 42 12 12 40 41 Mean 1.24 1.26 1.10 1.43 1.38 1.50 1.50 1.24 1.50 1.78 1.71 1.58 1.67 1.55 1.44

N 129 130 129 128 130 129 124 130 125 122 125 34 33 128 128 Mean 1.35 1.42 1.29 1.77 1.94 1.83 1.94 1.43 1.71 1.97 2.06 1.97 2.06 1.80 1.96

JAPN Northwest

N 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

N 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

MATD Central

N 655 647 588 670 668 664 666 665 638 632 649 364 379 661 655 Mean 1.10 1.12 1.33 1.38 1.69 1.40 1.71 1.40 1.66 1.81 1.65 1.82 1.77 1.66 1.67

Northeast

N 485 482 429 496 487 493 490 494 475 471 486 207 220 487 487 Mean 1.08 1.09 1.34 1.42 1.67 1.43 1.69 1.42 1.70 1.96 1.62 1.81 1.79 1.62 1.63

Northwest

N 775 765 691 776 777 777 776 772 753 725 756 249 253 764 753 Mean 1.09 1.15 1.32 1.36 1.55 1.39 1.63 1.32 1.53 1.82 1.56 1.68 1.71 1.59 1.62

Southeast

N 573 537 516 565 569 565 565 562 550 529 556 199 190 558 548 Mean 1.07 1.20 1.30 1.38 1.47 1.33 1.55 1.34 1.49 1.78 1.59 1.58 1.63 1.52 1.54

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 13 08/01/2007

Page 38: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

MATD Southwest

N 1548 1524 1459 1563 1560 1558 1556 1557 1501 1474 1533 752 766 1552 1523 Mean 1.08 1.11 1.24 1.33 1.50 1.35 1.54 1.30 1.50 1.78 1.53 1.61 1.58 1.49 1.48

N 4036 3955 3683 4070 4061 4057 4053 4050 3917 3831 3980 1771 1808 4022 3966 Mean 1.08 1.13 1.29 1.36 1.56 1.37 1.60 1.34 1.55 1.82 1.58 1.68 1.67 1.56 1.56

MATH Central

N 417 411 342 425 425 423 422 424 403 410 420 146 144 421 416 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.47 1.50 1.74 1.52 1.79 1.50 1.77 1.80 1.69 1.83 1.80 1.77 1.85

Northeast

N 236 235 191 240 240 239 240 238 223 217 237 75 73 236 237 Mean 1.08 1.11 1.31 1.34 1.51 1.27 1.50 1.32 1.48 1.65 1.42 1.72 1.75 1.38 1.46

Northwest

N 651 639 543 662 655 655 652 653 616 626 641 165 164 647 641 Mean 1.09 1.15 1.29 1.40 1.65 1.42 1.71 1.43 1.63 1.70 1.59 1.73 1.82 1.73 1.75

Southeast

N 388 385 351 391 391 389 388 388 379 367 380 102 96 382 375 Mean 1.05 1.09 1.23 1.30 1.48 1.27 1.55 1.25 1.41 1.67 1.39 1.55 1.51 1.40 1.41

Southwest

N 1466 1439 1280 1473 1473 1460 1464 1459 1376 1391 1440 434 423 1461 1423 Mean 1.10 1.13 1.28 1.36 1.55 1.38 1.62 1.38 1.56 1.66 1.53 1.69 1.73 1.57 1.56

N 3158 3109 2707 3191 3184 3166 3166 3162 2997 3011 3118 922 900 3147 3092 Mean 1.09 1.13 1.30 1.38 1.58 1.38 1.64 1.39 1.58 1.69 1.54 1.70 1.74 1.59 1.62

MUAP Central

N 9 4 8 7 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 6 6 9 9 Mean 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.22 1.25 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.11

Northwest

N 7 4 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 1 1 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Southwest

N 10 6 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 5 5 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00

N 26 14 24 21 26 26 24 26 26 23 23 12 12 26 26

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 14 08/01/2007

Page 39: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.04 1.07 1.00 1.05 1.04 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.22 1.04 1.17 1.17 1.04 1.04

MUSI Central

N 48 42 43 48 47 47 46 47 47 47 47 19 19 48 47 Mean 1.00 1.36 1.07 1.13 1.15 1.11 1.22 1.11 1.19 1.43 1.13 1.53 1.63 1.21 1.19

Northwest

N 157 134 148 156 167 164 161 167 157 151 159 57 54 165 162 Mean 1.08 1.14 1.18 1.26 1.36 1.23 1.30 1.22 1.42 1.43 1.33 1.33 1.44 1.27 1.30

Southwest

N 115 112 109 117 120 119 121 120 117 116 117 40 40 121 120 Mean 1.02 1.10 1.11 1.22 1.20 1.24 1.40 1.18 1.25 1.34 1.26 1.55 1.55 1.28 1.34

N 320 288 300 321 334 330 328 334 321 314 323 116 113 334 329 Mean 1.04 1.16 1.14 1.22 1.27 1.22 1.33 1.19 1.32 1.40 1.28 1.44 1.51 1.27 1.30

PHED Central

N 105 77 98 102 106 106 99 106 102 98 101 49 46 106 104 Mean 1.03 1.17 1.11 1.23 1.24 1.21 1.29 1.26 1.29 1.38 1.28 1.45 1.52 1.28 1.30

Northwest

N 33 28 31 32 33 32 32 33 33 30 31 15 14 33 32 Mean 1.03 1.07 1.03 1.16 1.09 1.09 1.19 1.06 1.03 1.20 1.16 1.13 1.00 1.12 1.06

Southwest

N 30 19 20 27 28 27 29 29 28 27 26 19 17 30 28 Mean 1.00 1.32 1.15 1.41 1.14 1.07 1.24 1.17 1.21 1.44 1.27 1.11 1.06 1.17 1.18

N 168 124 149 161 167 165 160 168 163 155 158 83 77 169 164 Mean 1.02 1.17 1.10 1.24 1.19 1.16 1.26 1.21 1.23 1.35 1.25 1.31 1.32 1.23 1.23

PHIL Central

N 45 40 43 42 45 46 43 45 41 42 44 7 7 44 43 Mean 1.18 1.20 1.35 1.57 1.80 1.59 2.16 1.51 1.63 2.02 1.70 2.29 2.14 1.91 2.05

Northeast

N 9 8 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 4 9 9 Mean 1.22 1.13 1.22 1.38 1.56 1.22 1.56 1.22 1.11 1.67 1.44 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.33

Northwest

N 78 77 65 78 78 77 78 76 72 73 76 18 17 78 76 Mean 1.08 1.12 1.29 1.44 1.47 1.38 1.63 1.28 1.47 1.70 1.67 1.44 1.29 1.35 1.34

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 15 08/01/2007

Page 40: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

PHIL Southeast

N 52 46 49 51 52 52 49 52 50 51 48 21 20 51 50 Mean 1.04 1.22 1.10 1.25 1.33 1.25 1.43 1.21 1.38 1.61 1.29 1.29 1.15 1.18 1.24

Southwest

N 83 83 71 84 84 84 83 84 79 81 83 15 13 83 81 Mean 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.25 1.45 1.31 1.55 1.24 1.38 1.65 1.36 1.47 1.54 1.47 1.38

N 267 254 237 263 268 268 262 266 251 256 260 65 61 265 259 Mean 1.12 1.17 1.23 1.36 1.50 1.36 1.65 1.29 1.44 1.72 1.50 1.46 1.38 1.44 1.45

PHYS Central

N 95 91 72 98 98 97 97 98 87 89 95 50 50 94 95 Mean 1.19 1.47 1.60 1.91 2.27 1.70 2.22 1.58 1.90 1.82 2.12 1.86 2.06 1.99 2.27

Northeast

N 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.17 1.17 1.00 1.00

Northwest

N 98 90 88 94 99 99 97 99 93 95 96 72 72 98 97 Mean 1.17 1.23 1.33 1.57 2.00 1.55 1.88 1.47 1.73 1.85 1.88 1.82 1.85 1.73 1.95

Southeast

N 35 35 33 34 35 33 33 35 34 33 34 31 31 34 33 Mean 1.17 1.14 1.15 1.29 1.51 1.36 1.33 1.40 1.24 1.58 1.47 1.52 1.45 1.38 1.39

Southwest

N 194 180 175 190 196 194 196 195 181 189 190 149 150 191 190 Mean 1.09 1.31 1.37 1.52 1.78 1.58 1.95 1.54 1.67 1.67 1.67 1.60 1.58 1.62 1.79

N 429 403 374 423 435 430 430 434 402 413 422 308 309 424 422 Mean 1.14 1.31 1.38 1.60 1.90 1.57 1.93 1.52 1.69 1.73 1.79 1.68 1.70 1.70 1.89

