CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
WINTER 2015 STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION (SEOIs)
A COMPARISON OF RESPONSES FROM FACE-TO-FACE,
INTERACTIVE VIDEO, AND ONLINE COURSES
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………..….
Background……………………………………………………………………………………………
Overall SEOI Results …………………………………….…………………….…………….……
A. Ratings of Learning …………………………………..………………………………..
B. General Information ………………………………………………….………………
Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix 1. Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations ………………………………..
Appendix 2. SEOI Response Rates by Time and Form by Department ……
Tom Henderson, Director of Institutional Assessment
March 25, 2015
2.
2.
2.
4.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
I. ABSTRACT
All CWU course evaluations were administered online during the winter 2015 quarter. This report
compares the evaluations of students enrolled in courses taught face-to-face in traditional classrooms
(F2F), via synchronous interactive video (ITV), and “online” or to students enrolled in courses taught
100% online. The main research questions this report addresses are:


How well do CWU students rate their instruction?
Do course evaluations indicate any major differences in learning outcomes between courses
taught 100% online, via interactive video, or lecture courses taught in person?
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


CWU students’ ratings of instruction during the winter 2015 quarter were, on average, very
positive.
Student evaluations of online courses and interactive video courses are similar to the ratings of
students in traditional face-to-face courses. ITV courses had several medians lower than F2F or
online courses. However, all differences in averages were substantively small.
III. BACKGROUND
During the spring 2012 quarter Central Washington University administered all course evaluations
online for the first time. New forms developed by an SEOI Task Force were also used institution-wide
for the first time. The course evaluation forms for online and face-to-face courses ask many questions
that have similar wording.
Mock ups of the course evaluation forms can be found at:






Form A - Lecture
Form C - Skills Acquisition
Form D - Laboratory
Form E - Visual and Performing Arts
Form F - Field Experience / Student Teaching
Form W - Online
An SEOI web site has information about the online course evaluation process and links to the final SEOI
Task Force report: http://www.cwu.edu/seoi. Many of the questions on CWU’s course evaluations use
a five point Likert scale arranged in a table format (a visual analog scale). For this analysis a response
of “Strongly agree” is assigned a value of 5. A response of “Strongly disagree” is assigned a value of 1
(see “Likert scale” in appendix 1). See Table 5 on page 6 for all Likert values.
The CWU-wide response rates decreased from the fall 2012 term. The spring 2013 term was the first
quarter that SEOIs were administered for just one week before finals (as opposed to two weeks before
finals in prior quarters). Another major difference was that faculty could no longer download a list of
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 2 of 14
students who did or did not respond to SEOIs. The decrease may also be due to CWU’s switch from
Blackboard to Canvas. Canvas originally did not allow pop-up windows asking students to complete
course evaluations. Pop-up windows were implemented in Canvas during the fall 2014 term. This may
account for the increase in response rates during the fall, 2014 and winter, 2015 terms.
Table 1 - Response Rates to SEOIs by Form by Term with Length of Administration
Spring
Fall
Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring
Fall
Winter
2012
2012
2013 2013 2013
2014
2014
2014
2015
2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 1 week 1 week 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks
Form A - Lecture
56%
57%
51%
41%
44%
44%
33%
39%
40%
Form C - Skills Acquisition
48%
48%
41%
33%
39%
36%
31%
37%
33%
Form D - Lab
55%
51%
45%
37%
46%
38%
32%
37%
30%
Form E - Visual & Perform. Arts 49%
45%
37%
27%
38%
32%
27%
28%
24%
Form F - Field Experience
N/A
N/A
N/A
53%
51%
56%
53%
36%
36%
Form W - Online
62%
64%
62%
53%
46%
49%
43%
47%
53%
Overall Average
56%
56%
50%
41%
44%
43%
34%
39%
40%
The average SEOI ratings don’t seem to be affected by administering them one week before finals or
two weeks prior to finals. Table 2 shows the weighted average ratings for the first two question banks
on the SEOIs: “Student Learning Environment” and “Teaching for Student Learning.” Note, this report
compares averages between Form A – Lecture (face-to-face and interactive video) to Form W – Online.
