results of student evaluation of instruction (seoi) · methods used: the optical-scan survey...

85
Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) Spring 2010 Prepared by: Office of Institutional Research July 26, 2010 2

Upload: others

Post on 13-Jun-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction

(SEOI)

Spring 2010

Prepared by: Office of Institutional ResearchJuly 26, 2010

24, 2009

Page 2: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

GB: ToC.doc Prepared 7/26/10

Spring 2010

Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Overview Analysis of SEOI Questions Full-Time/Part-Time Academic Instructors ……………… Tab 1 Full-Time/Part-Time Workforce Instructors ……………... Tab 2 Learning Resources Results………………………………………... Tab 3 Means Reports Academic ………………………………………………………. Tab 4 Workforce ……………………………………………………… Tab 5 Appendices ……………………………………………………………. Tab 6 Instructor and Student Proctor Directions SEOI Survey How to Read the Individual Instructor Report Please assist us by sharing all or parts of this document with colleagues who might find it useful. You may contact Mario Heredia, Director, Research Support Services (713) 718-8627, or Ray Golitko (713) 718-8629, if you have any questions or comments on this material.

Page 3: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System Office of Institutional Research

Executive Summary Spring 2010 Administration: The Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) was administered to all full-time and part-time faculty. Approximately 105,192 surveys were sent out in (5,726) envelopes; 77,886 surveys were returned to the Office of Institutional Research. The return rate for the SEOI packet envelopes was 96%. The response rate for the survey was 74%. The Instructors’ reports were provided to academic, workforce deans and to the respective executive secretaries on May 19, 2010 on a CD. Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The scanned data were analyzed by OIR using SPSS 17.0, and individual instructor reports were prepared. Also provided to students with the questionnaires were student comment sheets, which were later returned in their original hand-written form to the instructors via their respective deans’ offices. Library data were analyzed by subject and location and provided to library chairs for their use.

Page 4: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Overview of SEOI Responses, Spring 2010

In the responses discussed below, respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed, indicated that they were ‘neutral’, ‘had no basis for judgment’ or simply did not respond to the question. In Part I, Evaluation of Instruction:

• The course requirements in the syllabus were clearly stated; 91.3% of students agreed and 1.6% disagreed.

• The textbook used for this course is suitable; 86.3% of respondents agreed while 2.4% disagreed.

• Other instructional materials (tapes, handouts, web sites, etc.) used in this course enhanced my learning of the subject matter; 82.1% of respondents agreed, and 3.6% disagreed.

In Part II, Evaluation of Instructor:

• The instructor asks test questions that deal with material that is covered in the course; 92.0% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor communicates clearly; 88.0% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The assignments were relevant to the course; 92.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 1.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• My grades are an indication of learning; 85.6% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor treats students with respect; 93.3% agreed or strongly agreed, and 1.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor is available for student consultation; 88.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor grades impartially; 80.4% agreed or strongly agreed, and 7.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor gives me timely feedback on graded work; 86.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 3.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In Part III, Lab Evaluation: In the section below, students who indicated an opinion are calculated in the agreement/disagreement percentages; those who indicated ‘no basis for judgment’ or did not respond were assumed not to be enrolled in laboratory or clinical courses.

• The instructor explains appropriate safety procedures for this laboratory/clinical; 85.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• The instructor links the laboratory exercises to lecture; 85.3% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.6% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In Part IV, Overall Evaluation:

• The instructor encourages me to become actively engaged in the learning process; 88.5% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

• I would recommend this instructor to other students; 85.6% agreed or strongly agreed, and 5.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Page 5: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

Yes (n=49782)

Neutral (n=6644)

No (n=1406)

92.0

6.8

1.3

90.6

7.5

1.90.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Yes (n=54359) Neutral (n=4266) No (n=946)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=59,571)

Question 1: The Course Requirements in the Syllabus Were Clearly Stated

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

86.1

11.6

2.3

86.0

11.4

2.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=49782) Neutral (n=6644) No (n=1406)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=57,832)