PSYC Central

N 454 444 394 464 467 463 458 460 442 430 460 142 145 463 455 Mean 1.06 1.07 1.27 1.34 1.40 1.34 1.58 1.24 1.41 1.72 1.49 1.64 1.70 1.42 1.39

Northeast

N 203 199 195 205 204 205 204 204 195 193 204 64 65 202 200 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.22 1.34 1.36 1.37 1.49 1.23 1.42 1.87 1.53 1.61 1.69 1.48 1.39

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 16 08/01/2007

Page 41: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

PSYC Northwest

N 610 603 568 628 626 622 622 621 604 593 607 147 143 623 617 Mean 1.05 1.11 1.18 1.40 1.45 1.37 1.66 1.32 1.49 1.74 1.51 1.64 1.62 1.54 1.53

Southeast

N 244 246 238 247 248 247 244 245 240 234 239 87 80 242 241 Mean 1.02 1.06 1.11 1.20 1.17 1.19 1.38 1.15 1.23 1.52 1.28 1.41 1.43 1.21 1.18

Southwest

N 930 918 887 938 935 931 930 928 894 878 917 297 293 928 914 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.19 1.45 1.43 1.41 1.65 1.34 1.48 1.75 1.54 1.73 1.76 1.48 1.49

N 2441 2410 2282 2482 2480 2468 2458 2458 2375 2328 2427 737 726 2458 2427 Mean 1.06 1.10 1.19 1.38 1.40 1.36 1.60 1.29 1.44 1.73 1.50 1.65 1.68 1.46 1.44

SGNL Coleman

N 45 45 44 45 45 45 40 45 43 43 41 17 17 45 45 Mean 1.07 1.20 1.09 1.42 1.36 1.33 1.68 1.16 1.42 1.60 1.66 1.71 1.41 1.18 1.16

N 45 45 44 45 45 45 40 45 43 43 41 17 17 45 45 Mean 1.07 1.20 1.09 1.42 1.36 1.33 1.68 1.16 1.42 1.60 1.66 1.71 1.41 1.18 1.16

SOCI Central

N 210 207 190 210 209 208 208 206 198 199 203 55 54 207 203 Mean 1.10 1.10 1.26 1.33 1.39 1.38 1.60 1.25 1.49 1.76 1.55 1.64 1.70 1.39 1.41

Northeast

N 94 91 91 94 92 92 94 95 91 88 94 32 30 95 92 Mean 1.12 1.11 1.23 1.54 1.64 1.51 1.62 1.32 1.64 1.93 1.63 1.53 1.73 1.65 1.57

Northwest

N 365 357 343 371 366 366 365 366 342 357 352 88 86 362 356 Mean 1.07 1.17 1.21 1.36 1.60 1.41 1.58 1.36 1.53 1.74 1.53 1.43 1.44 1.40 1.41

Southeast

N 124 123 116 124 124 124 124 123 118 113 123 37 37 122 116 Mean 1.22 1.19 1.36 1.59 1.78 1.59 1.77 1.49 1.78 1.96 1.84 1.70 1.81 1.72 1.78

Southwest

N 549 535 496 558 561 554 556 555 533 531 542 148 142 552 553 Mean 1.13 1.18 1.28 1.50 1.57 1.46 1.77 1.33 1.55 1.83 1.68 1.80 1.83 1.60 1.62

N 1342 1313 1236 1357 1352 1344 1347 1345 1282 1288 1314 360 349 1338 1320

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 17 08/01/2007

Page 42: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.12 1.16 1.26 1.45 1.58 1.45 1.68 1.34 1.56 1.82 1.63 1.65 1.70 1.53 1.54

SPAN Central

N 167 166 155 168 169 169 169 168 158 162 168 81 91 166 163 Mean 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.36 1.51 1.37 1.55 1.38 1.52 1.72 1.40 1.65 1.63 1.36 1.48

Northeast

N 35 33 33 36 36 36 36 36 36 34 36 24 25 35 34 Mean 1.09 1.12 1.09 1.31 1.44 1.31 1.39 1.31 1.47 1.82 1.31 1.75 1.64 1.43 1.53

Northwest

N 128 125 118 133 130 132 132 133 120 122 127 46 55 132 127 Mean 1.13 1.14 1.18 1.30 1.60 1.30 1.52 1.30 1.48 1.57 1.43 1.52 1.55 1.39 1.53

Southeast

N 52 52 51 52 51 52 52 52 50 49 52 21 20 50 50 Mean 1.12 1.08 1.29 1.42 1.59 1.37 1.44 1.25 1.40 1.49 1.37 1.57 1.65 1.20 1.36

Southwest

N 182 177 171 180 179 179 177 177 172 174 179 69 73 182 176 Mean 1.09 1.24 1.23 1.37 1.45 1.32 1.68 1.44 1.52 1.56 1.36 1.68 1.62 1.37 1.49

N 564 553 528 569 565 568 566 566 536 541 562 241 264 565 550 Mean 1.10 1.18 1.23 1.35 1.51 1.33 1.57 1.36 1.49 1.62 1.39 1.64 1.61 1.36 1.49

SPCH Central

N 275 270 254 260 277 277 270 278 268 256 273 103 98 274 273 Mean 1.11 1.20 1.19 1.33 1.25 1.30 1.48 1.35 1.37 1.77 1.41 1.56 1.72 1.27 1.30

Northeast

N 109 110 105 109 111 109 111 110 109 102 109 30 30 109 109 Mean 1.02 1.05 1.19 1.25 1.14 1.17 1.26 1.15 1.25 1.66 1.23 1.47 1.43 1.19 1.18

Northwest

N 229 169 196 188 232 232 225 229 217 217 225 45 42 230 227 Mean 1.14 1.36 1.24 1.41 1.41 1.34 1.50 1.36 1.35 1.60 1.54 1.47 1.43 1.29 1.37

Southeast

N 141 139 132 138 141 141 139 139 138 134 138 35 34 135 136 Mean 1.11 1.09 1.13 1.30 1.30 1.23 1.50 1.29 1.44 1.61 1.47 1.46 1.41 1.31 1.28

Southwest

N 358 355 332 358 359 360 359 359 348 344 356 129 123 357 354

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 18 08/01/2007

Page 43: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.07 1.10 1.20 1.46 1.33 1.36 1.52 1.26 1.39 1.69 1.41 1.53 1.58 1.33 1.36

N 1112 1043 1019 1053 1120 1119 1104 1115 1080 1053 1101 342 327 1105 1099 Mean 1.09 1.16 1.19 1.38 1.30 1.31 1.48 1.30 1.37 1.68 1.43 1.52 1.57 1.29 1.32

TECA Central

N 35 35 34 35 34 35 33 35 34 35 34 12 12 34 33 Mean 1.09 1.11 1.24 1.29 1.26 1.34 1.42 1.26 1.59 1.91 1.53 1.42 1.42 1.32 1.36

Northeast

N 29 29 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 5 7 28 28 Mean 1.03 1.10 1.11 1.21 1.07 1.24 1.28 1.17 1.24 1.41 1.31 1.20 1.14 1.29 1.29

Northwest

N 74 71 67 72 72 72 72 71 68 66 68 18 16 71 68 Mean 1.04 1.03 1.09 1.36 1.39 1.29 1.56 1.21 1.43 1.53 1.53 1.39 1.56 1.37 1.46

Southeast

N 52 51 49 53 53 52 52 52 49 51 50 11 11 51 51 Mean 1.17 1.06 1.24 1.64 1.66 1.40 1.50 1.25 1.39 2.06 1.56 1.73 2.00 1.86 1.96

Southwest

N 72 71 68 67 72 72 67 72 70 61 65 11 11 72 70 Mean 1.04 1.03 1.10 1.15 1.14 1.14 1.22 1.04 1.10 1.56 1.20 1.09 1.00 1.08 1.19

N 262 257 246 256 260 260 253 259 250 242 246 57 57 256 250 Mean 1.07 1.05 1.15 1.34 1.32 1.27 1.41 1.17 1.33 1.69 1.42 1.39 1.46 1.37 1.45

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_ACAD.spo Page 19 08/01/2007

Page 44: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ACCT Central

N 111 109 95 116 116 113 116 113 106 106 111 44 46 112 111 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.34 1.60 1.69 1.54 1.90 1.31 1.61 1.65 1.64 1.98 1.98 1.85 1.96

Northwest

N 25 25 20 26 26 25 25 26 24 26 26 9 8 26 26 Mean 1.32 1.36 1.60 1.85 1.92 1.64 1.84 1.54 1.96 1.73 1.69 1.67 1.75 2.00 2.31

Southeast

N 65 65 56 65 64 65 65 65 63 63 64 11 11 64 64 Mean 1.02 1.08 1.23 1.43 1.41 1.43 1.77 1.12 1.40 1.57 1.52 1.45 1.45 1.30 1.50

