K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
Overall comments:



Any time there is a question with an “and” in it (for example, clearly and effectively), there is the
potential for that “and” to be replaced with “but not”. So the professor may have been clear but not
effective, or clear but not helpful, or clearly stated but not followed, etc…
There were a couple mentions of adding a question about fairness, if the professor treated and/or
graded students fairly/equally.
The summary of the respondent’s expectations come from the things that professors both did and
did not do (depending on whether the student was evaluating the best or worst professor that they
had).
1A. The course was well organized.
Problems
One respondent mentioned having any problems: Is it the professor’s or student’s definition of well
organized (it may appear that the professor thinks they are organized, but the student thinks he/she is
not). One respondent took it as a general question if one did or did not like the class.
Interpretations
This question seemed pretty clear to the respondents. They interpreted it as a broad question about the
structure/organization of the course over the semester, with most referring to the syllabus.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:





The syllabus was clear.
The professor “stayed on track” and followed the syllabus, including when homework was collected,
and when exams were taken.
There was a logical ordering/progression to the class, with the information presented later in the
course on building upon initial lectures and readings. Themes and/or modules were used.
The professor stated at the beginning of class what they would be covering in the lecture, and how it
tied into the readings.
Students knew at the end of that day’s class what was to be covered in the next lecture/class.
Worst:








The course delivery and activity was out of sync with the syllabus.
The professor failed to adapt to the skill level of the students.
The assigned readings were totally different than the lectures.
There was no explanation of what was going to be presented, and/or what the students should be
focusing on.
Changes to the syllabus were not communicated in advance.
The professor did not have a syllabus, did not define course objectives, did not remember what was
covered in the previous class, would jump around in the book/topics, and did not test on what had
been covered.
There were no handouts, or print outs of PowerPoint slides.
The professor was not computer savvy, and fumbled around while lecturing.
1B. Assignments contributed to meeting the course objectives and learning goals.
1
K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
Problems
For both 1B and 1E (which should be moved above 1B) there were very different interpretations of what
course objectives and learning goals are, as well as understanding what is the difference between the
two. Some professors never made clear what the CO and LG are, and therefore it is hard to say whether
the assignments contributed to meeting them. May want to rephrase to “assignments contributed to
learning/better understanding of the material/course topic” (or something along those lines).
Some courses do not have assignments (only exams) and therefore the students answered either
“neither agree nor disagree” or “strongly disagree”
Interpretations
The assignments were helpful and/or relevant. They contributed to the understanding of the course
material. They helped you learn the material.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:





The assignments were helpful, relevant, effective, stimulating.
The student learned more by digging further into a topic.
It helped the student learn the material.
The assignments were instructive and extrapolated beyond the knowledge base of what the
students had been taught, allowed the students to take one step further on their own.
Weekly quizzes helped build up the knowledge bit by bit, leading up to the exam.
Worst:




The professor did not provide support for the assignments when the students didn’t understand the
material it was covering.
Instructions for the assignments were completely unclear. There was no information about what the
professor expected to see in the writing, students had to guess.
The professor decided after the first round of homework assignments (which were returned
ungraded) that he did not have time to grade them. The assignments were no longer collected, and
all the students received an “A” for that percentage of the overall course grade.
The professor didn’t speak very good English – he tried to assign homework once but the students
couldn’t understand what he wanted.
1C. Requirements and grading standards were both clearly stated and followed.
Problems
This was messy because there are four ideas in it: 1) requirements 2) grading standards 3) clearly stated
4) followed.
Grading standards were interpreted in a couple ways 1) the professor stated that the exams would be
worth 40% each and homework worth 20% or 2) a write up or explanation what the professor expected to
see in homework/exams, an actual guide to how he/she is going to grade (and I didn’t get a sense that
very many professors did this).
Some students weren’t sure what was meant by either grading standards or requirements.
2
K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
Several students brought up having grades curved at the end of the semester.
Interpretations
There wasn’t a lot of consensus (as seen in the problem details). Usually requirements were viewed as
what was going to be required as part of the grade for the course, while the grading standards may be
viewed as the breakdown of the percentage that each requirement was worth, both of which are
presented on the syllabus.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:




What was presented in class and on the syllabus was followed.
A clear outline of what was expected and how it should be done was presented.
The break down of the grading was followed.
The professor updated the students of their status every three weeks.
Worst:










New assignments popped up at the end of the semester.
Some assignments weren’t graded.
Grading was not clear before homework was turned it and feedback did not clarify grading.
The professor was not clear about what he/she was looking for, it had to be assumed what a good
paper looked like.
The professor did not return blue book exams, only emailed a grade. When student went to office
hours to look at exam, there were no marks or feedback on the exam.
The professor clearly stated what each requirement was worth but then did not follow what was
stated.
The professor clearly stated requirements then changed it.
The professor was hard, grades were low, and they were curved at the end of the semester.
The professor did not provide a syllabus (or requirements/grading standards).
A second midterm was added.
1D. Required materials and books were helpful and added to the learning process.
Problems
May want to drop the last part of the question “added to the learning process”. May want to change
“required” to “assigned”. Students preferred this kind of phrasing compared to 1B. Simpler/less wordy was
usually better.
Interpretations
Most students interpreted the statement as “books were helpful”.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:


The student liked to go through the textbook.
The books helped to clarify the concept and the chapters weren’t too long.
3
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
K. Firminger


Jan. 23th, 2005
The material was very difficult and not helpful on its own, but was useful in combination with the
lectures.
The materials handed out by the professor were very good, but the required book was not very
good.
Mixed:


The book was confusing, but compared to the others used for the course, it was the best of the
worst.
Because the student wasn’t learning from the professor, the book was the only source of
knowledge.
Worst:






Materials were not helpful and did not add anything that could not have been accomplished with one
or two of the materials that were assigned.
Books were not linked to the lectures.
The book was only used for homework and examples since the professor felt the book did it wrong
(it was wrong on the exam if the student did it the way the book explained it).
The book was poorly organized and chapters were too long, not highly the most important and
relevant theories.
The book had a lot of mistakes.
Material was dated.
1E. The instructor communicated course objectives and learning goals.
Problems
Move up (see 1B). Again, clarify and/or define CO and LG. Differentiate between 1B, 1C, and 1E. One
student mentioned that it is more important to ask whether the CO and LG were achieved (vs. stated).
Interpretations
Most students interpreted this, at the most basic level, as the professor having and explaining the
syllabus – stating what would be taught during the semester.
The objective of the course is to understand and learn the material, what the students are going to do
over the term, and how the students are going to reach the final overall goal.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:




Objectives were well communicated both verbally and in written form on the syllabus.
Not only did the professor clearly communicate the objectives but did so often throughout the
semester.
Over the semester the students were able to see the objective come to life and saw them
happening.
Objectives are stated in a way that the students understand it.
Worst:
4
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
K. Firminger




Jan. 23th, 2005
It took well into the semester before the students figured out what they were learning. The professor
did not follow a progression, skipped around a lot.
Other than the syllabus, the professor never talked about it again.
The professor’s goals were different from the students – the students were trying to get a basic
understanding of the material. The professor went into complex ideas that weren’t explained well
and then not tested on.
The professor didn’t have a syllabus.
2A. The instructor came to class well prepared.
Problems
Possibly differentiate from 1A
Interpretations
Students interpreted this as either (possibly more than one of):



Materials for class – handouts, PowerPoint slides, outlines, graded homework,
The professor’s knowledge of the topic and ability to answer questions on it.
The professor’s organization of, and time spent preparing, the lecture and/or class activities.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:





The professor comes into class with materials (PowerPoint slides, handouts, notes, and graded
assignments)
Writes on the board (or gives a handout) stating the focus of the class for that day.
The professor has spent time in advance thinking about how to deliver the lecture, what would be
discussed.
The lecture covers the material the students have read and is prepared to answer questions on the
readings.
The professor knew what he/she was talking about
Worst:




The professor’s lecture would be a couple chapters behind from the readings.
The professor fumbled with his/her notes.
The professor stated that it was the first time he/she had taught the class. It became obvious that
he/she had not read the book. He/she did not have a plan for the class.
The professor was not structured and strayed off topic to whatever he could remember from his own
experience.
2B. The instructor communicated course content clearly and effectively.
Problems
The “and” problem – sometimes the professor was clear but not effective.
Effective was felt to be a repeat of 2C.
5
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
K. Firminger
Jan. 23th, 2005
This also brought up an issue of international professors who don’t speak English very well and cannot be
understood by their students– a problem that in one instance biased the entire evaluation.
Interpretations
There were multiple interpretations of this statement, depending if students were focusing on clearly or
effectively. Some felt it referred to a professor’s teaching style. Others viewed it as the professor’s actual
speech/speaking ability.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:








The professor was enthusiastic, engaging and used personal experience or case studies to clarify
the concepts.
If the students look confused, the professor would ask students if they had questions, come up with
another example, or explain it in a different way.
The professor’s speech was slow and very precise.
The professor spent the appropriate amount of time on a topic.
The professor clearly explained and emphasized the most important points.
The professor made sure the students understood the material before moving on.
The professor based the presentation on the student’s current level of understanding.
The professor walked across the room and looked everyone in the eyes.
Worst:








The professor did not clarify or help the students to understand the readings and/or content.
The professor either get upset or repeats what he/she already said when asked questions.
“Clarification” of an idea leaves the students more confused.
If the student asked questions, they are made to feel stupid for not knowing the material.
The professor taught in a way that was not helpful (did not allow for deep understanding of the
topic) to the student, it was clear but not effective.
The professor did not know what he/she was talking about.
The professor mumbled and then would get loud all of a sudden.
The professor said things that didn’t make sense and would not go over them again.
The professor was very monotone, with no enthusiasm.
2C. The instructor taught in a way that helped me learn the subject matter.
Problems
Tied to “effectively” component of 2B
Interpretations
This question made students rethink the previous question (2B). The students that answered the
“effectively” part already said that it was the same as the last question. Those students who answered the
“clearly” part of 2B, now answered this question in relation to the professor’s teaching style.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:
6
K. Firminger





Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
The professor had extensive personal experience and gave real life examples from that experience.
The professor communicated effectively in a way that allowed the student to learn.
The professor was so into what he was doing that his/her enthusiasm allowed the student to get into
the topic, the ideas, and learn the material.
The professor had a good speaking voice and way of communicating. It helped the student
concentrate and remember the material.
The professor made the topic really interesting even though the student wasn’t a big fan of the
material. The professor related the topic to everyday life and to people’s backgrounds. He/she
would involve the students and provide activities that helped the students learn.
Worst:







The professor did not present their relevant experience and research in the field.
The professor had a bad attitude, no enthusiasm, and little clarity.
The professor did not teach in a way that the student would remember the material for the rest of
his/her life, only long enough to take the exams.
The professor did not emphasize what was important.
The professor was not knowledgeable or qualified in the field he/she was teaching.
The professor’s inability to speak clear English inhibited the student from learning anything.
The professor did not go over the content in a way that allowed the student to understand it. He/she
did not give good examples, and did not explain them clearly.
2D. The instructor provided clear and helpful feedback.
Problems
“What kind of feedback?” was a common response from students.
Is it written (on homework/exams) or verbal? Is it feedback on homework/exams or is it in class during
discussions or is it feedback that the student initiated by going to office hours/after class?
Sometimes the feedback is clear but not helpful (they understood the feedback, but it didn’t resolve the
problem or help the student understand the material).
Interpretations
Feedback was interpreted as either written feedback on homework and/or exams; or verbal feedback
given during class (either to the specific student or to the whole class), before or after class, or during
office hours.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:




The professor encouraged students to ask questions in class if they were unclear on something.
The professor wrote memos detailing the student’s strengths and weaknesses and how to improve.
It was easy to ask what the student did wrong and get clear feedback.
The professor went over the exams during class and explained the most common problems.
Mixed:
7
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
K. Firminger




Jan. 23th, 2005
The professor would provide feedback but it was more on structure and not on content, so what to
write and what to do was not so clear.
The professor would give feedback to the students question and he/she would come out knowing
more, but then it wouldn’t help on the exam.
The professor would tell the student where they made a good point, in order to be encouraging, but
would not provide negative feedback.
The professor’s feedback was helpful, but the student couldn’t read the handwriting so he/she had
to have the professor read it to him/her.
Worst