Table 2 – CWU Institution-wide Averages to First Two Question Banks on SEOI Forms
Form A - Lecture
Student Learning Environment
Teaching for Student Learning
Form C - Skills Acquisition
Student Learning Environment
Teaching for Student Learning
Form D - Laboratory
Student Learning Environment
Teaching for Student Learning
Form E - Visual & Performing Arts
Student Learning Environment
Teaching for Student Learning
Form F - Field Experience
Student Learning Environment
Teaching for Student Learning
Form W - Online
Student Learning Environment
Teaching for Student Learning
S2012 F2012 W2013 S2013 F2013 W2014 S2014 F2014 W2015
2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 1 week 1 week 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.3
4,5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.6
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.4
4.6
4.5
4.6
4.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.2
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 3 of 14
IV. OVERALL RESULTS
A. RATINGS OF LEARNING
Table 3 summarizes the average ratings by college to the first two Likert question banks on Form A –
Lecture. The average ratings across colleges for these two question banks are very similar. The
percent of responses by college to different delivery methods varies quite a bit. For example, the
College of Business has the lowest enrollment of the colleges but by far the highest percent of
responses to Interactive Video courses. The college does not appear to have much of an effect on the
average ratings of the first two question banks.
Table 3 – Form A Lecture Average Ratings by College to the First Two Likert Question Banks
Fall Winter Spring
Collegge of Arts & Humanities 2013 2014 2014
Student Learning Environment 4.5
4.5
4.5
Teaching for Student Learning 4.3
4.3
4.3
College of Business
Student Learning Environment 4.4
4.4
4.4
Teaching for Student Learning 4.2
4.2
4.4
College of Education & Professional Studies
Student Learning Environment 4.5
4.5
4.4
Teaching for Student Learning 4.3
4.5
4.3
College of the Sciences
Student Learning Environment 4.4
4.4
4.4
Teaching for Student Learning 4.2
4.2
4.3
CWU-wide Average
College of the Sciences
4,5
4,5
4,4
Student Learning Environment 4.3
4.3
4.3
Fall Winter
2014 2015
4.4
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.2
4.5
4.3
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.2
4,5
4.3
4.5
4.3
Table 4 points out that the “mix” of responses from the colleges varies quite a bit by delivery mode.
However, the average ratings for questions relating to “student learning environment” and “teaching
for student learning” are substantively the same. The different ratios could have an effect on General
Question averages in Table 7.
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 4 of 14
Table 4 – Winter 2015 Percent of Responses by Colleges for Face-to-Face (F2F), Interactive Video
(ITV), and Online Students
F2F
CAH
CB
CEPS
COTS
Other
CAH
CB
CEPS
COTS
Other
Replies
21%
8%
25%
42%
4%
10,181
ITV
4%
59%
11%
27%
0%
335
Online
8%
9%
54%
26%
2%
3,034
Combined
18%
10%
31%
38%
4%
13,550
CWU student evaluations of instruction (SEOI) ratings continue to be very positive. All of the median
ratings for the first “learning” questions are 5.0 for both face-to-face and online courses, indicating
that at least 50% of the students gave the highest possible ratings. Table 6 highlights all medians to
questions 1, 3, and 4 that are less the 5.0. All medians below 5.0 are from ITV courses.
Table 6 also presents a comparison of average ratings for face-to-face, interactive-video, and online
courses. Only the questions that have the same or similar text on both SEOI forms (Form A – Lecture
and Form W – Online) are listed and compared. All of the differences in average ratings were
substantively small.


The differences in the average ratings between face-to-face and interactive video courses are
all small as measured by Hedge’s g (a measure of “distance” between averages).
The differences in the average ratings between face-to-face and online courses are all small as
measured by Hedge’s g (a measure of “distance” between averages).
Note: Hedge’s g “effect size” is a method of quantifying the substantive difference or “distance”
between the means of two groups. Effect sizes with an absolute value of 0.3 or less are often
considered “small,” 0.5 are “medium” and 0.8 or higher are large. Hedge’s g was used because of the
large differences in sample sizes between F2F, ITV, and online courses.
Table 5 – Values Assigned to Likert Scales on questions 1 through 5 for this Analysis
A Likert scale was used on questions one through five, values were assigned as follows.
-5Strongly agree
-4Agree
-3Neutral
-2Disagree
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
-1Strongly disagree
p. 5 of 14
IT
V
F2
F
M
ed
i
Winter 2015 SEOI Results
Face-to-Face (F2F) vs. Interactive
Video (ITV) vs. 100% Online
an
s
M
ed
i
a
O
ns
nl
in
e
M
ed
ia
F2
ns
F
Av
er x
ag
IT
es
V
Av
er
ag
es
O
nl
in
e
Av
er
ag
H
ed
es
ge
s'
s x
g:
H
F2
ed
F
ge
vs
's
.I
g:
TV
F2
D
F
if f
v
er
s.
en
O
ce
nl
in
in
e
F2
D
F
if f
vs
er
en
.I
TV
ce
in
F2
F
vs
.O
nl
in
e
Table 6 - Medians, Averages, and Comparison of Average Ratings of students enrolled in Face-toFace, Interactive Video, and Online Courses
1 - STUDENT LEARNING ENVIRONMENT To what extent do you
instructor fostered a fair and respectful
1.a./1.a.
