Quantitative Feedback

The following charts detail the categories by which each instructor is evaluated on the left. The
remaining four columns represent (left to right): my ratings, the comparison group’s ratings by
college, the comparison group’s rating by university, and the comparison group’s rating by course-
offering unit. The comparison group in each category is based on the size of the class and the
predominant reason students indicated they had enrolled. The scores are based on a scale of five (5)
to one (1) (“5” being the highest and “1” being the “lowest”). Tables are listed in chronological
order and marked by term and course taught.
Autumn 2006: English 110.01: First-Year Composition, The Ohio State University

Comparison Group Comparison Group by Course-Offering

This Instructor by College University Unit
Mean Std.Dev Mean StdDev Mean StdDev Mean StdDev
1. Instructor well organized 4.5 0.7 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
2. Intellectually stimulating 4.1 1.1 4.2 0.4 4.1 0.5 4.3 0.5
3. Instructor interested in teaching 4.8 0.4 4.6 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.4
4. Encouraged independent thinking 4.7 0.5 4.5 0.3 4.3 0.4 4.6 0.3
5. Instructor well prepared 4.9 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.5
6. Instructor interested in helping students 4.8 0.5 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.6 0.4
7. Learned greatly from instructor 4.8 0.6 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 4.2 0.5
8. Created learning atmosphere 4.6 0.6 4.4 0.4 4.2 0.5 4.4 0.4
9. Communicated subject matter clearly 4.7 0.6 4.3 0.5 4.2 0.6 4.3 0.5
10. Overall rating 4.8 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.3 0.6 4.4 0.5

Winter 2007: English 110.01: First-Year Composition, The Ohio State University

Comparison Group Comparison Group by Course-Offering

This Instructor by College University Unit
Mean StdDev Mean StdDev Mean Std.Dev Mean StdDev
1. Instructor well organized 4.6 0.5 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
2. Intellectually stimulating 4.6 0.5 4.2 0.4 4.1 0.5 4.3 0.5
3. Instructor interested in teaching 4.9 0.3 4.6 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.4
4. Encouraged independent thinking 4.7 0.5 4.5 0.3 4.3 0.4 4.6 0.3
5. Instructor well prepared 4.8 0.4 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.4
6. Instructor interested in helping students 4.8 0.4 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.6 0.4
7. Learned greatly from instructor 4.4 0.7 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 4.2 0.5
8. Created learning atmosphere 4.6 0.5 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
9. Communicated subject matter clearly 4.6 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.2 0.6 4.4 0.5
10. Overall rating 4.7 0.5 4.4 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.5 0.5
Spring 2007: English 110.01: First-Year Composition, The Ohio State University

Comparison Group Comparison Group by Course-Offering

This Instructor by College University Unit
Mean Sfd.Dev Mean Sfd.Dev Mean Sfd.Dev Mean Sfd.Dev
1. Instructor well organized 4.4 0.5 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
2. Intellectually stimulating 3.6 0.8 4.2 0.4 4.1 0.5 4.3 0.5
3. Instructor interested in teaching 4.6 0.5 4.6 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.3
4. Encouraged independent thinking 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.3 4.3 0.4 4.6 0.3
5. Instructor well prepared 4.9 0.4 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.4
6. Instructor interested in helping students 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.6 0.4
7. Learned greatly from instructor 3.9 0.4 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 4.2 0.5
8. Created learning atmosphere 3.6 1.1 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
9. Communicated subject matter clearly 4.3 1.1 4.3 0.5 4.2 0.6 4.4 0.5
10. Overall rating 3.9 0.9 4.4 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.5 0.5

Autumn 2007: English 367.01: The American Experience (Intermediate Composition), The Ohio State
University