Question 2: The Textbook Used For This Course is Suitable

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q1&2.xls Prepared:7/26/10

Page 6: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

82.5

14.3

3.3

80.4

15.5

4.10.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=45643) Neutral (n=8355) No (n=2098)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=56,096)

Question 3: Other Instructional Materials (Tapes, Handouts, Web Sites, etc.) Used in This Course Enhanced My Learning of the Subject Matter

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q3.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 7: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Agree (n=15002)

Neutral (n=4879)

Disagree (n=1708)

65.6

27.0

5.31.4 0.7

64.4

26.9

6.0 1.8 1.00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=39080)

Agree (n=16205)

Neutral (n=3419)

Disagree (n=958)

Strongly Disagree (n=493)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=60,155)

Question 4: The Instructor Asks Test Questions That Deal With Material That is Covered in the Course

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

64.8

24.4

7.42.3 1.1

61.4

25.0

8.63.3 1.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=38203)

Agree (n=15002)

Neutral (n=4879)

Disagree (n=1708)

Strongly Disagree (n=849)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=60,641)

Question 5: The Instructor Communicates Clearly

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q4&5.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 8: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Agree (n=17166)

Neutral (n=6459)

Disagree (n=1829)

66.5

26.7

5.5 0.9 0.4

64.9

27.3

6.1 1.1 0.60.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=39587)

Agree (n=16292)

Neutral (n=3498)

Disagree (n=618)

Strongly Disagree (n=320)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=60,315)

Question 6: The Assignments Were Relevant to the Course

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

57.3

28.3

10.5

3.0 1.0

56.0

28.710.9

3.1 1.3

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=34069)

Agree (n=17166)

Neutral (n=6459)

Disagree (n=1829)

Strongly Disagree (n=689)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=60,212)

Question 7: My Grades Are an Indication of My Learning

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q6&7.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 9: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Agree (n=15328)

Neutral (n=5491)

Disagree (n=930)

63.1

25.9

8.9 1.30.7

61.2

26.3

9.7 1.8 1.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=36454)

Agree (n=15328)

Neutral (n=5491)

Disagree (n=930)

Strongly Disagree (n=490)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=58,693)

Question 9: The Instructor is Available For Student Consultation

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

71.1

22.2

5.0 0.9 0.7

71.2

21.9

4.9 1.1 0.90.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=42971)

Agree (n=13321)

Neutral (n=2994)

Disagree (n=612)

Strongly Disagree (n=496)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=60,394)

Question 8: The Instructor Treats Students With Respect

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q8&9.xls Prepared:7/26/10

Page 10: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

59.9

27.0

9.7

2.4 1.0

59.1

27.0

10.1

2.6 1.30.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=35359)

Agree (n=16074)

Neutral (n=5905)

Disagree (n=1476)

Strongly Disagree (n=683)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=59,497)

Question 11: The Instructor Gives Me Timely Feedback on Graded Work

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

55.7

24.3 12.6

4.52.9

54.5

24.6 12.6

4.93.4

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=31878)

Agree (n=14167)

Neutral (n=7273)

Disagree (n=2723)

Strongly Disagree (n=1843)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=57,884)

Question 10: The Instructor Grades Impartially

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q10&11.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 11: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 3: Lab Evaluation

58.0

26.713.3

1.30.6

56.7

27.013.7

1.7 0.9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=15684)

Agree (n=7368) Neutral (n=3702)

Disagree (n=418)

Strongly Disagree (n=218)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=27,390)

Question 12: The Instructor Explains Appropriate Safety Procedures For This Laboratory/Clinical

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

57.2

27.2

13.2

1.7 0.6

55.6

27.413.8

2.2 1.00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=15205)

Agree (n=7373)

Neutral (n=3665)

Disagree (n=532)

Strongly Disagree (n=227)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=27,002 )

