Instructor Course Evaluations
Fall/Spring 2013-14 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 2013-14 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 four weeks of the fall and spring semesters
using the on-line system prepared last year in collaboration with IT Academic Support
and various faculties. The system uses the Banner Survey module. Specific detailed
instructions were provided for students on how to access the system and periodic
reminders were sent. To enhance response rate, a new measure was taken this term and it
involved placing a 3-week hold on grades of students who do not fill their ICEs. Faculty
were also provided with facility 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 2398 (2204 last fall) and 2397 (2055 last spring) course
sections in fall and spring, respectively, and a total of 36,478 and 33,287 (14,997 and
11,031 last year) student evaluations were filled out, much higher than last year because
of increased response rate. The 40% response rate was dropped and all course sections
were included in the evaluations. A breakdown of the sample of students by class, reason
for taking the courses, and expected grade is reported in Table 1. Demographics are quite
similar in both semesters, however, sample includes lower percentages of sophomores
1
filling ICE in spring, a lower percentage of students taking required courses from outside
the major and university requirements in spring (15% vs. 18%; 9% vs. 11% respectively)
and they, in general, have higher grade expectations in spring as 44% expect grade to be
≥ 85 vs. 42% in fall, slightly lower expectations than last year’s (49% and 45%,
respectively. 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 73-80% in the fall and 73-88% in spring, while departmental
ranged from 31-94% in fall and 54-100% in spring.
Table 1: ICE (Fall and Spring 2013-14) Sample Description
Faculty %
%
Class
%
%
Reason for taking
F
S
F
S
Course
FAFS
Freshman
Required from major
4 6
7
6
FAS
Sophomore 41
Elective from major
63 60
37
FEA
Junior
Elective outside
19 20
26
28
major
FHS
Senior
Required outside
3 2
21
23
major
OSB
4rth Year
University required
9 10
5
6
th
SNU
5 Year
2 2
0
0
Graduate
Special
Expected Grade
 90
85-89
80-84
70-79
70
%F
%S
19
23
24
20
9
20
24
24
20
8
Number of
hours
≤3
4–6
7 – 10
> 10
%
F
30
15
14
%
S
29
14
13
18
15
11
9
%F
%S
27
30
24
14
27
30
24
12
With respect to departmental response rates, lowest were in MHRM (OSB), URPL
(FEA), and MEST (FAS). Tables 2 & 3 also report the mean response rate for all course
sections by faculty and department. Mean response rate for the whole sample ranges
between 73-88% for faculties with FAS and FHS leading in fall and SN and OSB in
spring term.
2
Table2: Surveyed Population of Courses & Response Rates by Faculty
Response Rate
Faculty
Courses
% >=40
Mean Resp.
>=40
Rate
F
S
F
S
F
S
F
S
Agricultural &
Food Sciences
83
112
83
111 100%
99%
73%
74%
Arts & Sciences
1212
1123
1191
1099
98%
98%
80%
79%
Business
Engineering &
Architecture
161
183
151
178
94%
97%
76%
81%
364
396
354
394
97%
99%
78%
79%
Health Sciences
Nursing
76
121
61
175
74
117
57
170
97%
97%
93%
97%
79%
75%
73%
88%
2017
2050
1970
2009
97%
97%
77%
79%
AUB
Table 3: Response Rates & Courses Surveyed by Department
Faculty
Faculty
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
Dept.
Dept.