Southwest

N 347 345 322 351 351 347 349 347 338 333 342 106 103 346 341 Mean 1.09 1.14 1.25 1.50 1.70 1.46 1.69 1.35 1.54 1.68 1.54 1.77 1.74 1.56 1.71

N 548 544 493 558 557 550 555 551 531 528 543 170 168 548 542 Mean 1.10 1.15 1.28 1.53 1.68 1.48 1.75 1.32 1.56 1.66 1.56 1.80 1.79 1.61 1.77

ACNT Central

N 114 104 104 112 115 116 115 116 111 113 111 31 32 116 115 Mean 1.11 1.15 1.35 1.71 1.87 1.62 1.83 1.43 1.71 1.77 1.75 2.06 2.13 1.78 1.92

Northwest

N 35 35 27 35 36 34 35 36 30 34 33 8 9 34 34 Mean 1.29 1.37 1.37 1.69 1.81 1.71 1.86 2.11 2.03 1.82 1.67 1.50 1.44 1.76 2.29

Southeast

N 26 26 25 26 26 26 26 26 24 20 24 6 7 25 26 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.19 1.19 1.27 1.42 1.08 1.25 1.40 1.46 1.50 1.43 1.16 1.15

Southwest

N 239 227 217 237 240 239 235 239 228 224 232 94 98 239 234 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.34 1.57 1.84 1.54 1.76 1.44 1.57 1.74 1.73 1.89 1.88 1.75 1.85

N 414 392 373 410 417 415 411 417 393 391 400 139 146 414 409 Mean 1.13 1.17 1.33 1.59 1.80 1.56 1.77 1.47 1.62 1.74 1.72 1.89 1.88 1.72 1.86

ARCE Southwest

N 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.40 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.33 1.20 1.33 1.40 1.40 1.67 1.17

N 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.40 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.33 1.20 1.33 1.40 1.40 1.67 1.17

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 1 08/01/2007

Page 45: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ARTC Southwest

N 152 116 144 129 152 153 141 152 143 137 145 77 85 153 153 Mean 1.05 1.24 1.18 1.55 1.49 1.27 1.55 1.33 1.48 1.72 1.60 1.78 1.53 1.40 1.40

N 152 116 144 129 152 153 141 152 143 137 145 77 85 153 153 Mean 1.05 1.24 1.18 1.55 1.49 1.27 1.55 1.33 1.48 1.72 1.60 1.78 1.53 1.40 1.40

ARTV Southwest

N 46 44 46 41 45 46 43 46 44 42 45 19 24 47 46 Mean 1.04 1.41 1.20 1.44 1.64 1.33 1.65 1.50 1.64 1.48 1.98 1.32 1.25 1.34 1.72

N 46 44 46 41 45 46 43 46 44 42 45 19 24 47 46 Mean 1.04 1.41 1.20 1.44 1.64 1.33 1.65 1.50 1.64 1.48 1.98 1.32 1.25 1.34 1.72

AUMT Northeast

N 238 237 235 236 237 238 234 235 231 224 231 237 235 237 232 Mean 1.09 1.12 1.19 1.43 1.49 1.53 1.65 1.48 1.57 1.70 1.72 1.48 1.54 1.65 1.62

N 238 237 235 236 237 238 234 235 231 224 231 237 235 237 232 Mean 1.09 1.12 1.19 1.43 1.49 1.53 1.65 1.48 1.57 1.70 1.72 1.48 1.54 1.65 1.62

BITC Northeast

N 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 10 10 Mean 1.40 1.50 1.67 2.20 2.50 1.90 2.20 1.80 2.10 2.20 2.20 1.50 1.67 2.10 2.80

N 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 10 10 Mean 1.40 1.50 1.67 2.20 2.50 1.90 2.20 1.80 2.10 2.20 2.20 1.50 1.67 2.10 2.80

BMGT Central

N 36 36 31 38 37 37 37 37 36 36 37 11 8 34 38 Mean 1.06 1.11 1.23 1.39 1.38 1.49 1.70 1.43 1.44 1.44 1.49 1.82 2.13 1.47 1.53

Northeast

N 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.17 2.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33

Northwest

N 17 17 17 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 19 6 4 18 18 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.21 1.21 1.05 1.16 1.05 1.17 1.17 1.05 1.33 1.50 1.06 1.06

Southeast

N 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 9 3 3 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.10 1.11 1.10 1.20 1.00 1.30 1.10 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 2 08/01/2007

Page 46: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

BMGT Southwest

N 33 32 31 33 33 33 32 33 32 31 32 12 12 33 31 Mean 1.03 1.06 1.06 1.42 1.24 1.42 1.66 1.21 1.28 1.48 1.31 1.17 1.17 1.24 1.32

N 101 100 93 106 105 105 104 105 102 98 103 35 30 100 102 Mean 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.33 1.29 1.33 1.53 1.26 1.31 1.43 1.30 1.43 1.50 1.27 1.32

BNKG Central

N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 2 2 7 8 Mean 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.88 1.63 1.25 1.50 1.38 1.43 1.88 1.63 1.50 2.00 1.71 1.75

N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 2 2 7 8 Mean 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.88 1.63 1.25 1.50 1.38 1.43 1.88 1.63 1.50 2.00 1.71 1.75

BUSG Central

N 60 52 57 60 63 61 60 63 60 59 63 26 24 61 62 Mean 1.07 1.04 1.14 1.30 1.43 1.36 1.50 1.41 1.35 1.63 1.62 1.73 1.79 1.46 1.55

Northwest

N 50 49 45 51 51 51 51 51 49 49 50 8 8 50 51 Mean 1.04 1.14 1.20 1.29 1.24 1.35 1.53 1.24 1.35 1.65 1.42 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.27

Southeast

N 15 15 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 4 4 15 15 Mean 1.00 1.07 1.15 1.27 1.53 1.13 1.47 1.20 1.33 1.53 1.27 1.25 1.00 1.27 1.27

Southwest

N 69 53 60 63 69 68 66 69 68 64 66 21 21 69 69 Mean 1.04 1.13 1.05 1.25 1.20 1.24 1.42 1.32 1.35 1.52 1.32 1.48 1.48 1.28 1.28

N 194 169 175 189 198 195 192 198 192 187 194 59 57 195 197 Mean 1.05 1.10 1.13 1.28 1.31 1.30 1.48 1.32 1.35 1.59 1.44 1.58 1.58 1.36 1.36

CDEC Central

N 45 39 44 44 45 45 44 44 43 43 43 26 28 45 44 Mean 1.13 1.18 1.30 1.50 1.27 1.38 1.27 1.09 1.23 1.37 1.21 1.23 1.32 1.31 1.36

Northeast

N 52 53 51 51 53 53 50 53 53 47 46 43 44 53 53 Mean 1.02 1.08 1.14 1.49 1.40 1.42 1.70 1.36 1.36 1.72 1.43 1.63 1.66 1.42 1.34

N 97 92 95 95 98 98 94 97 96 90 89 69 72 98 97 Mean 1.07 1.12 1.21 1.49 1.34 1.40 1.50 1.24 1.30 1.56 1.33 1.48 1.53 1.37 1.35

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 3 08/01/2007

Page 47: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

CETT Northwest

N 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.44 1.63 1.78 1.89 1.78 2.44 1.56 2.00 1.88 2.11 2.11 2.22 2.11 2.33

N 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.44 1.63 1.78 1.89 1.78 2.44 1.56 2.00 1.88 2.11 2.11 2.22 2.11 2.33

CHEF Central

N 111 107 107 111 109 108 108 111 104 105 100 73 73 108 105 Mean 1.08 1.11 1.19 1.31 1.49 1.36 1.56 1.25 1.45 1.63 1.63 1.25 1.34 1.49 1.47

N 111 107 107 111 109 108 108 111 104 105 100 73 73 108 105 Mean 1.08 1.11 1.19 1.31 1.49 1.36 1.56 1.25 1.45 1.63 1.63 1.25 1.34 1.49 1.47

CJLE Northeast

N 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 20 19 19 20 14 14 20 18 Mean 1.25 1.10 1.10 1.60 1.55 1.58 1.75 1.95 1.68 1.68 1.85 1.71 1.93 1.70 1.72

N 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 20 19 19 20 14 14 20 18 Mean 1.25 1.10 1.10 1.60 1.55 1.58 1.75 1.95 1.68 1.68 1.85 1.71 1.93 1.70 1.72

CMSW Coleman

N 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 28 29 13 12 29 28 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.07 1.18 1.21 1.24 1.52 1.14 1.28 1.14 1.38 1.46 1.50 1.17 1.11

N 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 28 29 13 12 29 28 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.07 1.18 1.21 1.24 1.52 1.14 1.28 1.14 1.38 1.46 1.50 1.17 1.11

CNBT Central

N 26 25 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 26 28 14 14 28 27 Mean 1.23 1.20 1.25 1.46 1.50 1.46 1.61 1.36 1.50 1.88 1.46 1.50 1.64 1.50 1.52