5.0 5.0
learning environment?
instructor seemed genuinely concerned with
1.b./1.b.
5.0 5.0
whether students learned?
standards of online behavior were clearly
1.c./1.c.
5.0 5.0
communicated and enforced?
agree or disagree that the…
x
5.0
4.5
4.4
4.5
0.15
5.0
4.4
4.2
4.4
5.0
4.4
4.3
4.4
small
small
0.16
(0.01) small
small
0.14
(0.05) small
small
If YES, did the instructor provide help?
5.0 5.0 5.0
4.4
4.2
4.3
0.19
3
2. TEACHING FOR STUDENT LEARNING To what extent do you agree or disagree that the….
Medians less than 5.0 are highlighted
4.a./4.a. course objectives were clearly communicated?
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.3
4.2
4.4
overall course content was presented in an
4.b./4.b.
5.0 4.0
5.0
4.3
4.1
4.3
understandable sequence?
instructor used a variety of methods, as
4.c./4.c.
5.0 4.0
5.0
4.2
4.1
4.2
needed, to make content clear?
assignments and tests were connected to
4.d./4.e.
5.0 5.0
5.0
4.4
4.4
4.5
course content?
evaluation and grading techniques were
4.e./4.f.
5.0 4.0
5.0
4.2
4.2
4.3
clearly explained?
instructions for class activities were clearly
4.f./4.g.
5.0 4.0
5.0
4.3
4.1
4.3
communicated?
instructor provided useful feedback on student
4.g./4.h.
5.0 4.0
5.0
4.1
4.0
4.2
work?
instructor provided timely feedback on student
4.h./4.i.
5.0 4.0
5.0
4.2
4.0
4.3
progress?
class sessions (online activities) were well
4.i./4.j.
5.0 4.0
5.0
4.3
4.1
4.3
organized?
out-of-class (online) work was useful in
4.j./4.k.
5.0 4.5
5.0
4.3
4.1
4.3
understanding course content?
instructor encouraged students to connect
4.k./4.l.
5.0 5.0
5.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
course content to issues beyond classroom?
course activities challenged students to think
4.l./4.m.
5.0 5.0
5.0
4.4
4.3
4.4
critically?
GENERAL INFORMATION
How would you compare this course with other courses of similar credits at this level (i.e.,
amount of work OUTSIDE of class / online
5.a./8.a.
3.0 3.0 3.0
3.4
3.4
3.5
environment
level of engagement/active learning IN class /
5.b./8.b.
3.0 3.0 3.0
3.5
3.4
3.4
online environment
5.c./8.c. intellectual challenge presented to you
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.5
3.6
3.5
0.03
small
small
0.09
(0.08) small
small
0.12
(0.05) small
small
0.12
(0.04) small
small
0.08
(0.06) small
small
0.04
(0.09) small
small
0.19
0.05
small
small
0.15
(0.07) small
small
0.18
(0.08) small
small
0.17
(0.03) small
small
0.12
(0.05) small
small
0.08
0.10
0.01
0.01
small
small
(0.04) small
small
100, 200, etc.) taken at CWU?
(0.07)
(0.09) small
small
0.09
0.12
small
small
(0.06)
0.04
small
small
B. GENERAL INFORMATION
On average, students enrolled in face-to-face courses have lower class standing, study fewer hours per
week, and take more courses required for General Education credits. Students’ grades expectations
are similar whether they take courses face-to-face, via interactive video, or online. See Table 7.
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 6 of 14
Table 7 - General Information Averages and Percentage Responses by Students in Face-to-Face,
Interactive Video, and Online Courses. Major differences are highlighted in gray.
For this class, about how many hours outside of class did you spend in a typical 7-day week studying, reading,
conducting research, writing, doing homework or lab work, analyzing data, rehearsing, and other academic activities?
Responses
0
1-3
4-6
7-10
11-15
16-20
21+
Est. Average*
Face-to-Face
9,441
2%
33%
36%
18%
8%
2%
1%
5.7
hrs. per week
Interactive Video
333
1%
20%
34%
24%
12%
5%
3%
7.4
hrs. per week
100% Online
3,015
0%
16%
33%
25%
14%
8%
3%
8.2
hrs. per week
* averages were estimated from the mid points of each category
Why did you take this course? Please select all that apply.
Responses
Major
Minor
Cert.