Count of Course
>=0.4
% >=0.4
Mean
Resp. Rate
F
S
F
S
F
S
F
S
AGSC
AVSC
24
7
40
10
24
7
40
9
100%
100%
100%
90%
64%
63%
66%
69%
LDEM
NFSC
25
27
27
35
25
27
27
35
100%
100%
100%
100%
78%
79%
78%
83%
AMST
6
6
5
6
83%
100%
69%
73%
ARAB
AROL
BIOL
38
10
117
38
6
111
37
10
117
38
6
109
97%
100%
100%
100%
100%
98%
80%
70%
85%
82%
80%
83%
CHEM
112
114
111
114
99%
100%
83%
84%
FAS
CHIN
3
3
3
3
100%
100%
77%
72%
FAS
CMPS
76
69
73
69
96%
100%
79%
75%
FAS
CVSP
50
47
50
47
100%
100%
86%
80%
FAS
ECON
84
76
84
76
100%
100%
81%
81%
FAS
EDUC
46
33
45
32
98%
97%
81%
75%
FAS
ENGL
142
123
142
122
100%
99%
84%
83%
FAS
FAAH
40
37
40
37
100%
100%
84%
82%
FAS
FREN
2
2
2
2
100%
100%
91%
76%
FAS
GEOL
21
20
21
20
100%
100%
80%
79%
FAS
HIST
18
17
15
16
83%
94%
70%
68%
3
FAS
122
15
15
121
16
13
122
14
13
121
15
7
100%
93%
87%
100%
94%
54%
79%
70%
71%
81%
67%
46%
PHIL
45
45
45
44
100%
98%
77%
77%
PHYS
PSPA
PSYC
SOAN
STAT
87
55
33
26
22
78
50
33
27
18
86
54
33
26
22
77
48
33
25
18
99%
98%
100%
100%
100%
99%
96%
100%
93%
100%
79%
73%
85%
83%
83%
82%
74%
78%
73%
79%
UPEN
15
11
11
7
73%
64%
68%
56%
FAS
UPHU
2
1
1
1
50%
100%
57%
67%
FAS
UPIT
3
3
3
2
100%
67%
74%
54%
FAS
FAS
OSB
OSB
OSB
UPMA
UPSC
ACCT
BUSS
DCSN
4
3
22
47
14
2
3
18
65
20
3
3
22
47
14
2
2
18
65
20
75%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
100%
100%
100%
65%
81%
82%
80%
78%
75%
61%
77%
85%
83%
OSB
OSB
ENTM
FINA
2
14
2
18
2
14
2
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
78%
78%
80%
77%
OSB
OSB
OSB
INFO
INFP
MFIN
11
5
7
7
4
8
11
5
7
7
4
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
89%
53%
78%
78%
64%
91%
OSB
MHRM
10
15
1
10
10%
67%
31%
75%
OSB
MKTG
14
15
13
15
93%
100%
75%
81%
OSB
MNGT
15
11
15
11
100%
100%
83%
77%
FEA
FEA
ARCH
30
33
30
33
100%
100%
83%
70%
CHEN
20
26
20
26
100%
100%
88%
77%
FEA
CIVE
67
70
67
70
100%
100%
72%
79%
FEA
EECE
89
109
88
108
99%
99%
84%
86%
FEA
ENMG
20
21
19
21
95%
100%
73%
77%
FEA
ENSC
2
FEA
GRDS
21
22
16
22
76%
100%
66%
76%
FEA
FEA
FEA
MECH
URDS
URPL
110
2
3
110
1
3
108
2
2
109
1
3
98%
100%
67%
99%
100%
100%
77%
63%
42%
76%
100%
72%
FHS
ENHL
13
13
12
12
92%
92%
73%
76%
FHS
ENSC
1
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
50%
FHS
EPHD
17
8
16
8
94%
100%
80%
74%
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
MATH
MCOM
MEST
2
4
100%
53%
FHS
HMPD
9
8
9
8
100%
100%
87%
85%
FHS
HPCH
11
15
11
15
100%
100%
76%
81%
FHS
LABM
9
13
9
10
100%
77%
82%
56%
FHS
MLSP
5
3
5
3
100%
100%
94%
76%
FHS
PBHL
11
HSON
NURS
121
11
175
117
100%
170
97%
69%
97%
75%
Results
Results, including comments were reported to each faculty member, department chair,
and dean electronically. In addition to item means, averages/percentiles were reported for
the instructor, the course and for student learning outcome development. In addition,
category, faculty, and university percentiles/means were reported for each item and for
each subgroup. Percentiles 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.
Figures 1 and 2 present summary normative data for ICE subscales for the University and
per faculty for fall and spring 2013-14 in comparison with 2009-13 scores.