N 26 25 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 26 28 14 14 28 27 Mean 1.23 1.20 1.25 1.46 1.50 1.46 1.61 1.36 1.50 1.88 1.46 1.50 1.64 1.50 1.52

CPMT Northwest

N 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.80 1.40 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.50 1.75 1.40 1.60

N 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.80 1.40 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.50 1.75 1.40 1.60

CRPT Central

N 7 6 7 8 8 7 6 8 8 8 8 7 7 8 8 Mean 1.57 1.33 1.57 1.75 1.63 1.43 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.14 2.00 1.25 1.63

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 4 08/01/2007

Page 48: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 7 6 7 8 8 7 6 8 8 8 8 7 7 8 8 Mean 1.57 1.33 1.57 1.75 1.63 1.43 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.14 2.00 1.25 1.63

CRTG Southwest

N 26 24 24 23 26 25 26 26 26 25 26 20 23 26 26 Mean 1.04 1.25 1.04 1.22 1.19 1.20 1.50 1.23 1.27 1.40 1.69 1.40 1.17 1.23 1.19

N 26 24 24 23 26 25 26 26 26 25 26 20 23 26 26 Mean 1.04 1.25 1.04 1.22 1.19 1.20 1.50 1.23 1.27 1.40 1.69 1.40 1.17 1.23 1.19

CSIR Central

N 11 9 10 10 11 11 10 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 10 Mean 1.36 1.78 1.40 1.60 1.64 1.55 1.70 1.91 1.90 2.00 1.90 1.45 1.55 1.73 1.80

N 11 9 10 10 11 11 10 11 10 10 10 11 11 11 10 Mean 1.36 1.78 1.40 1.60 1.64 1.55 1.70 1.91 1.90 2.00 1.90 1.45 1.55 1.73 1.80

CSME Central

N 166 165 164 168 168 167 165 166 164 166 165 161 160 166 163 Mean 1.04 1.07 1.12 1.45 1.61 1.44 1.33 1.27 1.45 1.57 1.52 1.37 1.41 1.50 1.58

Northwest

N 122 122 123 123 121 122 123 122 123 123 120 106 105 121 119 Mean 1.07 1.10 1.11 1.43 1.58 1.39 1.58 1.52 1.52 1.60 1.63 1.42 1.49 1.44 1.55

N 288 287 287 291 289 289 288 288 287 289 285 267 265 287 282 Mean 1.06 1.08 1.12 1.44 1.60 1.42 1.44 1.38 1.48 1.58 1.56 1.39 1.44 1.47 1.57

CTMT Coleman

N 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 8 9 8 8 6 5 9 9 Mean 1.11 1.67 1.56 2.86 1.56 1.44 1.22 1.63 2.22 1.50 1.63 2.00 2.20 2.22 2.33

N 9 9 9 7 9 9 9 8 9 8 8 6 5 9 9 Mean 1.11 1.67 1.56 2.86 1.56 1.44 1.22 1.63 2.22 1.50 1.63 2.00 2.20 2.22 2.33

CVTT Coleman

N 43 40 42 44 45 45 45 44 42 39 45 39 40 44 42 Mean 1.35 1.23 1.26 1.57 2.22 1.76 1.96 2.68 2.24 2.64 2.27 1.87 1.90 2.32 2.62

N 43 40 42 44 45 45 45 44 42 39 45 39 40 44 42 Mean 1.35 1.23 1.26 1.57 2.22 1.76 1.96 2.68 2.24 2.64 2.27 1.87 1.90 2.32 2.62

DAAC Coleman

N 51 48 47 53 53 53 52 52 50 49 51 28 26 53 52 Mean 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.43 1.42 1.34 1.81 1.27 1.34 1.76 1.63 1.54 1.50 1.30 1.40

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 5 08/01/2007

Page 49: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 51 48 47 53 53 53 52 52 50 49 51 28 26 53 52 Mean 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.43 1.42 1.34 1.81 1.27 1.34 1.76 1.63 1.54 1.50 1.30 1.40

DEMR Northeast

N 100 99 99 99 98 98 99 100 99 98 100 100 100 100 99 Mean 1.45 1.34 1.55 1.74 1.64 1.74 1.88 1.77 1.78 1.95 1.82 1.86 1.90 1.91 1.97

N 100 99 99 99 98 98 99 100 99 98 100 100 100 100 99 Mean 1.45 1.34 1.55 1.74 1.64 1.74 1.88 1.77 1.78 1.95 1.82 1.86 1.90 1.91 1.97

DFTG Central

N 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.80 1.00 1.60 1.80 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20

Northeast

N 90 78 77 86 91 89 87 90 84 81 86 50 56 90 87 Mean 1.08 1.26 1.18 1.45 1.57 1.38 1.61 1.48 1.54 1.63 1.56 1.66 1.70 1.67 1.60

Northwest

N 72 67 66 73 73 74 72 73 72 72 72 36 45 72 70 Mean 1.14 1.31 1.26 1.66 2.01 1.57 1.71 1.63 1.72 1.85 1.60 1.72 1.53 1.96 1.97

Southeast

N 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 6 8 10 10 Mean 1.10 1.13 1.10 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.70 1.50 1.88 2.10 1.50 2.33 1.63 1.30 1.60

Southwest

N 90 86 75 91 91 90 91 89 86 85 91 54 62 91 89 Mean 1.10 1.24 1.12 1.37 1.56 1.36 1.51 1.38 1.57 1.51 1.42 1.56 1.55 1.53 1.51

N 267 244 232 265 270 268 265 266 255 253 264 147 172 268 261 Mean 1.10 1.26 1.18 1.48 1.67 1.43 1.61 1.48 1.61 1.67 1.52 1.66 1.59 1.67 1.66

DMSO Coleman

N 60 50 51 56 67 58 59 67 63 58 59 45 47 66 66 Mean 1.37 1.34 1.18 1.59 1.87 1.71 1.64 1.84 1.79 1.64 1.41 1.58 1.57 1.61 1.91

N 60 50 51 56 67 58 59 67 63 58 59 45 47 66 66 Mean 1.37 1.34 1.18 1.59 1.87 1.71 1.64 1.84 1.79 1.64 1.41 1.58 1.57 1.61 1.91

DNTA Coleman

N 70 65 64 66 66 64 67 67 67 65 66 45 43 71 74 Mean 1.01 1.09 1.11 1.59 1.29 1.38 2.15 1.34 1.51 1.82 1.48 1.18 1.26 1.55 1.36

N 70 65 64 66 66 64 67 67 67 65 66 45 43 71 74

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 6 08/01/2007

Page 50: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.01 1.09 1.11 1.59 1.29 1.38 2.15 1.34 1.51 1.82 1.48 1.18 1.26 1.55 1.36

ELMT Central

N 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 9 11 9 Mean 1.27 1.55 1.09 2.09 1.92 1.83 1.92 2.00 2.08 1.73 2.10 1.90 1.89 1.73 1.56

N 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 9 11 9 Mean 1.27 1.55 1.09 2.09 1.92 1.83 1.92 2.00 2.08 1.73 2.10 1.90 1.89 1.73 1.56

ELPT Central

N 91 84 85 91 90 88 86 89 90 85 86 81 79 87 84 Mean 1.38 1.40 1.49 1.74 1.84 1.76 1.87 1.75 1.88 1.98 1.85 1.94 2.00 1.89 2.02

N 91 84 85 91 90 88 86 89 90 85 86 81 79 87 84 Mean 1.38 1.40 1.49 1.74 1.84 1.76 1.87 1.75 1.88 1.98 1.85 1.94 2.00 1.89 2.02

FITT Central

N 18 15 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 16 18 14 14 16 16 Mean 1.17 1.33 1.28 1.44 1.44 1.67 1.89 1.33 1.56 1.69 1.67 1.14 1.29 1.31 1.44

N 18 15 18 18 18 18 18 18 16 16 18 14 14 16 16 Mean 1.17 1.33 1.28 1.44 1.44 1.67 1.89 1.33 1.56 1.69 1.67 1.14 1.29 1.31 1.44

FLMC Northwest

N 69 66 69 71 72 72 71 72 71 65 70 53 51 72 71 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.12 1.39 1.44 1.40 1.45 1.25 1.32 1.57 1.46 1.32 1.57 1.31 1.45

N 69 66 69 71 72 72 71 72 71 65 70 53 51 72 71 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.12 1.39 1.44 1.40 1.45 1.25 1.32 1.57 1.46 1.32 1.57 1.31 1.45

FSHD Central

N 251 223 224 223 252 250 245 249 244 231 245 135 140 248 246 Mean 1.12 1.20 1.25 1.57 1.55 1.41 1.55 1.36 1.54 1.70 1.58 1.52 1.59 1.55 1.58