Question 13: The Instructor Links the Laboratory Exercises to Lecture

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q12&13.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 12: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Academic - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 4: Overall Evaluation

Strongly Agree (n=37575)

Agree (n=13221)

Neutral (n=5692)

Disagree (n=1731)

Strongly Disagree (n=1589)

62.1

26.2 9.1

1.8 0.9

60.8

26.79.1

2.2 1.20.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=36958)

Agree (n=15941)Neutral (n=5485) Disagree (n=1214)

Strongly Disagree (n=610)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=60,208)

Question 14: The Instructor Encourages Me to Become Actively Engaged in the Learning Process

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

64.3

21.7

9.1 2.5 2.3

61.5

22.4 9.9

3.2 3.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=37575)

Agree (n=13221)

Neutral (n=5692)

Disagree (n=1731)

Strongly Disagree (n=1589)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=59,808)

Question 15: I Would Recommend This Instructor to Other Students

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_Acad.xls, Acad_FTPT_Q14&15.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 13: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

Yes (n=12290)

Neutral (n=1463)

No (n=317)

92.4

5.9 1.7

90.6

7.4

2.00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Yes (n=13567) Neutral (n=982) No (n=269)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=14,818)

Question 1: The Course Requirements in the Syllabus Were Clearly Stated

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

88.3

9.8

2.0

86.2

11.2

2.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=12290) Neutral (n=1463) No (n=317)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=14,070)

Question 2: The Textbook Used For This Course is Suitable

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q1&2.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 14: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part I: Evaluation of Instruction

86.9

10.7

2.4

83.1

13.4

3.5

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Yes (n=11982) Neutral (n=1674) No (n=405)

Perc

enta

ge

Reponses (Total=14,061)

Question 3: Other Instructional Materials (Tapes, Handouts, Web Sites, etc.) Used in This Course Enhanced My Learning of the Subject Matter

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q3.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 15: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Agree (n=3745)

Neutral (n=1042)

Disagree (n=390)

66.7

25.8

5.21.5 0.7

65.7

27.1

5.11.3 0.8

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=9843)

Agree (n=3924)

Neutral (n=767)

Disagree (n=210)

Strongly Disagree (n=112)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=14,856)

Question 4: The Instructor Asks Test Questions That Deal With Material That is Covered in the Course

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

66.0

24.1 6.42.4 1.0

63.2

25.2 7.4

2.7 1.40.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree

(n=9836)

Agree (n=3745)

Neutral (n=1042)

Disagree (n=390)

Strongly Disagree (n=181)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=15,194)

Question 5: The Instructor Communicates Clearly

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q4&5.xls Prepared:7/26/10

Page 16: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Agree (n=4202)

Neutral (n=1337)

Disagree (n=321)

68.0

25.7

4.9 0.8 0.6

67.9

25.7

5.0 0.90.6

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=10240)

Agree (n=3874)Neutral (n=741) Disagree (n=125)

Strongly Disagree (n=90)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=15,070)

Question 6: The Assignments Were Relevant to the Course

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

60.0

28.28.5

2.3 1.0

59.2

28.29.5

2.0 1.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=8884)

Agree (n=4202) Neutral (n=1337)

Disagree (n=321)

Strongly Disagree (n=154)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=14,898)

Question 7: My Grades Are an Indication of My Learning

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q6&7.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 17: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

Agree (n=3664)

Neutral (n=1084)

Disagree (n=183)

66.8

24.6 6.8

1.2 0.6

65.1

24.97.9

1.3 0.80.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=9786)

Agree (n=3664) Neutral (n=1084)

Disagree (n=183)

Strongly Disagree (n=102)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=14,819)

Question 9: The Instructor is Available For Student Consultation

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

71.8

21.8

4.7 1.1 0.6

72.6

21.1

4.4 0.9 0.90.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=10935)

Agree (n=3254)Neutral (n=695) Disagree (n=155)

Strongly Disagree (n=115)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=15,154)