GenEd
FacRep Time/Online Interest
Other
Face-to-Face
13,317
60%
9%
4%
27%
9%
9%
18%
4%
Interactive Video
469
73%
15%
2%
5%
9%
12%
19%
6%
100% Online
4,508
69%
11%
4%
12%
5%
25%
18%
5%
What is your class standing?
Responses 1st Yr = 1 2nd Yr = 2 3rd Yr = 3 4th Yr = 4 Grad = 5
Other
Average
Face-to-Face
9,384
20%
17%
29%
28%
4%
2%
2.7
between 2nd and 3rd year
Interactive Video
329
1%
1%
38%
47%
9%
5%
3.5
between 3rd and 4th year
100% Online
2,993
3%
5%
34%
45%
11%
2%
3.5
between 3rd and 4th year
What grade do you expect to earn in this course?
Responses
A=4
B=3
C=2
D=1
F=0
Other
Average
Face-to-Face
9,413
49%
37%
11%
1%
0%
1%
3.3
Interactive Video
331
50%
36%
11%
2%
1%
1%
3.3
100% Online
2,999
59%
31%
7%
1%
0%
1%
3.5
It is interesting that the three instructional methods have different average class standings, differences
in the ratio of courses from colleges, and difference in course delivery methods but still have strong
and similar results in course ratings.
V. SUMMARY
A. How did CWU students evaluate their instruction during the winter 2015 term?
On average, student evaluations at CWU are very positive on all questions relating to “Student
Learning Environment” and “Teaching for Student Learning.” All median ratings for online and
students in tradition face-to-face courses were 5.0, the highest possible rating. ITV courses had, in
general, lower median scores. However, the differences in average scores when compared to
online or face-to-face courses were substantively small.
B. Do course evaluations indicate any major differences in learning outcomes between courses taught
face-to-face, via interactive video, or online?
No – not when students were asked questions about “Student Learning Environment” or “Teaching
for Student Learning.”
C. CWU should focus on improving response rates to online student evaluations of instruction.
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 7 of 14
APPENDIX 1
Terms, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
CAH
CB
CEPS
COTS
Hedge’s g
College of Arts and Humanities
College of Business
College of Education and Professional Studies
College of the Sciences
A statistical measure of “effect size.” “Effect size is a method of quantifying the
difference between two groups that has some advantages over the use of tests
of statistical significance alone.” A pooled standard deviation is used as the
denominator in this analysis. A pooled standard deviation is called for when the
sample sizes of the variables studied are significantly different. See this paper
on effect size: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm
F2F
“Face-to-Face” refers to courses taught in traditional classrooms with students
face-to-face with an instructor
Frequently asked questions
Form A is the SEOI form developed for students to evaluate lecture courses that
meet face-to-face.
Form W is the SEOI (or course evaluation) form developed for students in
courses taught 100% online using Blackboard.
Courses taught via synchronous, interactive video.
Many of the questions on CWU’s course evaluations use a five point Likert scale
arranged in a table format (a visual analog scale). For this analysis a response of
“Strongly agree” is assigned a value of 5. A response of “Strongly disagree” is
assigned a value of 1. Whether individual Likert items can be considered as
interval-level data, or whether they should be considered merely orderedcategorical data is the subject of disagreement. This analysis assumes that the
responses can be considered as interval data, especially since the Likert scale
items are arranged in a visual analog format, have “balanced” levels, and a five
point scale. The average or mean is a parametric statistic that is robust to
ordinal data. Hedge’s g may tend to overstate distances for ordinal data.
Mid-point of ranked data. It is a statistical measure of central tendency. For
example if the median is 5 on a five point scale, at least 50% of students
answered 5.
Courses taught 100% online via Blackboard or Canvas, usually asynchronously.
“Student Evaluation of Instruction” CWU’s term for course evaluations
An abbreviation for sample “standard deviation.”