Comparison Group Comparison Group by Course-Offering

This Instructor by College University Unit
Mean Std.Dev Mean Std.Dev Mean Std.Dev Mean Std.Dev
1. Instructor well organized 4.8 0.6 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.5 0.4
2. Intellectually stimulating 4.4 0.5 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.5 4.3 0.5
3. Instructor interested in teaching 4.8 0.6 4.6 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.3
4. Encouraged independent thinking 4.8 0.6 4.5 0.3 4.4 0.4 4.6 0.3
5. Instructor well prepared 4.9 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.4
6. Instructor interested in helping students 5.0 0.0 4.5 0.4 4.5 0.5 4.6 0.4
I. Learneo g,eatly trorn instructor 4.3 0.8 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 4.3 0.5
8. Created learning atmosphere 4.5 0.6 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
9. Comrnunicated subject matter clearly 4.6 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.2 0.6 4.4 0.5
10. Overall rating 4.7 0.6 4.4 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.5 0.4

Winter 2007: English 367.01: The American Experience (Intermediate Composition), The Ohio State
University

Comparison Group Comparison Group by Course-Offering

This Instructor by College University Unit
Mean Sld.Dev Mean Sld.Dev Mean Sld.Dev Mean Sld.Dev
1. Instructor well organized 4.2 1.1 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
2. Intellectually stimulating 3.5 1.3 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.5 4.3 0.5
3. Instructor interested in teaching 4.3 1.2 4.6 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.3
4. Encouraged independent thinking 4.6 0.6 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.4 4.6 0.3
5. Instructor well prepared 4.5 0.9 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.5
6. Instructor interested in helping students 4.8 0.4 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.6 0.4
7. Learned greatly from instructor 3.6 1.3 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 4.2 0.5
8. Created learning atmosphere 4.1 1.0 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
9. Communicated subject matter clearly 3.9 1.3 4.3 0.5 4.2 0.6 4.4 0.5
10. Overall rating 4.1 1.1 4.4 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.5 0.5
Spring 2008: English 367.01: The American Experience (Intermediate Composition), The Ohio State
University

Comparison Group Comparison Group by Course-Offering

This Instructor by College University Unit
Mean Sld.Dev Mean Sld.Dev Mean SldDev Mean Sld.Dev
1. Instructor well organized 4.7 0.6 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
2. Intellectually stimulating 4.3 1.0 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.5 4.3 0.5
3. Instructor interested in teaching 4.8 0.6 4.6 0.3 4.5 0.4 4.7 0.3
4. Encouraged independent thinking 4.7 0.5 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.4 4.6 0.4
5. Instructor well prepared 4.9 0.5 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.5 0.5
6. Instructor interested in helping students 4.7 0.8 4.5 0.4 4.4 0.5 4.6 0.4
T. Learned greatly from instructor 4.1 1.1 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.6 4.2 0.5
8. Created learning atmosphere 4.4 0.8 4.4 0.4 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.4
9. Communicated subject matter clearly 4.4 0.8 4.3 0.5 4.2 0.6 4.4 0.5
10. Overall rating 4.5 0.8 4.4 0.5 4.3 0.5 4.4 0.5

The following charts detail the categories by which each course and instructor is evaluated on the
left. The remaining columns represent (left to right): students’, in my course, responses; the group
median, the group mode, the standard deviation, the number in the group sampled, and the group
mean. The scores are based on a scale of five (5) to one (1) (“5” being the highest and correlated
with “Strongly Agree” and “1” being the “lowest” and correlated with “Strongly Disagree”). Tables
are all from the fall of 2008, English 10600: First-Year Composition at Purdue University.
Fall 2008, English 10600: First-Year Composition, Purdue University

ENGL10600

Responses Course
PICES course based questions
Grp.
[SA] [A] [U] [D] [SD] Mode S.D. N Mean
Med.

The content of this course is consistent with the objectives of

Q7 5 13 0 0 0 4.2 4 .45 18 4.3
the course.