Question 8: The Instructor Treats Students With Respect

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q8&9.xls Prepared:7/26/10

Page 18: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 2: Evaluation of Instructor

62.7

25.87.6 2.5

1.4

62.0

25.5

8.9 2.6

1.00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=9180)

Agree (n=3777) Neutral (n=1204)

Disagree (n=376)

Strongly Disagree (n=180)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=14,717)

Question 11: The Instructor Gives Me Timely Feedback on Graded Work

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

60.2

24.2 9.6

3.8 2.4

59.4

23.7 10.1

3.7 3.00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=8606)

Agree (n=3450) Neutral (n=1414)

Disagree (n=537)

Strongly Disagree (n=384)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=14,391)

Question 10: The Instructor Grades Impartially

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q10&11.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 19: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 3: Lab Evaluation

Strongly Agree (n=6401)

Agree (n=2588)

Neutral (n=835)

Disagree (n=125)

Strongly Disagree (n=61)

68.0

23.8

7.2

0.7 0.3

62.3

26.9

9.1

0.9 0.70.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=6552)

Agree (n=2508)Neutral (n=797) Disagree (n=78)

Strongly Disagree (n=51)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=9,986)

Question 12: The Instructor Explains Appropriate Safety Procedures For This Laboratory/Clinical

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

65.7

25.1

7.7

1.0 0.4

61.6

26.8

9.2

1.6 0.90.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=6401)

Agree (n=2588)

Neutral (n=835)

Disagree (n=125)

Strongly Disagree (n=61)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=10,010)

Question 13: The Instructor Links the Laboratory Exercises to Lecture

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q12&13.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 20: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

Student Evaluation of Instruction, Spring 2010Workforce - Full-Time/Part-Time Analysis

Part 4: Overall Evaluation

Strongly Agree (n=9974)

Agree (n=3252)

Neutral (n=1127)

Disagree (n=332)

Strongly Disagree (n=321)

67.0

25.0

6.0 1.3 0.6

64.9

25.2

7.0 1.8 1.00.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=9992)

Agree (n=3800)Neutral (n=981) Disagree (n=237)

Strongly Disagree (n=120)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=15,130)

Question 14: The Instructor Encourages Me to Become Actively Engaged in the Learning Process

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

67.4

22.1 6.8

2.0 1.8

65.4

21.2 8.4

2.5 2.60.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Strongly Agree (n=9974)

Agree (n=3252) Neutral (n=1127)

Disagree (n=332)

Strongly Disagree (n=321)

Perc

enta

ge

Responses (Total=15,006)

Question 15: I Would Recommend This Instructor to Other Students

Full-Time Instructors Part-Time Instructors

Spring10_SEOI_CumulRpt_WFC.xls, WFC_FTPT_Q14&15.xls Prepared: 7/26/10

Page 21: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

College campusStrongly

AgreeAgree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Central Hobby Ctr Count 1 1 2

Row % 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-CE Count 2 2 1 5

Row % 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Willie L Gay Hall Count 359 221 105 12 8 119 824

Row % 43.6% 26.8% 12.7% 1.5% 1.0% 14.4% 100.0%

Central Count 4804 3230 2173 308 123 3233 13871

Row % 34.6% 23.3% 15.7% 2.2% 0.9% 23.3% 100.0%

Main Ctr - CE Count 147 59 45 15 6 153 425

Row % 34.6% 13.9% 10.6% 3.5% 1.4% 36.0% 100.0%

Coleman HS-Off Campus Count 178 116 77 9 9 105 494

Row % 36.0% 23.5% 15.6% 1.8% 1.8% 21.3% 100.0%

Health Sci Ctr Count 814 538 481 183 207 887 3110

Row % 26.2% 17.3% 15.5% 5.9% 6.7% 28.5% 100.0%

Northeast NEC-Off Campus Count 23 8 6 4 4 14 59

Row % 39.0% 13.6% 10.2% 6.8% 6.8% 23.7% 100.0%

Automotive Tech. Ctr Count 310 197 111 35 30 6 689

Row % 45.0% 28.6% 16.1% 5.1% 4.4% 0.9% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NE Count 1 3 4