N 251 223 224 223 252 250 245 249 244 231 245 135 140 248 246 Mean 1.12 1.20 1.25 1.57 1.55 1.41 1.55 1.36 1.54 1.70 1.58 1.52 1.59 1.55 1.58

FSHN Central

N 94 94 82 92 94 93 93 94 91 84 93 36 32 93 91 Mean 1.07 1.07 1.13 1.29 1.27 1.22 1.40 1.33 1.37 1.46 1.38 1.39 1.47 1.23 1.22

N 94 94 82 92 94 93 93 94 91 84 93 36 32 93 91 Mean 1.07 1.07 1.13 1.29 1.27 1.22 1.40 1.33 1.37 1.46 1.38 1.39 1.47 1.23 1.22

GAME Southwest

N 34 25 26 27 33 32 31 34 31 32 31 12 12 34 34

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 7 08/01/2007

Page 51: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.50 1.56 1.42 1.93 2.21 2.13 2.32 1.79 2.16 2.06 2.06 2.08 2.17 2.00 2.18

N 34 25 26 27 33 32 31 34 31 32 31 12 12 34 34 Mean 1.50 1.56 1.42 1.93 2.21 2.13 2.32 1.79 2.16 2.06 2.06 2.08 2.17 2.00 2.18

GERS Coleman

N 17 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 14 14 17 16 Mean 1.24 1.13 1.06 1.41 1.59 1.35 1.53 1.29 1.29 1.50 1.44 1.86 1.93 1.29 1.25

N 17 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 14 14 17 16 Mean 1.24 1.13 1.06 1.41 1.59 1.35 1.53 1.29 1.29 1.50 1.44 1.86 1.93 1.29 1.25

HALT Northwest

N 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 16 16 22 22 Mean 1.00 1.14 1.36 1.50 1.68 1.36 1.50 1.23 1.36 1.41 1.41 1.38 1.44 1.36 1.50

N 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 16 16 22 22 Mean 1.00 1.14 1.36 1.50 1.68 1.36 1.50 1.23 1.36 1.41 1.41 1.38 1.44 1.36 1.50

HAMG Central

N 54 52 47 55 55 55 55 55 51 51 52 19 19 54 54 Mean 1.02 1.06 1.19 1.45 1.47 1.47 1.60 1.29 1.37 1.63 1.48 1.95 2.05 1.65 1.54

N 54 52 47 55 55 55 55 55 51 51 52 19 19 54 54 Mean 1.02 1.06 1.19 1.45 1.47 1.47 1.60 1.29 1.37 1.63 1.48 1.95 2.05 1.65 1.54

HART Central

N 223 226 226 231 230 234 229 224 228 223 229 226 228 229 230 Mean 1.27 1.31 1.28 1.66 1.88 1.70 1.72 1.67 1.85 1.78 1.76 1.71 1.79 1.73 1.81

Southwest

N 108 107 104 110 109 109 109 109 110 104 104 101 101 108 107 Mean 1.13 1.14 1.19 1.51 1.58 1.50 1.61 1.45 1.54 1.76 1.62 1.47 1.43 1.49 1.46

N 331 333 330 341 339 343 338 333 338 327 333 327 329 337 337 Mean 1.22 1.26 1.25 1.61 1.78 1.64 1.68 1.60 1.75 1.77 1.71 1.64 1.68 1.66 1.70

HITT Coleman

N 91 84 85 92 92 92 86 93 91 85 84 48 52 91 90 Mean 1.01 1.08 1.18 1.61 1.50 1.46 1.80 1.35 1.47 1.84 2.06 1.63 1.62 1.52 1.58

N 91 84 85 92 92 92 86 93 91 85 84 48 52 91 90 Mean 1.01 1.08 1.18 1.61 1.50 1.46 1.80 1.35 1.47 1.84 2.06 1.63 1.62 1.52 1.58

HLAB Coleman

N 36 34 33 37 36 33 36 36 36 36 35 32 31 37 36

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 8 08/01/2007

Page 52: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.08 1.18 1.27 1.46 1.83 1.61 1.69 1.53 1.64 1.92 1.69 1.50 1.52 1.65 1.86

N 36 34 33 37 36 33 36 36 36 36 35 32 31 37 36 Mean 1.08 1.18 1.27 1.46 1.83 1.61 1.69 1.53 1.64 1.92 1.69 1.50 1.52 1.65 1.86

HPRS Coleman

N 63 62 62 66 64 64 63 64 61 57 63 24 23 65 63 Mean 1.02 1.10 1.10 1.23 1.17 1.23 1.54 1.17 1.30 1.82 1.33 1.67 1.70 1.18 1.13

N 63 62 62 66 64 64 63 64 61 57 63 24 23 65 63 Mean 1.02 1.10 1.10 1.23 1.17 1.23 1.54 1.17 1.30 1.82 1.33 1.67 1.70 1.18 1.13

HRPO Central

N 34 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 33 33 34 9 9 34 34 Mean 1.00 1.06 1.09 1.09 1.15 1.15 1.21 1.12 1.24 1.42 1.29 1.56 1.44 1.21 1.18

Northwest

N 21 20 20 21 21 21 21 20 21 21 17 11 11 21 21 Mean 1.10 1.15 1.40 1.19 1.19 1.33 1.24 1.10 1.14 1.29 1.12 1.45 1.45 1.24 1.29

Southwest

N 17 17 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 5 6 17 17 Mean 1.06 1.00 1.31 1.41 1.24 1.35 1.71 1.29 1.53 1.63 1.47 1.40 1.50 1.41 1.35

N 72 70 69 72 72 72 72 71 71 70 68 25 26 72 72 Mean 1.04 1.07 1.23 1.19 1.18 1.25 1.33 1.15 1.28 1.43 1.29 1.48 1.46 1.26 1.25

IBUS Central

N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Northwest

N 21 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 10 10 21 21 Mean 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.05

N 22 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 11 11 22 22 Mean 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.09 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.05

IMED Southwest

N 77 75 75 70 77 76 76 77 77 74 76 42 47 76 76 Mean 1.10 1.28 1.21 1.53 1.51 1.37 1.55 1.27 1.49 1.46 1.46 1.67 1.66 1.54 1.50

N 77 75 75 70 77 76 76 77 77 74 76 42 47 76 76 Mean 1.10 1.28 1.21 1.53 1.51 1.37 1.55 1.27 1.49 1.46 1.46 1.67 1.66 1.54 1.50

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 9 08/01/2007

Page 53: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

INDS Central

N 156 138 144 138 155 155 155 155 153 153 154 94 100 156 154 Mean 1.10 1.25 1.19 1.47 1.57 1.39 1.67 1.57 1.52 1.65 1.55 1.64 1.58 1.55 1.63

N 156 138 144 138 155 155 155 155 153 153 154 94 100 156 154 Mean 1.10 1.25 1.19 1.47 1.57 1.39 1.67 1.57 1.52 1.65 1.55 1.64 1.58 1.55 1.63

INEW Central

N 10 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 3 5 10 10 Mean 1.20 1.60 1.33 1.60 2.10 2.00 2.11 1.40 1.90 1.90 2.40 2.00 1.60 1.40 1.90

Southwest

N 40 40 38 40 40 40 39 40 39 40 36 38 38 38 39 Mean 1.18 1.25 1.58 1.80 1.83 1.85 2.05 1.73 1.77 1.98 1.75 2.18 1.89 1.87 1.95

N 50 50 47 50 50 50 48 50 49 50 46 41 43 48 49 Mean 1.18 1.32 1.53 1.76 1.88 1.88 2.06 1.66 1.80 1.96 1.89 2.17 1.86 1.77 1.94

INTC Northeast

N 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mean 1.17 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.17

N 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Mean 1.17 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.17

ITMT Central

N 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 14 15 21 21 Mean 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.62 1.90 1.62 1.67 1.43 1.67 1.48 1.52 1.64 1.87 1.48 1.62

N 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 14 15 21 21 Mean 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.62 1.90 1.62 1.67 1.43 1.67 1.48 1.52 1.64 1.87 1.48 1.62

ITNW Central

N 16 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 15 14 14 7 10 16 16 Mean 1.19 1.19 1.25 1.60 1.69 1.69 1.81 1.56 1.87 1.86 2.07 1.57 1.50 1.81 1.75

Southwest

N 35 35 29 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 30 35 35 Mean 1.03 1.17 1.72 1.82 1.94 1.66 1.83 1.57 2.06 1.86 2.20 2.07 2.00 2.09 2.11

N 51 51 45 49 51 51 51 51 50 49 49 37 40 51 51 Mean 1.08 1.18 1.56 1.76 1.86 1.67 1.82 1.57 2.00 1.86 2.16 1.97 1.88 2.00 2.00

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 10 08/01/2007

Page 54: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ITSC Central

N 35 33 32 35 33 35 34 35 35 32 33 19 22 35 35 Mean 1.26 1.09 1.28 1.37 1.52 1.57 1.68 1.83 1.74 1.75 1.61 1.68 1.68 1.77 1.91

