Instructor Course Evaluations
Fall/Spring 2014-15 Report
The Instructor Course Evaluation System (ICES) prepared by the Office of Institutional
Research & Assessment (OIRA) and approved by the Senate was administered on-line
fall and spring 2014-15 in all faculties, with the exception of Faculty of Medicine (FM).
The Instructor Course Evaluation Questionnaire (ICE)
The items used in the previous administrations were used this year with some revisions
introduced especially with regards to blended learning courses and course learning
outcomes (FAS). The ICE includes the following components:
1. Student background items covering gender, class, required / elective status, expected
grade in course, and number of hours worked for the course/week.
2. Core items (17) included in all forms. These are generic items that can apply to all
courses irrespective of course design or size, and they can be used for normative
scores and comparison across courses and over time to show improvement. They
cover instructor (8), course (6), and student learning outcomes (3) in addition to
global evaluation items.
3. Specific items selected by department/faculty (11-12) from item bank depending on
type of course (lecture, seminar, lab, studio) and its size. Item bank includes specific
items for large lecture courses, for labs/studio/clinical teaching classes, and for
discussion classes. In addition, the item bank includes extra items on instructional
methodology, student interaction and rapport, feedback and evaluation, assignments
and student development. Items selected from them will supplement core
questionnaire depending on type of course and kind of information required.
4. Open-ended questions focusing on instructor and course strengths and weaknesses
and requesting suggestions for improvement.
ICE Administration
The ICE was administered on-line in the last three weeks of the fall and spring semesters
using the new Blue on-line system. The system is user-friendly in terms of access using
all kinds of smart devices, screen scrolling, and provides extensive reporting including
graphics. Specific detailed instructions were provided for students on how to access the
system and periodic reminders were sent. To enhance response rate, a 3-week grade hold
was placed on students who do not fill their ICEs. Faculty was also provided with facility
to add additional items of their choice and to follow up on response rates of their various
course sections. Students were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and
prompted to take the questionnaire seriously.
The ICE was given to a total of 2,313 (2,398 last fall) and 2401 (2397 last spring) course
sections in fall and spring, respectively, and a total of 44,637 and 46,787 (36,478 and
33,287 last year) student evaluations were filled out, much higher than previous years
because of increased response rate, around 90% in both semesters. All course sections
were included in the evaluations. A breakdown of the sample of students by reason for
taking the courses, and expected grade is reported in Table 1. Demographics are quite
similar in both semesters, however, sample includes a higher percentage of students
1
taking required courses and electives from outside the major in spring (25% vs. 19%; 7%
vs. 4% respectively) and they, in general, have similar grade expectations in both
semesters though much lower than previous years as around 33% expect grade to be ≥ 85
vs. around 44 last year and slightly lower expectations previous year of 47%. Number of
hours worked is slightly lower in spring probably because of higher nature of elective
courses. Table 2 provides the detailed breakdown of the surveyed population of courses
and the percentage of course sections by faculty and also reports mean response rate per
faculty, while Table 3 provides the breakdown by department. Faculty response rate was
high ranging from 88-94% in the fall and spring, while departmental ranged from 83100% in fall and 82-100% in spring, with the exception of CAMES. SN has highest
response rate in fall, while SN and FHS have highest in spring term.