As in previous administrations, students’ evaluations of teachers (A) were, in general,
higher (4.0-4.1) than their evaluations of courses (B) (3.9) and of learning outcomes(C)
(3.8-3.9). ICE results this year show a rise from last year but comparable to previous
performance. Averages for fall and spring 2013-14 are (A, mean=4.0; 4.0), course (B,
mean=3.9; 4.0), additional items (D, 3.9; 4.0), and learning outcome (C, 3.8; 3.9).
Ratings in spring are, in general, slightly higher than fall. Four-year results show stability
of ICE ratings on the subscales over time, except for last year which should be taken as
an exception because of lower response rate and change of administration format.
With respect to instructor effectiveness by faculty (Figure 2a), mean scores ranged
between 3.8-4.3 in the fall and spring. FEA reports lowest rating of 3.8, while SNU
reports highest in both terms with OSB catching up in spring. Most of faculties show
stability over the years, with FEA dropping in last two years.
With respect to course evaluations, ratings ranged between 3.7-4.3. SNU is leading and
FEA has lowest averages. Most of faculties improved in spring and over last two years.
5
88%
Figure 1. Subscale Averages 2009-13
AUB Average per subscale
4.2
201420
4.1
201410
ICE Averages
4
201320
3.9
201310
3.8
211220
201210
3.7
201120
3.6
201110
3.5
201020
201010
3.4
A
B
C
200920
D
ICE Subscales
Figure 2 A
Instructor Effectiveness by Faculty
4.4
I
4.3
C
4.2
E
4.1
A
V
E
R
A
G
E
S
201420
201410
201320
4
201310
3.9
201220
3.8
201210
3.7
201120
3.6
201110
3.5
201020
3.4
201010
FAFS
FAS
FEA Faculties FHS
6
HSON
OSB
Figure 2B
Course Evaluation by Faculty
4.3
I 4.2
C
4.1
E
4
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
201420
201410
201320
3.9
201310
3.8
201220
3.7
201210
3.6
201120
3.5
201110
3.4
201020
3.3
FAFS
FAS
FEA Faculties FHS
HSON
OSB
201010
As to learning outcomes by faculty, scores ranged from 3.7-4.3. FAS and SNU showed
improvement, while FAFS and OSB showed stability, and FHS were fluctuating.
Additional items means ranged 3.8-4. SNU witnessed a significant drop in spring 2012
then improved, as for, its scores are fluctuating. Other faculties showed stability, except
for FAS that showedimprovement. FEA did not have additional items in its ICE form.
Figure 2 C
Learning Outcomes by Faculty
I 4.5
C
4.3
E
A 4.1
v
e 3.9
r
3.7
a
g 3.5
e
3.3
s
201420
201410
201320
201310
201220
201210
201120
201110
FAFS
FAS
FEA Faculties FHS
7
HSON
OSB
201020
Figure 2 D
Additional Items by Faculty
4.6
I
C
E
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
201420
4.4
201410
201320
4.2
201310
201220
4
201210
201120
3.8
201110
3.6
201020
201010
3.4
FAFS
FAS
FEA
Faculties FHS
Table 4: Average of Overall Items by Faculty
N
Item # 8
Faculty
F
S
F
S
FAFS
82
112
4.0
4.0
FAS
1212
1123
4.0
4.0
FEA
363
395
3.8
3.8
FHS
76
60
4.1
3.8
HSON
121
183
4.3
4.2
OSB
161
175
4.0
4.2
AUB
2015
2048
4.0
4.0
HSON
200920
OSB
Item # 14
F
S
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.7
4.3
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.0
As to item # 8, overall effectiveness of instructor, it averaged 4.0 for all faculties in both
terms, also, item # 14, overall course effectiveness, averaged 3.9 in fall and 4.0 in spring.
A breakdown of items 8 and 14 averages by faculty is reported in Table 4. For item 8,
SNU has highest average in both terms, with OSB catching up in spring and FEA
reporting lowest average, with FHS catching up in fall. Same interpretations apply for
item 14 for both terms. Figure 3 presents 4-year trend of overall items. It does show
increase from 2009, then stability with a drop in 2013 and then rise in 2014.