Northwest

N 52 52 49 54 54 54 54 53 53 52 52 28 28 54 54 Mean 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.44 1.61 1.41 1.65 1.38 1.51 1.56 1.46 1.57 1.75 1.70 1.59

Southeast

N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 17 11 11 17 17 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.18 1.41 1.35 1.35 1.24 1.29 2.13 1.41 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.47

Southwest

N 68 64 63 69 67 66 65 67 66 65 67 50 49 68 63 Mean 1.06 1.06 1.10 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.35 1.21 1.26 1.35 1.40 1.42 1.35 1.34 1.32

N 172 166 161 175 171 172 170 172 171 165 169 108 110 174 169 Mean 1.10 1.09 1.17 1.35 1.45 1.40 1.51 1.39 1.44 1.57 1.46 1.51 1.54 1.57 1.54

ITSE Central

N 10 10 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 8 9 10 10 Mean 1.10 1.20 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.60 1.30 1.50 1.40 1.33 1.50 1.56 1.70 1.70

Southwest

N 58 50 55 56 58 58 57 58 54 56 57 39 46 58 58 Mean 1.21 1.48 1.09 1.57 1.81 1.55 1.84 1.64 1.65 1.77 1.96 1.69 1.61 1.83 1.69

N 68 60 63 66 68 68 67 68 64 66 66 47 55 68 68 Mean 1.19 1.43 1.11 1.56 1.76 1.54 1.81 1.59 1.63 1.71 1.88 1.66 1.60 1.81 1.69

ITSW Southwest

N 13 13 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 9 9 14 13 Mean 1.15 1.15 1.58 1.86 2.29 1.64 1.86 2.43 2.43 2.00 2.00 1.56 1.56 2.14 2.54

N 13 13 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 9 9 14 13 Mean 1.15 1.15 1.58 1.86 2.29 1.64 1.86 2.43 2.43 2.00 2.00 1.56 1.56 2.14 2.54

ITSY Central

N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.14 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.14 1.14 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.14

N 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.14 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.14 1.14 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.14

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 11 08/01/2007

Page 55: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

KORE Northwest

N 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 3 4 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.56 1.33 1.44 3.29 1.44 1.00 1.50 1.44 1.44

N 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 3 4 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.56 1.33 1.44 3.29 1.44 1.00 1.50 1.44 1.44

LGLA Central

N 140 137 127 134 142 141 139 141 137 133 133 38 38 141 138 Mean 1.20 1.16 1.25 1.44 1.58 1.40 1.59 1.39 1.44 1.51 1.48 1.58 1.42 1.58 1.67

N 140 137 127 134 142 141 139 141 137 133 133 38 38 141 138 Mean 1.20 1.16 1.25 1.44 1.58 1.40 1.59 1.39 1.44 1.51 1.48 1.58 1.42 1.58 1.67

LMGT Southeast

N 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 6 6 Mean 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.83 1.33 1.33 2.17 1.83 1.67 1.67 1.33 1.33

N 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 6 6 Mean 1.17 1.17 1.20 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.83 1.33 1.33 2.17 1.83 1.67 1.67 1.33 1.33

MCHN Central

N 67 67 64 68 68 68 68 68 68 62 68 68 67 68 68 Mean 1.18 1.07 1.08 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.25 1.15 1.12 1.11 1.15 1.13 1.16 1.15 1.10

N 67 67 64 68 68 68 68 68 68 62 68 68 67 68 68 Mean 1.18 1.07 1.08 1.21 1.21 1.21 1.25 1.15 1.12 1.11 1.15 1.13 1.16 1.15 1.10

MDCA Coleman

N 132 131 131 136 136 136 135 136 132 129 134 113 111 137 137 Mean 1.10 1.18 1.19 1.52 1.57 1.43 1.60 1.40 1.42 1.81 1.66 1.39 1.51 1.43 1.54

Southwest

N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 9 5 6 8 9 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.56 1.56 2.67 1.44 2.22 1.22 1.75 2.14 2.67 2.40 2.50 3.25 2.89

N 141 140 140 145 145 145 144 145 140 136 143 118 117 145 146 Mean 1.09 1.16 1.21 1.52 1.63 1.43 1.64 1.39 1.44 1.83 1.72 1.43 1.56 1.53 1.62

MLAB Coleman

N 97 92 90 100 102 100 102 102 100 102 100 101 100 101 99 Mean 1.01 1.14 1.09 1.44 1.53 1.47 1.60 1.59 1.46 1.63 1.48 1.34 1.34 1.38 1.53

N 97 92 90 100 102 100 102 102 100 102 100 101 100 101 99 Mean 1.01 1.14 1.09 1.44 1.53 1.47 1.60 1.59 1.46 1.63 1.48 1.34 1.34 1.38 1.53

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 12 08/01/2007

Page 56: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

MRKG Central

N 42 42 36 42 42 42 41 42 42 41 42 11 11 42 42 Mean 1.19 1.14 1.72 1.83 1.76 1.74 2.39 1.71 1.76 1.85 1.98 1.09 1.36 1.88 2.10

Northeast

N 8 8 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 6 6 1 1 8 8 Mean 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.14 1.13 1.00 1.14 1.13 1.25 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Southwest

N 7 3 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 7 7 Mean 1.29 1.67 1.43 1.50 1.29 1.29 1.57 1.29 1.71 1.57 1.71 1.67 1.67 1.29 1.43

N 57 53 51 55 57 57 55 57 57 54 55 15 15 57 57 Mean 1.18 1.17 1.57 1.71 1.61 1.58 2.13 1.58 1.68 1.80 1.84 1.20 1.40 1.68 1.86

MUSB Central

N 8 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 8 8 Mean 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13

Northwest

N 39 39 37 39 39 38 39 38 39 39 39 15 14 39 39 Mean 1.10 1.18 1.19 1.54 1.69 1.39 1.67 1.37 1.56 1.72 1.77 1.40 1.43 1.33 1.46

N 47 47 44 47 47 46 47 46 47 47 47 17 16 47 47 Mean 1.09 1.17 1.16 1.45 1.62 1.33 1.55 1.30 1.47 1.60 1.64 1.35 1.38 1.30 1.40

MUSC Northwest

N 55 42 55 53 55 55 56 55 54 54 54 35 34 55 54 Mean 1.05 1.26 1.15 1.30 1.29 1.24 1.41 1.25 1.41 1.56 1.70 1.20 1.26 1.24 1.22

N 55 42 55 53 55 55 56 55 54 54 54 35 34 55 54 Mean 1.05 1.26 1.15 1.30 1.29 1.24 1.41 1.25 1.41 1.56 1.70 1.20 1.26 1.24 1.22

MUSP Northwest

N 24 12 22 21 23 23 23 24 24 20 21 9 13 24 24 Mean 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.17 1.17 1.26 1.13 1.17 1.10 1.14 1.33 1.08 1.08 1.08

N 24 12 22 21 23 23 23 24 24 20 21 9 13 24 24 Mean 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.17 1.17 1.26 1.13 1.17 1.10 1.14 1.33 1.08 1.08 1.08

NMTT Coleman

N 73 65 70 72 74 73 74 74 68 74 71 70 70 73 73 Mean 1.03 1.28 1.20 1.47 1.50 1.47 1.64 1.50 1.35 1.59 1.55 1.37 1.37 1.60 1.66

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 13 08/01/2007

Page 57: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 73 65 70 72 74 73 74 74 68 74 71 70 70 73 73 Mean 1.03 1.28 1.20 1.47 1.50 1.47 1.64 1.50 1.35 1.59 1.55 1.37 1.37 1.60 1.66

OTHA Coleman

N 89 88 83 84 90 88 87 89 87 84 85 58 55 87 86 Mean 1.06 1.02 1.14 1.49 1.54 1.48 1.77 1.46 1.46 1.54 1.75 1.47 1.45 1.48 1.43

N 89 88 83 84 90 88 87 89 87 84 85 58 55 87 86 Mean 1.06 1.02 1.14 1.49 1.54 1.48 1.77 1.46 1.46 1.54 1.75 1.47 1.45 1.48 1.43

PHRA Coleman

N 123 121 118 126 128 128 126 125 124 120 124 96 99 128 127 Mean 1.07 1.50 1.15 1.40 1.52 1.43 1.53 1.45 1.46 1.62 1.51 1.47 1.53 1.60 1.53

N 123 121 118 126 128 128 126 125 124 120 124 96 99 128 127 Mean 1.07 1.50 1.15 1.40 1.52 1.43 1.53 1.45 1.46 1.62 1.51 1.47 1.53 1.60 1.53

PHTC Central

N 60 55 53 55 60 60 54 61 60 53 54 41 40 59 60 Mean 1.12 1.22 1.17 1.60 1.53 1.48 1.50 1.16 1.27 1.45 1.44 1.49 1.58 1.36 1.40