Table 1: ICE (Fall and Spring 2014-15) Sample Description
Faculty
%
%
Class
F
S
FAFS
4
5
Freshman
FAS
62
62
Sophomore
FEA
21
20
Junior
FHS
3
2
Senior
OSB
9
9
4rth Year
SNU
1.5
1
5th Year
Graduate
Special
Reason for taking
Course
Required from major
Elective from major
Elective outside
major
Required outside
major
University required
Number of hours
1. ≤ 3
2. 4 – 6
3. 7 – 10
%
F
39
37
19
%
S
35
32
25
Expected Grade
4
1
%
F
5
33
27
23
5
0
4.6
0.4
%
S
2
25
28
31
9
0
3.6
0.4
1. ≥ 90
2. 85 - 89
3. 80 - 84
%
F
3
29
58
2
30
58
7
4. 70 - 79
11
10
1
5. < 70
0
0
%F
12
71
15
%S
13
74
12
2
%S
Table2: Surveyed Population of Courses & Response Rates by Faculty
Faculty
Responses
Mean Resp. Rate
F
S
F
S
Agricultural &
Food Sciences
1728
2114
88%
89%
Arts & Sciences
24598
24723
89%
88%
Business
Engineering &
Architecture
3370
3476
86%
91%
8158
8039
89%
91%
Health Sciences
Nursing
1088
686
88%
92%
561
527
94%
92%
39598
39768
89%
89%
Table 3: Response Rates by Department
Response Rate Per Department
Department
Fall
Agricultural Science
88%
Animal & Veterinary Sciences
81%
Arabic
90%
Architecture & Graphic Design
81%
Biology
91%
Business Administration
86%
Center for American Studies
83%
Center for Arab & Middle Eastern Studies
57%
Chemical Engineering
86%
Chemistry
90%
Civil & Environmental Engineering
91%
Civilization Sequence Program
88%
Spring
86
88
92
86
91
91
88
72
92
93
90
80
AUB
3
Computer Science
Economics
Education
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Engineering Management
English
Environmental Health
Epidemiology & Population Health
Fine Arts & Art History
Geology
Health Management & Policy
Health Promotion &Communicative Health
History and Archaeology
Landscape Design & Eco-Management
Mathematics
Mechanical Engineering
Medical Imaging Sciences
Medical Laboratory Sciences
Nursing
Nutrition & Food Science
Pathology & Lab Medicine
Philosophy
Physics
Political Studies & Public Administration
Psychology
Rural Community Development
Sociology, Anthropology & Media Studies
Undeclared
University Preparatory Program
90%
90%
89%
95%
90%
91%
92%
83%
87%
84%
85%
89%
86%
87%
88%
89%
100%
97%
94%
91%
86%
86%
90%
80%
89%
100%
85%
81%
86%
88
89
94
95
93
91
93
86
90
91
91
96
92
86
90
91
100
87
92
94
88
90
87
82
89
88
85
Results
Results, including comments were reported to each faculty member, department chair,
and dean electronically. In addition to item means, averages were reported for the
instructor, the course and for student learning outcome development. In addition,
category, faculty, and university means were reported for each item and for each
subgroup. Averages were computed using all course sections and not only those with
equal to or more than 40% response rates to be comparable to previous year’s statistics.
In addition, three additional reports were provided to the deans: one summarizing
institutional performance on 17 core items by faculty, another providing summary data
for all departments within their faculty, and a third providing a summary for each
department in the faculty. Department chairs also got a copy of their department
summary.
4
Figures 1 and 2 present summary normative data for ICE subscales for the University and
per faculty for fall and spring 2014-15 in comparison with 2010-15 scores.
Unlike previous administrations, students’ evaluations of teachers (A) were, in general,
similar (4.2) to their evaluations of courses (B) (4.2), though higher than those of learning
outcomes(C) (4.1). ICE results this year show a rise from previous years possibly because
of higher response rate and satisfaction with new system. Averages for fall and spring
2014-15 are (A, mean=4.23; 4.22, course (B, mean=4.17 4.15, and learning outcome (C,
4.06; 4.07). Ratings in spring were quite similar to the fall, though usually they differed.
Four-year results show stability of ICE ratings on the subscales over time, except for this
year which showed higher averages. Will wait to see if this trend persists.
With respect to instructor effectiveness by faculty (Figure 2a), mean scores ranged
between 4.1-4.4 in the fall and spring, with the exception of FM which are only few
courses. FEA reports lowest rating of 4.1, while SNU and FHS report highest means in
fall, with OSB and FAFS catching up in spring. All faculties showed improvement this
year, though most had shown stable performance in last few years with exception of FEA
whose ratings were dropping in recent years.
With respect to course evaluations by faculty, ratings ranged between 4.1-4.4 (4.1-4.3 in
spring). SNU and FHS are leading and FEA has lowest averages. All faculties improved
this year, with FAS, HSON, and OSB showing gradual improvement on course
evaluation in recent years.
