|
Teaching: Campus-Level Assessment Overview For this presentation, I have included all individual evaluation reports for the last 5 years, comparing them with those of my colleagues in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences (LAS) across all questions related to my classes. Raw data have been presented at the end of this section. Using a formula obtained and used by Dr. Mike LeMaster (see below), I derived weighted averages. Two levels of these data are presented: (1) comparative graphs that compare weighted averages for me (SB-year shorthand on graphs) vs. LAS (LAS-year shorthand on graphs) over the last 5 years (admittedly, more challenging to read); and (2) overall averages for all years (much easier to read), again as a function of me (SB-year shorthand on graphs) vs. LAS (LAS-year shorthand on graphs). Specific questions that were skipped included 22 (small group discussions), 27 (course journaling/logs), and 41-45 (specific student information).
Further averages
of all years for each final average calculated and graphed in presentation 2. Provided Assessment Data Overall Averages: Organization, Communication, Interactions, Grading, Supplementary, Student Outcomes, Difficulty/Overall Comparative Yearly Data: Organization, Communication, Interactions, Grading, Supplementary, Student Outcomes, Difficulty/Overall Raw Data/Miscellaneous: All Weighted Data, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, SIR Form 2002-4 were scanned
in by me because none were available electronically on the campus database. Interpretation of Assessment Data Given the ease of reading the "overall average graphs," I will begin with remarks about these analyses first. For the most part, all my average evaluation scores were above those of LAS colleagues. My highest overall ratings are definitely in the organization category (e.g. explanations, subject command, use of time), with communication skills (e.g. clarity, illustrations, enthusiasm), student-perceived outcomes (e.g. how they perceived their own progress, learning, interest, and challenge level), and overall difficulty/quality (e.g. relative difficulty, work load, pace, overall score) being strong runners-up. Student interaction questions were a mixed bag, with moderately higher marks for respect and willingness to listen, but less high remarks for concern for progress and providing extra help outside of class - the latter likely because of my research (i.e. they can see me in the office during non-office hours but I am busy with research) and research-related travel demands (i.e. over the last few years, my meetings commitments have increased during the academic year, although I avoid more than 1 week per term). My grading/exam/assignment scores represent the first area where I have some scores below LAS colleagues. Although students continue to rate my grading standards much higher than LAS colleagues (a reflection of my longstanding reputation for being quite fair), they rated me more poorly for my textbook selection and exam feedback, with assignments being equal to LAS colleagues. In terms of the textbook rating, I am not surprised; students in both my majors and non-majors microbiology courses complain openly about both the price and the organization of the books in relation to my coverage (i.e. I either skip around or I have to skip around because both texts contain reference chapters where broad microbial diversity information is organized and must be linked with other relevant content chapters). In terms of exam feedback, I have probably the biggest reputation in my department for rapid exam grading/turnaround. Had students been asked whether they appreciated getting their exams back in 24-48 hours, I'm sure I would have been given extremely high marks; however, rapid turnaround means I don't dally with significant feedback or easy-to-read handwriting. I'm not sure how to comment am assignment scores given that I don't give a lot of assignments, in general. My supplementary materials scores also contain variable scores, with my use of term papers being rated below my LAS colleagues. The only regular class I give regular writing in, however, is 331 and, as stated elsewhere, students (and I) both seem dissatisfied with the writing intensive curriculum and mission. I was, however, pleased to see my laboratory and computer use sections rated highly given a strong commitment to curriculum and technology development in those areas. In general, weighted averages compared across all years supported all statements above. I will, however, make some observations about class-specific data, some of which were notable. 2002 evaluations were based on 57 students enrolled in 218 (non-majors microbiology) and 440 (emerging diseases, most majors). I noticed no obvious deviations from overall averages reported above. 2003 evaluations were based on 95 students in 103 (non-majors general biology) and 475 (majors-level molecular biology lab). I noticed no obvious deviations from overall averages reported above. 2004 evaluations were based on 106 students in 102 (non-majors general biology), 301 (majors-level computational biology), and 318 (non-majors microbiology). I noticed no obvious deviations from overall averages reported above. 2005 evaluations were based on 8 students in 331 (majors microbiology). Perhaps as expected, these ratings were higher in nearly all categories than all other evaluation years - a result of teaching a small class of motivated majors in my field. Finally, 2006 evaluations were based on 40 students in 318 (non-majors microbiology). If any given year may be overall lower, 2006 was it - particularly in the interaction section (my biggest term of meetings) and somewhat in the grading/assignments section. It was also no surprise to me that students in this class rated their level of challenge the highest. All previous 218/318 classes had mostly comprised fairly motivated/fast-track pre-nursing and dental hygiene students who had been required to take 2 terms of non-majors biology (102 and 103). 2006 marked the first year that (1) only 102 was required; and (2) a true cohort of Health-only majors (most in their senior year) seeking "professional" tract degrees had to take this class (they represented about 30% of the class, based on an informal survey). My anecdotal opinion was that the latter group was more poorly prepared and had waited too long post-102 to take this class (i.e. they had forgotten or never learned basic biology concepts and/or had been too long outside their major/comfort zone). |
||||||||||||||||