8
Figure 3
Trend Analysis for Overall Items
4.14
I
C 4.09
E
4.04
A
v 3.99
e
3.94
r
a 3.89
g
e 3.84
s 3.79
Overall Instructor
Overall Course
Fall 09 Sp 09 Fall 10 Sp 10 Fall 11 Sp 11 Fall 12 Sp 12 Fall 13 Sp 13 Fall 14 Sp 14
Appendix presents item statistics for the items by faculty, and for the whole university.
9
Table 5 presents subscale averages and their relevant quartiles per faculty and for the
university. Faculties with highest subscale average are highlighted in blue.
Table 5: Subscale Averages& Quartiles per Faculty& for University
N
Mean
F
83
1201
S
110
1106
F
4.0
4.0
S
4.1
4.0
F
3.7
3.7
Percentiles
50
S
F
S
3.6
4.1
4.2
3.7
4
4.1
1
74
161
1520
48
1
55
183
1455
93
4.2
3.8
3.9
3.9
4.4
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
3.5
3.6
3.7
4.2
4.6
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.7
4.2
3.8
4
4
4.5
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.6
AG
AS
EA
HS
NU
SB
83
1201
360
74
103
161
1982
110
1106
391
55
160
183
2005
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.8
4.3
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.4
3.6
4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.4
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
4
4
3.8
3.8
4.3
3.9
3.9
4.1
4.0
3.8
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.6
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.4
4.6
4.3
4.3
AG
AS
EA
HS
NU
SB
83
1201
360
74
103
161
1982
83
1201
1
74
103
161
1623
110
1106
391
56
160
183
2006
110
1106
1
55
160
183
1615
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.9
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.8
4.5
3.7
4.3
3.8
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.8
3.9
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.6
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.4
4.5
3.4
4
3.5
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.9
3.7
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.5
4.8
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.5
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.9
4.4
4.1
4.1
3.9
3.8
4.5
3.8
4.4
3.8
3.9
4.2
4.1
3.9
4.2
4.3
4.2
4.1
4.2
3.9
4.8
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.4
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.7
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.2
4.7
4.2
4.2
4.5
4.5
4.2
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.8
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.4
25
Additional Items
AG
AS
EA
HS
SB
AUB
Clinical Items
Course Evaluation
AUB
Instructor
Evaluation
AUB
Learning Outcomes
AUB
NU
AG
AS
EA
HS
NU
SB
75
F
4.4
4.3
S
4.5
4.4
Table 6 presents subscale means by category of courses in every faculty. Lowest (red
font) and highest (blue font) categories within each faculty were highlighted to facilitate
comparison for improvement.
10
Table 6: Subscale Means per Category per Faculty
Faculty
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAFS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FAS
FEA
FEA
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
FHS
HSON
HSON
HSON
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
OSB
CATEGORY
AIII
Graduate Lecture
Lab Teaching
Large Lecture
Large Lecture & Lab
Seminar
Small Lecture
Blended Learning
Education-Method
Education-NonMethod
Humanities
Sciences
Social Sciences
Blended Learning
FEA
Blended Learning
Graduate Lecture
Discussion Lecture
Discussion Lecture +
Assignment
Lecture
Lecture +
Assignment
Lecture + Lab
Blended Learning
Blended Learning
HSON FORM A
HSON FORM B
ACCT
BUSS
FINA
MKTG
MNGT
OPIM
Instructor
Course
Learning
Effectiveness Effectiveness Outcomes
F
S
F
S
F
S
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.7
3.7
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.9
4.0
4.8
4.4
4.6
4.3
4.5
4.0
4.1
4.1
4
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.6
3.8
3.5
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.5
4.4 4.5
4.4
COUNT
F
S
12
11
15
13
14
3
22
14
26
16
6
4
15
22
2
11
7
7
39
377
565
213
4
360
1
26
335
537
201
17
391
4
2
12
18
18
17
10
18
18
55
48
22
57
21
14
17
30
3.9
4.1
3.9
4.1
4
3.8
3.3
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
3.8
4.0
4.4
3.9
24
16
7
8
5
15
67
93
18
80
26
15
13
31
11
3.9
4.0
3.9
4
4.0
4.1
3.9
4
3.8
3.9
3.6
4.0
3.7 3.8
4.5
3.9
4.8
3.8
3.9
4.1
4.2
3.9
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.1
3.6
4.0
3.2
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.1
4.0
4.0
3.8
2.9
4.0
4.0
4.2
4.3
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.4
3.7
3.8
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.7
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.6
Conclusion: Accomplishments and Areas of Improvement
ICE results are showing stability with slight improvement this spring as compared to last
fall. 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 80%. Faculty were provided with option to
view and monitor response rates in their respective sections, students were sent
reminders, and periodic reporting of progress in response rate was posted on OIRA
website and shared using emails. Reports generated followed format adopted last fall and
faculty members were provided with an interpretive guide. 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.