Figure 1. Subscale Averages 2010-15
5
Figure 2 A
As to learning outcomes by faculty, scores ranged from 3.9-4.3. FAS had lowest score in
both terms, while HSON had highest in fall and was accompanied with FAFS and FHS in
spring. OSB and FAS have shown gradual improvement on outcomes in recent years.
Figure 2B
6
Figure 2 C
Additional items’ means ranged 4.1-4.4. All faculties improved this year and are showing
gradual improvement on additional items in recent years. FEA does not have additional
items in its ICE form.
Figure 2 D
7
As to item # 8, overall effectiveness of instructor, it averaged 4.2 for all faculties in both
terms in comparison with 4.0 last year, also, item # 14, overall course effectiveness,
averaged 4.1 in both terms while it was 3.9 and 4.0 in fall and spring of last year. A
breakdown of items 8 and 14 averages by faculty is reported in Table 4. For item 8, SNU
has highest average in fall, with FHS and FAFS leading in spring and FEA reporting
lowest average in both terms. Figure 3 presents 4-year trend of overall items. It does
show first stability then a drop in 2013 and then rise since 2014.
Table 4: Average of Overall Items by Faculty
Item # 8
Item # 14
Faculty
F
S
F
S
FAFS
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.3
FAS
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
OSB
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
FEA
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.0
FHS
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
HSON
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.2
AUB
4.2
4.1
4.2
Figure 3
8
4.1
Appendix presents item statistics for the items by faculty, and for the whole university.
Item means ranged between 4.0-4.4, with highest on instructor and some of lowest on
learning outcomes.
Table 5 presents subscale means by category of courses in every faculty. Lowest (red
font) and highest (green font) categories within each faculty were highlighted to facilitate
comparison for improvement.
9
Table 5: Subscale Means per Category per Faculty
Faculty
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FEA
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
HSON
HSON
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
CATEGORY
Graduate Lecture
Lecture & Lab
Large Lecture
Lab Teaching
Small Lecture
Seminar
Studio
Education-Method
Education-Non-Method
Humanities
Sciences
Social Sciences
Blended Learning
FEA
Discussion Lecture +
Assignment
Discussion Lecture
Lecture + Assignment
Large Lecture & Lab
Large Lecture
HSON FORM A
HSON FORM B
ACCT
BUSS
FINA
Blended
MKTG & MNGT
OPIM
Instructor
Course
Learning
Effectiveness Effectiveness Outcomes
F
S
F
S
F
S
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.5
3.9
4.1
3.8
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.6
4.8
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.8
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1 4.1
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.7
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.6
4.6
3.5
4.1
4.5
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.1
4.7
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.5
3.6
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.0
4.5
4.1
4.1
4.4
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.6
4.6
3.3
3.9
4.4
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
Table 6 reports means by department. Lowest (red font) and highest (green font)
departments within each faculty were highlighted to facilitate comparison for
improvement. Learning outcomes in science departments are lowest in FAS, while
landscape design is lowest in FAFS. With respect to OSB, INFO and MHRM have lower
averages; while in FEA ARCH and CHEN have lowest averages. With respect to FHS,
LABM courses are consistently low while EPHD courses have highest evaluations.