N 60 55 53 55 60 60 54 61 60 53 54 41 40 59 60 Mean 1.12 1.22 1.17 1.60 1.53 1.48 1.50 1.16 1.27 1.45 1.44 1.49 1.58 1.36 1.40

POFI Central

N 92 87 87 92 90 90 91 90 89 87 91 43 48 90 89 Mean 1.05 1.09 1.22 1.30 1.33 1.27 1.44 1.21 1.27 1.66 1.34 1.47 1.38 1.26 1.34

Northeast

N 14 14 13 14 14 14 13 13 12 11 14 9 9 14 14 Mean 1.14 1.00 1.15 2.00 1.64 1.64 1.54 1.31 1.33 1.55 2.00 1.67 1.78 1.50 1.50

Northwest

N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 24 13 13 24 24 Mean 1.04 1.00 1.13 1.38 1.13 1.17 1.33 1.21 1.25 1.50 1.38 1.15 1.08 1.29 1.21

Southeast

N 46 46 41 46 45 47 45 47 46 45 46 30 28 45 46 Mean 1.11 1.11 1.22 1.54 1.44 1.47 1.38 1.38 1.74 1.60 1.46 1.57 1.54 1.49 1.50

Southwest

N 88 87 80 89 87 88 88 89 89 86 87 53 56 88 86 Mean 1.14 1.07 1.31 1.47 1.40 1.39 1.59 1.29 1.39 1.78 1.41 1.55 1.54 1.42 1.44

N 264 258 245 265 260 263 261 263 260 251 262 148 154 261 259

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 14 08/01/2007

Page 58: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.09 1.07 1.24 1.45 1.37 1.35 1.48 1.27 1.40 1.67 1.42 1.50 1.46 1.37 1.40

POFL Southeast

N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . . 1.00 1.00

N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . . 1.00 1.00

POFM Central

N 17 17 15 17 17 17 16 17 16 15 16 7 7 17 16 Mean 1.00 1.06 1.20 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.38 1.18 1.19 2.07 1.56 1.57 1.71 1.35 1.31

Southwest

N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 6 6 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.10 1.20 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.20

N 27 27 25 27 27 27 26 27 26 24 25 13 13 27 26 Mean 1.00 1.04 1.12 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.31 1.15 1.19 1.79 1.48 1.31 1.38 1.30 1.27

POFT Central

N 94 88 77 92 94 94 91 92 89 89 90 32 31 92 91 Mean 1.10 1.14 1.13 1.33 1.41 1.32 1.32 1.36 1.43 1.61 1.46 1.38 1.32 1.38 1.42

Northeast

N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 1.50 1.50

Northwest

N 13 13 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 13 6 6 12 11 Mean 1.15 1.08 1.27 1.31 1.46 1.38 1.38 1.31 1.54 2.33 1.31 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.55

Southeast

N 29 29 26 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 16 16 29 28 Mean 1.21 1.14 1.46 1.38 1.62 1.55 1.66 1.38 1.68 1.93 1.68 1.88 1.69 1.55 1.54

Southwest

N 19 19 17 18 19 19 18 18 19 19 19 11 10 18 16 Mean 1.16 1.16 1.29 1.22 1.37 1.26 1.33 1.17 1.32 2.00 1.26 1.45 1.70 1.44 1.19

N 157 151 133 154 157 157 153 154 151 150 152 66 64 153 148 Mean 1.13 1.13 1.23 1.33 1.45 1.36 1.39 1.34 1.47 1.78 1.47 1.52 1.48 1.41 1.43

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 15 08/01/2007

Page 59: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

PSTR Central

N 34 17 33 32 34 34 30 34 33 28 30 31 30 34 34 Mean 1.09 1.35 1.03 1.19 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.15 1.12 1.18 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.03

N 34 17 33 32 34 34 30 34 33 28 30 31 30 34 34 Mean 1.09 1.35 1.03 1.19 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.15 1.12 1.18 1.07 1.10 1.10 1.03 1.03

PTAC Northeast

N 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 9 9 11 11 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.09 1.09

N 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 9 9 11 11 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.09 1.09

PTHA Coleman

N 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 67 70 69 59 57 69 69 Mean 1.29 1.36 1.34 1.87 2.33 2.09 2.41 2.46 2.18 2.34 2.33 1.69 1.74 2.06 2.42

N 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 69 67 70 69 59 57 69 69 Mean 1.29 1.36 1.34 1.87 2.33 2.09 2.41 2.46 2.18 2.34 2.33 1.69 1.74 2.06 2.42

RADR Coleman

N 390 356 366 403 400 388 405 401 389 397 396 258 237 406 402 Mean 1.05 1.13 1.17 1.53 1.54 1.54 1.72 1.50 1.54 1.60 1.53 1.34 1.35 1.48 1.62

System

N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 7 6 11 11 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.09 1.09 1.27 1.00 1.18 1.09 1.00 1.29 1.00 1.27 1.00

N 401 367 377 414 411 399 416 412 400 408 407 265 243 417 413 Mean 1.04 1.13 1.16 1.52 1.52 1.53 1.71 1.49 1.53 1.59 1.52 1.34 1.35 1.47 1.61

RECT Coleman

N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 2 10 10 Mean 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.40 1.40 1.30 2.20 1.20 1.10 1.70 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.10 1.20

N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 2 10 10 Mean 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.40 1.40 1.30 2.20 1.20 1.10 1.70 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.10 1.20

RELE Northeast

N 28 28 27 28 28 28 27 28 27 26 27 2 1 26 26 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.15 2.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 16 08/01/2007

Page 60: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

RELE Southeast

N 43 37 38 39 43 42 43 43 42 41 42 21 20 43 42 Mean 1.07 1.32 1.13 1.36 1.30 1.31 1.63 1.16 1.33 1.78 1.55 1.71 1.75 1.30 1.26

Southwest

N 137 118 127 131 138 136 136 138 132 129 132 37 38 135 133 Mean 1.04 1.08 1.09 1.18 1.21 1.17 1.23 1.07 1.12 1.23 1.22 1.30 1.47 1.19 1.27

N 208 183 192 198 209 206 206 209 201 196 201 60 59 204 201 Mean 1.04 1.11 1.09 1.19 1.20 1.17 1.29 1.08 1.17 1.46 1.26 1.43 1.56 1.19 1.23

RNSG Coleman

N 802 779 764 810 816 790 813 810 762 759 745 626 613 795 787 Mean 1.08 1.12 1.20 1.50 1.56 1.48 1.67 1.53 1.48 1.60 1.57 1.48 1.50 1.61 1.66

N 802 779 764 810 816 790 813 810 762 759 745 626 613 795 787 Mean 1.08 1.12 1.20 1.50 1.56 1.48 1.67 1.53 1.48 1.60 1.57 1.48 1.50 1.61 1.66

RSPT Coleman

N 116 112 112 122 122 121 121 121 121 118 119 89 87 121 119 Mean 1.05 1.15 1.23 1.61 1.65 1.60 1.69 1.49 1.44 1.74 1.49 1.54 1.57 1.55 1.73

N 116 112 112 122 122 121 121 121 121 118 119 89 87 121 119 Mean 1.05 1.15 1.23 1.61 1.65 1.60 1.69 1.49 1.44 1.74 1.49 1.54 1.57 1.55 1.73

RSTO Central

N 85 80 82 84 86 86 84 85 79 80 84 42 42 82 81 Mean 1.04 1.15 1.10 1.23 1.16 1.21 1.32 1.16 1.29 1.55 1.40 1.31 1.45 1.40 1.27

N 85 80 82 84 86 86 84 85 79 80 84 42 42 82 81 Mean 1.04 1.15 1.10 1.23 1.16 1.21 1.32 1.16 1.29 1.55 1.40 1.31 1.45 1.40 1.27

RTVB Northwest

N 94 86 91 98 96 96 97 95 93 92 96 68 68 97 95 Mean 1.10 1.16 1.16 1.37 1.43 1.31 1.59 1.33 1.60 1.85 1.51 1.46 1.44 1.47 1.57

Southwest

N 14 14 13 12 14 14 13 14 14 12 13 10 11 14 14 Mean 1.57 1.86 1.54 2.17 2.57 1.86 2.38 1.71 2.00 2.17 2.46 2.00 2.00 2.14 2.50

N 108 100 104 110 110 110 110 109 107 104 109 78 79 111 109 Mean 1.16 1.26 1.21 1.45 1.57 1.38 1.68 1.38 1.65 1.88 1.62 1.53 1.52 1.56 1.69

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 17 08/01/2007

Page 61: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

SCIT Coleman

N 21 20 19 21 20 21 21 21 19 19 20 6 6 21 21 Mean 1.05 1.25 1.26 1.81 2.65 1.67 2.05 1.86 2.05 1.79 2.00 2.50 2.50 1.95 2.57