Q8 Course requirements are clear. 6 10 1 0 0 4.3 4 .57 17 4.3

Q9 I am able to set and achieve some of my own goals. 3 11 4 0 0 4.0 4 .62 18 3.9

Q10 Relationships among course topics are clearly explained. 5 11 2 0 0 4.1 4 .60 18 4.2

Q11 This course is of practical benefit to me as a student. 4 10 2 1 1 4.0 4 1.01 18 3.8

Q12 Class discussions are helpful to my learning. 3 10 5 0 0 3.9 4 .66 18 3.9

When I have a question or comment I know it will be

Q13 6 12 0 0 0 4.3 4 .47 18 4.3
respected.

Q14 This course effectively challenges me to think. 4 10 2 2 0 4.0 4 .87 18 3.9

Q15 This course improved my ability to read critically. 2 10 5 1 0 3.8 4 .73 18 3.7

Responses: [SA] Strongly Agree=5 [A] Agree=4 [U] Undecided=3 [D] Disagree=2 [SD] Strongly Disagree=1
 ENGL10600

Responses Course
ENGL standard questions about course
Grp.
[SA] [A] [U] [D] [SD] Mode S.D. N Mean
Med.

Q16 This course helped me become a better writer. 2 11 4 1 0 3.9 4 .71 18 3.8

This course helped me adjust my writing to

Q17 6 11 0 1 0 4.2 4 .71 18 4.2
different audiences and purposes.

This course emphasizes revision as an important

Q18 7 9 1 1 0 4.3 4 .79 18 4.2
part of the composing process.

This course helped me analyze, evaluate, and

Q19 respond to my own and other student's writing 5 11 1 1 0 4.1 4 .74 18 4.1
projects.

This course taught me strategies for finding &

Q20 evaluating a range of sources for my writing 5 11 1 1 0 4.1 4 .74 18 4.1
projects.

Q21 I did my best work in this class. 5 8 1 3 1 4.0 4 1.19 18 3.7

I gained experience using technology to create

Q22 4 13 0 1 0 4.1 4 .66 18 4.1
documents.

Responses: [SA] Strongly Agree=5 [A] Agree=4 [U] Undecided=3 [D] Disagree=2 [SD] Strongly
Disagree=1

Clements, Jessica E

Responses Individual
PICES instructor based questions
Grp.
[SA [A [U [D [SD Mod S.D Mea
Med N
] ] ] ] ] e . n
.

Q2 My instructor identifies major or important points in the 1

5 13 0 0 0 4.2 4 .45 4.3
4 course. 8

Q2 My instructor makes good use of examples and 1

5 11 1 1 0 4.1 4 .74 4.1
5 illustrations. 8

Q2 My instructor demonstrates the importance and 1

8 9 0 1 0 4.4 4 .75 4.3
6 significance of the subject matter. 8

Q2 1
My instructor presents information effectively. 6 12 0 0 0 4.3 4 .47 4.3
7 8

Q2 1
My instructor uses class time effectively. 6 11 0 1 0 4.2 4 .71 4.2
8 8

Q2 1
My instructor seems well-prepared for class. 10 7 0 1 0 4.6 5 .76 4.4
9 8

Q3 My instructor uses various activities that involve me in 1

5 10 2 0 1 4.1 4 .94 4.0
0 learning. 8

Q3 My instructor is friendly and accessible. 10 8 0 0 0 4.6 5 .50 1 4.6

1 8

Q3 My instructor provides adequate opportunity for 1

10 8 0 0 0 4.6 5 .50 4.6
2 individual assistance. 8

Q3 My instructor provides useful feedback throughout the 1

8 10 0 0 0 4.4 4 .50 4.4
3 semester. 8

Q3 My instructor shows respect for diverse groups of 1

11 7 0 0 0 4.7 5 .49 4.6
4 people. 8

Q3 1
My instructor is open to differences in perspective. 11 6 1 0 0 4.7 5 .60 4.6
5 8

Q3 My instructor relates reading assignments to writing 1

8 10 0 0 0 4.4 4 .50 4.4
6 assignments. 8