The comments made on the assignments were not in line with the grade or with the evaluation of
the assignment.
The professor did not provide feedback that clarified, help, or illuminate the problem.
The professor told the student that his/her questions in class were distracting.
The professor would tell the student to seek help elsewhere (the library), and never really answered
questions.
Many students in the class wrote an appeal to the professor to get some points back on the exams
because he/she did not explain why points were taken off.
The professor was not around to give feedback.
The professor did not give feedback (did not return homework).
The professor did not correct the formatting or structure of the paper.
The professor was discouraging to the students. He/she told them that they might want to consider
switching their major, that they had only made it into this upper level class because of grade
inflation.
2E. The instructor returned assignments and exams in a timely manner.
Interpretations
Surprisingly (to me) almost all the students had the exact same measure of what “a timely manner” is.
Timely manner would be in a way that would help you before the next assignment or exam or is returned
when they say it will be returned. A week or no more than two classes.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:



Things were returned when they said they would be returned, in a timely manner.
Grades were posted on blackboard.
Grades were emailed to students.
Worst:




Students did not get their final paper back.
The professor returned the exam on time, but not the homework.
The professor returned the first couple of assignments after the midterm.
The professor did not return homework (but stated upfront that she was not going to do so, and
made students make two copies).
2F The instructor was available outside of class.
8
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
K. Firminger
Jan. 23th, 2005
Problems
Some students answered Neither agree nor disagree because they didn’t feel the question applied to
them since they did not attempt to reach the professor outside of class.
Interpretations
Outside of class included office hours, before and after class, and email.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:



The professor repeats when they available and encourage students to take advantage of office
hours.
The professor was available outside of class and answered emails.
The professor had office hours, came to class early, and stayed late to talk to students.
Worst:




The professor wasn’t available. He/she wasn’t at his office.
The office hours were before class, and class was already early.
The professor was there for office hours but would not pay attention to the student (looking at
his/her computer during the interaction).
The professor had office hours but if no one showed up within the first 15 minutes, he/she would
leave.
3A. The instructor established a class environment that fostered learning.
Problems
A little wordy (fostered learning). Linked to 3C
Interpretations
There was some variety in interpretations. Most students thought about whether the professor
encouraged participation, discussion and questions. Others viewed it as whether the professor kept the
class under control. And finally, some interpreted as another question on teaching style.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:







The professor brought energy to the class and encouraged students to ask questions.
The professor would engage the students by doing experiments and demonstrations with the
students. The student wanted to be there even though it was 9 am.
The professor had good sense of authority and control of the classroom. Students trusted the
professor and wanted to learn because he/she knew what he/she was talking about.
The professor made sure everyone was working together and talking about what was going on.
The professor facilitated students expressing their ideas, their experiences and disagreeing.
The professor made sure everyone knew a specific topic before moving on.
The professor maintained a respectful and orderly classroom.
9
K. Firminger


Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
The professor was nice, would answer stupid questions and explain it.
The class was actively participating and learning, no one was doing other things.
Worst:






Class discussions weren’t well organized. They were chaotic and nothing was settled.
The professor gave preferences to some students over others.
The professor would call on students, making it feel like it was not an option. It was embarrassing if
the student didn’t know the answer.
There wasn’t any discussion, teamwork or interaction, people just came and left.
It was a big class, so there was no student involvement.
The students would not want to ask questions because the professor would give negative,
discouraging responses (such as, “are you sure you should be in this class?”)
3B. The instructor treated students, their ideas, and their contributions with respect.
Problems
A couple of suggestions of separating respect for students & respect for student’s ideas/contributions.
One student felt there should be more than one question, or that it should be weighed as more important
in order to emphasize the importance of the question.
Interpretations
Some students focused more on the professor encouraging questions and ideas from the students, and
others focused more on whether the students were ever disrespected, humiliated, or embarrassed.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:










The professor respects the students, their time and their involvement in the course.
The professor took a variety of questions from everyone.
The students felt comfortable and encouraged to ask questions. The professor would take as many
as he/she could.
The professor really appreciated and took in what the students were saying.
The professor did not belittle the student, never said “why don’t you know this?”, and would explain
it again.
The professor challenged the student in a respectful manner. The students felt comfortable
challenging the professor.
The professor treated everyone equally.
There were no stupid questions.
The professor was interested in hearing feedback from the students.
There was a lot of give and take in the classroom.
Worst:



The professor encouraged students too much and people were allowed to go on and on. It wasn’t
organized.
The professor was not considerate of the student.
The professor would sometimes embarrass the students, saying, “I can tell who hasn’t been
reading.”
10
K. Firminger



Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
If the students tried to help the professor figure out something, he/she would stop them. The
professor was bothered if the students knew more than him/her.
Even though the students’ ideas weren’t heard, the professor didn’t disrespect anyone. The class
environment didn’t encourage contribution.
The professor’s comments were negative and critical, not constructive.
3C. The instructor generated enthusiasm for learning his or her subject matter.
Interpretations
Tied to 2C & 3A
This question was viewed as about a professor’s teaching style and personality, usually referring to the
professor’s ability to bring in real life examples and relate the topic to the students.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:








The professor was personable and enjoyed what he/she taught.
There was a growth of enthusiasm of anticipation of what was going to happen in each class.
Students had responsibility, wanted to do the work, and wanted to see what would happen.
The professor was an effective communicated and the students learned what the professor wanted
them to learn.
The student was enthusiastic because the professor taught in away that allowed the student to
understand, learn, and become comfortable with a difficult subject matter.
The students left the course more interested in a subject than before they went in.
The professor develops interest by brining in relevant current topics, and taking a macro instead of
micro approach.
The professor gave real life examples, compare it to modern events and make jokes.
The professor would tell stories, give background knowledge about the people who had the
models/theories.
Worst:







The lack of organization and the chaotic nature of the classroom didn’t allow for enthusiasm
There were serious morale problems in the classroom. All the students got shot down in a variety of
ways, that at best, the student’s question would not be answered, and at worst, they would get
ridiculed.
The student wasn’t excited about the subject, but didn’t hate it.
The professor would use the same examples over and over.
The professor was indifferent to the subject matter, and did not talk about how the subject matter
was applied outside of the classroom.
The professor would come in late and leave early. Since the professor didn’t really care, the
students didn’t care either.
The professor had no faith in the students and their ability to learn the material.
4A. At the start of the term I was well prepared for the course
Problems
Few people understood what this meant, most could not answer it. It really needs clarification.
11
K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
Most often the students did not know how to answer this question, such as:

I didn’t understand it, so I didn’t answer it.


I don’t know how I can be prepared for something that hasn’t happened.
I didn’t prepare but I am not going to say that I didn’t come ready to learn. There’s not much I can
do. I had the book.
My mind set, I was prepared to take the class.
Does that mean that I have the books ready? Or that I already know the subject?
Does it mean what do you expect of the course? Or what you already know about the course?



4B. The course improved my oral communication skills
Problems
Put 4B and 4D next to each other.
There is a big problem with these two questions being Not Applicable – when a student does not have
any presentations and/or written assignments. Students would either answer “neither agree nor disagree”
or “strongly disagree.”
There is also a question if this is referring to informal discussion in class or formal presentations.
Finally, is practice of either oral or written communication actually considered improvement? It wasn’t
clear if improving written/oral communication is, or should be, a goal for a course that is not specifically
focused on those topics.
Interpretations
The students would interpret it as presentations. Some would view it as in-class discussion. More often
students felt it wasn’t relevant either because it was a large class or because it wasn’t a specific point of
the course – that the course wasn’t meant to improve oral communication skills.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:


The student had to do a lot of talking in the course, which helps how other people would hear
him/her.
The student was more effective at talking about the content of the course, for example, with
interviewers.
Worst:


The student didn’t speak at all. There was no opportunity to communicate, but the student felt there
should have been.
There was no question and answer in the class.
4C. The course challenged me intellectually.
Problems
12
K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
There were situations where a course was challenging, but in a bad way – it was overwhelming and the
student didn’t learn much even though it was challenging. May need to be clarify in some way.
Interpretations
Intellectually challenging was defined as making students think about the topic, learning new material, the
course pushed the student to a new level of understanding of the subject, and how hard the student had
to work.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:








The course was very informative and contained a lot of new information.
The course required analytical skills.
The assignments made the student think and work, it wasn’t just a regurgitation of the material.
The professor asked thoughtful questions and made students participate.
The course taught the students many interesting things that they didn’t know, some of which were
hard to understand.
The student thought about what was behind the information.
It challenged the student to think about how he/she would apply the knowledge out in the world.
The professor pushed the students further than they thought they could go. The student got past
his/her mental block and was able to do it.
Worst:







It could have been a very interesting subject, but by the end of the course, the student just wanted
to get it done and over with.
The course was totally baffling. It challenged the student but only in ways that made him/her
miserable.
It was just a memorization course. The student didn’t have to think.
The student had to study hard but wasn’t enthusiastic about it.
The course was really easy. It didn’t develop the student’s way of thinking. It didn’t improve
anything.
It challenged the student to figure out what the professor was trying to say.
It was such bland material that the student would lose focus and not listen to what the professor
was saying.
4D. The course improved my written communication skills.
Problems
See 4B
Considered not applicable particularly for math/accounting courses, or large classes with multiple choice
exams.
Interpretations
Students spoke about the writing they had to do for the class. For those who had to do writing for the
course, It often tied back into the question on feedback – if the professor provided useful feedback so that
13
K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
the student could improve his/her writing. Some students question whether practice of writing is
considered improvement of writing skills.
Summary of respondents’ experiences/expectations
Best:





The professor provided a couple pages of common mistakes that students made, so that the
students could avoid making them in the future.
The students had to do a lot of writing for the course.
The student had to work hard on his/her writing because he/she had to figure out what was being
done wrong.
The student felt that he/she could get his/her point across easier in writing.
The professor was strict about writing, emphasizing introductions and conclusions.
Worst:



The written assignments were not challenging so it did not improve the student’s skill.
The student had to write for the course but it didn’t have an impact on the student’s writing skills.
The student didn’t get any feedback and therefore didn’t know what to improve.
Ranking of Questions
*Highest scores for 3 questions that professors should be evaluated/promoted on (out of 20 students
interviewed/22 votes – 2 students voted for 4 items):
3C. The instructor generated enthusiasm for learning his or her subject matter. (10 votes)
2C. The instructor taught in a way that helped me learn the subject matter. (10 votes)
4C. The course challenged me intellectually (8 votes)
2B. The instructor communicated course content clearly and effectively. (7 votes)
3A. The instructor established a class environment that fostered learning. (7 votes)
14
K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Jan. 23th, 2005
Overall comments:
The sections headings work as long as 4A is dropped. The length of the evaluation looks intimidating. It
may be good to print it back to back, so there would be only 2 pages total.
There were a few comments to include a question about grading fairly.
Comment section:
Some students skipped over and/or skimmed the instructions. It seems a little strange that that keeping
the feedback constructive is written in bold and underlined for emphasis, but the fact that the comments
will be given only to the professor after the final grades are submitted is not. You may want to also
underline the word “after” or the phrase “after the final grades are submitted.”
There were several students who felt like the first two comments, “please comment on the course
material” and “please comment on the quality of communication and presentation of the course material,”
should be in one comment box. And there were a few suggestions to make it one page instead of two.
There were different reactions that the suggested “comment on” topics, that they were too broad, and that
they should be replaced by specific questions. Others said it was too specific, and that there should just
be one overall comment box for everything.
So, I was thinking that maybe it could be rephrased to ask something like this:
Box 1:
Do you have any suggestions to help improve the course for the next semester (e.g. course material,
quality of communication, presentation of the course material, etc…)?
Box 2:
Any other comments on positive/negative aspects of the course (e.g. grading scheme, difficulties with the
course, etc…).
If you need more room to write, please continue on the backside of this sheet.
15
K. Firminger
Faculty/Course Evaluation Cognitive Interviews – Detailed Results
Draft Instrument used for Cognitive Validation
1. Course Content
A. The course was well organized.
B. Assignments contributed to meeting the course objectives and learning goals.
C. Requirements and grading standards were both clearly stated and followed.
D. Required materials and books were helpful and added to the learning process.
E. The instructor communicated course objectives and learning goals.
2. Course Delivery
A. The instructor came to class well prepared.
B. The instructor communicated course content clearly and effectively.
C. The instructor taught in a way that helped me learn the subject matter.
D. The instructor provided clear and helpful feedback.
E. The instructor returned assignments and exams in a timely manner.
F. The instructor was available outside of class.
3. Learning Environment
A. The instructor established a class environment that fostered learning.
B. The instructor treated students, their ideas, and their contributions with respect.
C. The instructor generated enthusiasm for learning his or her subject matter.
4. Course’s Impact on You
A. At the start of the term I was well prepared for the course.
B. The course improved my oral communication skills.
C. The course challenged me intellectually.
D. The course improved my written communication skills.
16
Jan. 23th, 2005