Procedures to produce the ICE reports were improved through automating most of the
stages of the process and the report production. The building up of an ICE database
enables us to produce trends report by teacher, course or department and/or by item.
These reports are now available.
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.
2. On-line ICE makes use of Banner survey and its is not user friendly as presents
one item per page and this is time consuming with a long survey. In addition,
using Banner is not compatible with smart devices and so reduces student
motivation to answer. Purchasing a new software is being considered to overcome
the above problems.
12
Appendix: ICE Item Averages by Faculty
1
Faculty
FAFS
FAS
OSB
FEA
FHS
HSON
F
4.12
4.14
4.15
3.95
3.99
4.33
4.11
2
S
4.13
4.16
4.25
3.92
4.19
4.22
4.12
6
Faculty F
FAFS
3.87
FAS
3.87
OSB
3.84
FEA
3.61
FHS
3.68
HSON
4.21
3.83
F
3.8
3.92
3.83
3.63
3.72
4.21
3.86
S
F
4.22
4.09
4.26
4.05
4.39
4.03
4.06
3.83
4.40
3.89
4.24
4.32
4.23
4.02
7
S F
3.87 3.91
3.92 3.91
4.02 3.95
3.64 3.73
3.99
3.8
4.13 4.31
3.89
3.9
12
Faculty
FAFS
FAS
OSB
FEA
FHS
HSON
3
F
4.29
4.25
4.27
4.13
4.18
4.39
4.24
4
S
F
4.10
4.07
4.10
4.05
4.17
4.03
3.85
3.8
4.11
3.86
4.19
4.32
4.07
4.01
8
S F
3.94
4
3.98 3.99
4.18 4.01
3.75
3.8
4.03
3.8
4.18 4.31
3.97 3.97
13
S
F
3.91
3.87
4.01
3.9
4.01
3.85
3.72
3.66
3.98
3.76
4.18
4.17
3.96
3.86
9
S
F
4.03 3.94
4.03 3.94
4.15 3.85
3.80 3.75
4.06 3.87
4.18 4.29
4.01 3.91
14
S
F
3.95 3.92
3.97 3.88
4.01 3.83
3.72 3.67
4.03 3.73
4.14 4.27
3.94 3.86
13
5
S
F
4.07
3.89
4.09
3.85
4.19
3.81
3.81
3.61
4.11
3.68
4.22
4.2
4.05
3.82
S
3.93
3.91
4.03
3.68
3.93
4.09
3.89
10
S F
3.99 3.98
3.99 3.99
4.04 3.91
3.78 3.83
4.07 3.91
4.19 4.28
3.97 3.97
15
S F
3.93
3.86
3.95
3.71
4.03
3.68
3.75
3.95
3.68
4.14
4.3
3.93
3.75
11
S
4.03
4.04
4.11
3.86
4.10
4.22
4.03
16
F
3.86
3.88
3.77
3.61
3.67
4.24
3.83
S
3.92
3.96
4.00
3.68
3.92
4.13
3.92
S
F
3.86 4.02
3.82 3.88
3.93 3.91
17
S
F
S
4.01 3.76 3.86
3.94 3.72 3.83
4.11 3.75 3.94
3.86
4.12
3.87
4.07
4.17
3.99
3.94
4.41
3.93
3.56
4.31
3.75
3.87
4.10
3.87