N 21 20 19 21 20 21 21 21 19 19 20 6 6 21 21 Mean 1.05 1.25 1.26 1.81 2.65 1.67 2.05 1.86 2.05 1.79 2.00 2.50 2.50 1.95 2.57

SLNG Coleman

N 92 82 89 92 93 93 90 92 85 92 92 22 24 93 91 Mean 1.11 1.27 1.13 1.41 1.48 1.48 1.70 1.32 1.55 1.61 1.71 2.05 2.29 1.34 1.44

N 92 82 89 92 93 93 90 92 85 92 92 22 24 93 91 Mean 1.11 1.27 1.13 1.41 1.48 1.48 1.70 1.32 1.55 1.61 1.71 2.05 2.29 1.34 1.44

SRGT Coleman

N 113 109 110 104 109 105 111 106 107 105 111 88 84 103 106 Mean 1.28 1.27 1.27 1.93 2.06 1.89 2.12 2.05 2.14 2.06 2.21 1.83 1.98 1.92 2.14

N 113 109 110 104 109 105 111 106 107 105 111 88 84 103 106 Mean 1.28 1.27 1.27 1.93 2.06 1.89 2.12 2.05 2.14 2.06 2.21 1.83 1.98 1.92 2.14

TRVM Central

N 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.50 1.40 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 2.00 2.00 1.40 1.40

N 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.50 1.40 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 2.00 2.00 1.40 1.40

VNSG Coleman

N 398 381 378 399 402 402 400 400 398 387 394 284 275 401 397 Mean 1.11 1.23 1.19 1.49 1.53 1.51 1.65 1.41 1.44 1.69 1.56 1.59 1.61 1.45 1.52

N 398 381 378 399 402 402 400 400 398 387 394 284 275 401 397 Mean 1.11 1.23 1.19 1.49 1.53 1.51 1.65 1.41 1.44 1.69 1.56 1.59 1.61 1.45 1.52

VTHT Northwest

N 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 43 48 45 44 48 47 Mean 1.02 1.02 1.06 1.29 1.31 1.23 1.52 1.23 1.35 1.63 1.31 1.27 1.20 1.38 1.23

N 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 43 48 45 44 48 47 Mean 1.02 1.02 1.06 1.29 1.31 1.23 1.52 1.23 1.35 1.63 1.31 1.27 1.20 1.38 1.23

WLDG Central

N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . . 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 .

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 18 08/01/2007

Page 62: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2007 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . . 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 .

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

TP: SEOI_SPRING2007_WFC.spo Page 19 08/01/2007

Page 63: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System SEOI – Instructor Office of Institutional Research Updated on: 1/06/03

INSTRUCTOR’S DIRECTIONS

Enclosed are two sets of forms. All students are requested to complete an SEOI Questionnaire. The Written Comments form is optional. Please do not staple the forms together. 1. Specify an individual and location for the student proctor to return completed surveys, usually a department or campus office. 2. Recruit a student proctor to conduct the survey. Review with the student proctor their directions as the proctor (see Student Proctor's Directions). 3. Give the survey packet to the student proctor. Inform the student proctor about the return

of the surveys (name of individual and location). In order to ensure proper handling of SEOI forms, be sure to give the student proctor the envelope in which the survey materials were received. This is the return envelope.

4. Write your name and the Class number (not the course number) on the blackboard.

Explain to your students that the purpose of this survey is to improve certain aspects of the course and to help you improve the way you teach. Please be sure to explain that the survey is anonymous. Under no circumstances will the instructor know the student’s identity. Introduce the student proctor to the class.

5. Leave the room and do not return until the students have completed and turned in their surveys to the student proctor. The proctor is responsible for turning the materials in. Please make sure the student proctor understands where to turn in the survey packet.

If you have any questions regarding these directions please call 713-718-6259

Page 64: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System SEOI – Proctor Office of Institutional Research Updated on: 1/06/03

STUDENT PROCTOR’S DIRECTIONS

Enclosed are two sets of forms. All students are requested to complete an SEOI Questionnaire. The Written Comments form is optional. Please do not staple the forms together. 1. Make sure that the Class number that the instructor wrote on the board matches the class

number on the survey packet. After the instructor has left the room, pass out both sheets of the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) survey. Keep any extra forms in your possession.

2. Read “Statement of Intent” to the students:

This survey instrument has been designed to identify strengths and weaknesses of your instructor and your perceptions of the effectiveness of the class instruction. Please give us your serious and fair evaluation of both your and class instruction.

3. Read the following instructions to the students:

• Use only a #2 pencil or a blue or black ink pen. • Write the instructor’s name and bubble in the Class number in the upper

right corner of the Questionnaire and the Written Comments sheet, if used. (Check to see that this is being done properly.)

• Fill out the Questionnaire independently, without consultation with other students. • Do not sign your name or leave any marks of identification on the answer sheet. • If this is a lecture class, you do not need to complete Section III. If this is a lab, clinical, workshop or practicum class complete all sections. • Written comments are optional but very much encouraged.

4. When students have completed the survey, collect the forms, place them face up in the

same direction, and place both completed and unused forms into the original envelope and close it.

5. Return the envelope (containing all forms) to the location and individual specified by

your instructor. (This is most likely the department or campus secretary) Do not return the forms to the instructor.

Page 65: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Click here to view the SEOI Survey Instrument.

Page 66: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

INFORMATION SHEET - STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION (SEOI) PROGRAM

HOW TO READ THE INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTOR REPORT

Your individual evaluation report contains the following information: • Name, Class Number (CRN), Course Title, Course Number • Question identification numbers (Q01 – Q15) appear across the top of the evaluation report. The

numbers correspond with the items on the standard questionnaire forms. • TOTAL - The "TOTAL " row shown reflects the total number of students in a specific course who

responded to each item. The numbers underneath "TOTAL" correspond to the items on the answer scale for the standard questionnaire.

Values for the answer scale to Questions 01-03: 1 = YES 2 = NEUTRAL 3 = NO 4 = NO BASIS FOR JUDGMENT

Values for the answer scale to Questions 04-15: 1 = STRONGLY AGREE 2 = AGREE 3 = NEUTRAL 4 = DISAGREE 5 = STRONGLY DISAGREE 6 = NO BASIS FOR JUDGMENT

• MEAN - Averaged scores for each questionnaire item per individual class. At the bottom of the last page for each report, you will find cumulative statistics which provide the following information: • TOT. FREQ (total frequency) - Indicates the cumulative sum of students from your combined classes who

responded to each item. • TOTAL MEAN - Indicates combined mean scores for each questionnaire item for all your classes. • SYST MEAN – Indicates the combined mean scores on each questionnaire item for your discipline across the

entire college system. NOTE: If you taught more than one course during the semester, the data for those courses appear on the printout under the respective course numbers. Now, turn to the other side of this sheet for an illustration of how to read your report.

Page 67: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 81.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed. In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM STUDENT EVALUATION REPORT - BY INSTRUCTOR

NAME CRN Q01 Q02 Q03 Q4 ……. Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 DOE, J. M. 54321 ABCD 2301 TOTAL 8 8 8 8 ……. 8 0 0 0 1 3 7 7 3 7 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 MEAN 1.87 1.12 1.25 1.25 1.12 0 0 0 TOT. FREQ 8 8 8 8 ……. 8 0 0 0 1 3 7 7 3 7 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 TOTAL MEAN 1.87 1.12 1.12 1.87 ……. 1.12 0 0 0 SYST MEAN 1.85 1.20 1.19 1.85 1.17 0 0 0

FOR QUESTIONS 01 - 03: Look at the TOTAL Now look under the column Q01: • Eight students responded to questionnaire item

one. • Three students answered "Yes" to Question 1. • Three students answered "Neutral" to Question 1. • Two students answered "No" to Question 1. • None of the students answered "No Basis for

Judgement" to Question 1. There are four possible answers to Q1-Q3, but if a field is not populated, it does not appear on the report.

FOR QUESTIONS 04 - 15: Look at the TOTAL.

Now look under the column Q04: • Eight students responded to questionnaire item

four. • Three students answered "Strongly Agree" to

Question 4. • Three students answered "Agree" to Question 4. • Two students answered "Neutral" to Question 4 • None of the students answered "Disagree",

"Strongly Disagree", or "No Basis for Judgement" to Question 4. There are six possible answers to Q4-Q15, but if a field is not populated, it does not appear on the report.

Look at the TOT. FREQ row that (number of responses). Now look under column Q01: • The total number of responses for all classes taught by the instructor is eight. In the example, the number for the

cumulative statistic is the same because the instructor only taught one class. For an instructor who taught more than one class, the cumulative statistics would reflect the total responses received from all students taught during the semester.

The System mean is the cumulative average for all instructors from the appropriate teaching area who participated in the program during the semester. These figures provide comparative performance information.