10
Table 6. Subscale Means by Department per Faculty
Faculty
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
Department
AGSC
AVSC
LDEM
NFSC
RCOD
AMST
ARAB
AROL
BIOL
CHEM
CHIN
CMPS
CVSP
ECON
EDUC
ENGL
FAAH
FREN
GEOL
HIST
MATH
MCOM
MEST
PHIL
PHYS
PSPA
PSYC
SOAN
STAT
UPEN
UPHU
UPIT
UPMA
UPSC
ACCT
BUSS
DCSN
ENTM
FINA
Instructor
Effectiveness
F
S
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.1
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.2
3.8
4.1
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.6
4.6
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.7
4.3
4.4
4.4
3.9
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.7
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.4
11
Course
Effectiveness
F
S
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
3.9
4.2
4.4
4.4
3.9
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.6
4.0
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.5
4.1
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.3
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.1
4.7
3.9
4.0
3.9
4.4
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.4
Learning
Outcomes
F
S
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.2
3.9
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.7
4.4
4.6
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.2
3.9
4.1
3.7
3.7
4.1
4.6
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.7
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.0
3.9
4.3
4.3
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.4
4.4
3.8
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.6
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.6
3.8
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.7
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.3
4.10
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.3
4.2
4.4
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
FEA
FEA
FEA
FEA
FEA
FEA
FEA
FEA
FEA
FEA
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
HSON
INFO
MFIN
MHRM
MKTG
MNGT
ARCH
CHEN
CIVE
EECE
ENMG
ENSC
GRDS
MECH
URDS
URPL
ENHL
ENSC
EPHD
HMPD
HPCH
LABM
MLSP
PBHL
NURS
4.2
4.4
4.0
4.4
4.3
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.5
4.5
4.4
3.8
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.0
4.3
4.5
4.5
3.6
3.9
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
4.2
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.4
3.7
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.3
3.8
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.9
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.00
4.5
4.4
4.3
3.8
4.3
4.3
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.4
4.4
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.3
3.6
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.3
3.8
4.4
4.1
3.7
4.2
4.4
3.8
4.3
4.4
4.1
3.5
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.7
4.3
4.3
3.3
4.0
4.3
Conclusion: Accomplishments and Areas of Improvement
ICE results have shown significant improvement this year after a period of stability.
Response rates are increasing and whole process is being taken more seriously.
The fall and spring administrations went smoothly as we have become more organized
and were able to anticipate problems ahead of time. The on-line administration was a
success and reduced the administrative and paper work and the grade hold resulted in
increased response rate averaging around 90%. Faculty were provided with options to
add questions and to view and monitor response rates in their respective sections; while
students were sent reminders, and periodic reporting of progress in response rate was
posted on OIRA website and shared using emails. Reports generated followed new Blue
format, were more detailed, and included identifying faculty members’ strengths and
challenges. In addition, summary institutional, faculty, and departmental reports were
issued to deans and department chairs. These summary reports were also published on
OIRA website for possible review by faculty and students, and this step provided
evidence that the evaluations are taken seriously by faculty and by the administration.
12
Procedures to produce the ICE reports were improved and faculty requests were met.
OIRA ICE database was integrated with the new Blue software and this enabled us to
produce trends report by teacher, course or department and/or by item.
Despite the above accomplishments, several problems were encountered that we hope can
be overcome in future administrations:
1. The problem of getting up-to-date accurate information regarding courses/sections
offered and their enrollment has improved though still exists in some faculties.
OIRA is being better provided with up to date information on courses with labs
and lectures with different instructors, and on courses being taught by more than
one instructor or sections that need to be combined. We obtain needed
information from deans’ offices directly; however, these also do not always have
most update information, especially with regard to part timers who have not
signed their contracts. To overcome this problem, OIRA has resorted to automatic
update of its database so that any changes on the system will be automatically
updated on the ICE database.
2. OIRA will continue to work on meeting faculty requests for combining course
sections for same instructor, for conducting ICEs for courses with different start
and end date, and other needs.
3. OIRA will introduce Text Analytics this fall to provide more in depth summary of
students’ comments. These can be done for a single course, several courses, and
departments.
13
Appendix: ICE Item Averages by Faculty
1
Faculty
FAFS
FAS
OSB
FEA
FHS
HSON
AUB
F
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.4
Faculty
FAFS
FAS
OSB
FEA
FHS
HSON
AUB
F
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.1
Faculty
FAFS
FAS
OSB
FEA
FHS
HSON
AUB
F
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.4
4.3
4.1
2
S
4.4
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.3
F
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.4
S
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.1
F
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.2
S
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.1
F
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.4
4.1
6
3
S
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.4
F
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.3
7
12
4
S
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.3
F
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.2
8
S
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.2
F
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.2
F
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.2
14
S
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.1
F
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.4
4.1
14
F
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.1
9
S
4.4
4.1
4.3
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.2
13
5
S
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.2
10
S
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.2
F
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.2
15
S
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.1
S
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.1
11
S
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.2
F
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.1
16
S
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.3
4.1
4.1
17
F
4.2
3.9
4.0
S
4.2
3.9
4.1
F
4.3
4.0
4.2
S
4.4
4.0
4.3
F
4.1
3.9
4.1
S
4.2
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.0