FAQ
Form A
Form W
ITV
Likert scale
Median
Online
SEOI
St Dev
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 8 of 14
APPENDIX 2
WINTER 2015 SEOI RESPONSE RATES BY TIME-OF-DAY, FORM, AND BY DEPARTMENT
All Data Bars use a Scale of 0% to 100%
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 9 of 14
WINTER 2015
SEOI SUBMISSION TIME-OF-DAY FOR F2F, ITV, AND ONLINE (W) STUDENTS
The X-axis scale uses a 24 hour clock
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
F2F%
01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 24:00
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
5%
7%
6%
9%
8%
7%
8%
7%
6%
6%
5%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
Online% 1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
4%
5%
6%
5%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
5%
7%
6%
6%
6%
4%
3%
2%
ITV%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
3%
7%
7%
4%
7%
10%
5%
6%
6%
6%
7%
4%
6%
5%
4%
4%
2%
2%
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 10 of 14
WINTER 2015 FORM A – LECTURE
Department
MLS
COM
ECTL
SHP
CDS
MUS
NEHS
TH
ABS
LC
TEAC
CWU
CS
ART
GEOG
CHEM
MATH
CNED
PHYS
PE
AIS
LAJ
MANA
WS
HIST
ANTH
Sent Replied
119
21
568
146
11
3
11
3
32
9
472
134
1,165
334
689
206
47
15
336
108
543
175
135
44
578
193
110
39
636
236
911
340
1,803
673
37
14
338
128
612
233
54
21
834
326
559
219
51
20
445
175
652
260
Response % Data
Rate
Bars
18%
26%
27%
27%
28%
28%
29%
30%
32%
32%
32%
33%
33%
35%
37%
37%
37%
38%
38%
38%
39%
39%
39%
39%
39%
40%
SEOI RESPONSE RATES BY DEPARTMENT
Department
STEP
FCS
SOC
ACSK
BIOL
FVS
IET
EDFC
ENG
LLSE
PHIL
ACCT
GEOL
ECON
PSY
FNLA
SCED
POSC
FINO
AVIA
AST
PRIM
DHC
ITAM
AFRO
REM
Sent
25
806
731
228
988
26
972
612
1,521
779
640
734
437
458
1,489
501
102
260
584
337
25
23
143
240
82
27
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
Replied
10
331
304
95
413
11
412
261
661
344
283
327
195
205
668
229
47
121
280
163
14
13
91
181
70
25
Response % Data
Rate
Bars
40%
41%
42%
42%
42%
42%
42%
43%
43%
44%
44%
45%
45%
45%
45%
46%
46%
47%
48%
48%
56%
57%
64%
75%
85%
93%
p. 11 of 14
WINTER 2015 FORM C - SKILLS ACQUISITION
Department
NEHS
FVS
COM
PE
TH
IET
CHEM
ENG
CS
SCED
ANTH
ITAM
Sent
18
39
313
1,310
225
105
6
18
35
13
5
322
WINTER 2015 FORM D - LAB
Department
MLS
COM
ANTH
TH
NEHS
PHYS
CHEM
BIOL
GEOL
EDFC
GEOG
AFRO
SEOI RESPONSE RATES BY DEPARTMENT
Replied
2
5
76
361
63
30
2
6
12
6
3
236
Response % Data
Rate
Bars
11%
13%
24%
28%
28%
29%
33%
33%
34%
46%
60%
73%
SEOI RESPONSE RATES BY DEPARTMENT
Sent Replied
22
1
26
3
25
5
15
3
560
139
258
66
654
193
288
86
189
61
150
57
22
12
73
68
Response % Data
Rate
Bars
5%
12%
20%
20%
25%
26%
30%
30%
32%
38%
55%
93%
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 12 of 14
WINTER 2015 FORM E – VISUAL & PERFORMING ARTS
Department
MUS
TH
PE
ART
Sent
1,126
136
91
359
SEOI RESPONSE RATES BY DEPARTMENT
Response % Data
Replied Rate
Bars
219
19%
34
25%
28
31%
126
35%
WINTER 2015 FORM F – FIELD EXPERIENCE
SEOI RESPONSE RATES BY DEPARTMENT
Department Sent Replied
TEACH
38
9
EDFC
83
33
LLSE
38
16
Response % Data
Rate
Bars
24%
40%
42%
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 13 of 14
WINTER 2015 FORM W – ONLINE
Department
NEHS
GEOG
GEOL
FINO
COM
HIST
LAJ
AVIA
ECON
TH
FVS
CS
MANA
CDS
EDFC
PSY
SOC
FCS
AST
IET
MATH
LLSE
ENG
ACCT
AIS
CWU
CNED
PE
ITAM
POSC
PHIL
ADPR
ANTH
SEOI RESPONSE RATES BY DEPARTMENT
Sent Replied
94
22
117
31
28
8
39
14
161
60
24
9
342
133
28
11
106
42
50
21
47
20
21
9
428
196
28
13
142
67
494
243
407
201
119
59
24
12
45
23
59
31
51
27
164
89
51
28
14
8
170
98
80
47
255
150
1,952
1,206
42
26
36
23
128
88
22
19
Response % Data
Rate
Bars
23%
27%
29%
36%
37%
38%
39%
39%
40%
42%
43%
43%
46%
46%
47%
49%
49%
50%
50%
51%
53%
53%
54%
55%
57%
58%
59%
59%
62%
62%
64%
69%
86%
Winter 2015 Course Evaluation Summary
p. 14 of 14