Row % 25.0% 75.0% 100.0%

Northline Ctr Count 1898 1092 613 77 33 690 4403

Row % 43.1% 24.8% 13.9% 1.7% 0.7% 15.7% 100.0%

Northeast Campus Count 560 282 247 36 28 319 1472

Row % 38.0% 19.2% 16.8% 2.4% 1.9% 21.7% 100.0%

NE Dual Credit Count 1 1 2

Row % 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

SW College Opt Count 39 24 15 2 15 95

Row % 41.1% 25.3% 15.8% 2.1% 15.8% 100.0%

Question LR1: "The library resources were adequate for the needs of this course."

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2010

Fall2010_library_means.xls 1 07-15-2010

Page 22: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

College campusStrongly

AgreeAgree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Question LR1: "The library resources were adequate for the needs of this course."

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2010

Pinemont Ctr Count 517 305 148 28 5 217 1220

Row % 42.4% 25.0% 12.1% 2.3% 0.4% 17.8% 100.0%

Northwest NW Dual Credit Count 3 1 1 5

Row % 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Town&Country Ctr Count 3370 2122 1513 190 77 2279 9551

Row % 35.3% 22.2% 15.8% 2.0% 0.8% 23.9% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NW Count 1 1

Row % 100.0% 100.0%

Westgate Ctr Count 1986 1147 949 115 49 1402 5648

Row % 35.2% 20.3% 16.8% 2.0% 0.9% 24.8% 100.0%

NW-Cossaboom Branch YMCACount 4 4 8 4 5 25

Row % 16.0% 16.0% 32.0% 16.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Southeast Distance Ed.-SE Count 20 9 2 8 39

Row % 51.3% 23.1% 5.1% 20.5% 100.0%

Eastside Ctr Count 2340 1517 919 98 40 1056 5970

Row % 39.2% 25.4% 15.4% 1.6% 0.7% 17.7% 100.0%

Office City SE Count 112 38 39 5 22 216

Row % 51.9% 17.6% 18.1% 2.3% 10.2% 100.0%

Felix Fraga Academic CampusCount 265 209 181 21 13 209 898

Row % 29.5% 23.3% 20.2% 2.3% 1.4% 23.3% 100.0%

SE Dual Credit Count 8 3 2 2 7 22

Row % 36.4% 13.6% 9.1% 9.1% 31.8% 100.0%

Southwest Gulfton Ctr Count 488 363 164 30 19 52 1116

Row % 43.7% 32.5% 14.7% 2.7% 1.7% 4.7% 100.0%

SW Dual Credit Count 6 2 1 11 20

Row % 30.0% 10.0% 5.0% 55.0% 100.0%

Alief Ctr Count 1663 1017 743 117 48 715 4303

Row % 38.6% 23.6% 17.3% 2.7% 1.1% 16.6% 100.0%

Fall2010_library_means.xls 2 07-15-2010

Page 23: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

College campusStrongly

AgreeAgree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Question LR1: "The library resources were adequate for the needs of this course."

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2010

Alief Cont. Ed. Count 68 67 54 18 18 20 245

Row % 27.8% 27.3% 22.0% 7.3% 7.3% 8.2% 100.0%

Main Ctr - SW Count 7 1 1 1 10

Row % 70.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Karate Studio Count 14 15 7 24 60

Row % 23.3% 25.0% 11.7% 40.0% 100.0%

Stafford Ctr Count 3959 2270 1583 205 94 1942 10053

Row % 39.4% 22.6% 15.7% 2.0% 0.9% 19.3% 100.0%

Missouri City Ctr Count 376 229 145 24 6 200 980

Row % 38.4% 23.4% 14.8% 2.4% 0.6% 20.4% 100.0%

West Loop Ctr Count 2313 1482 930 117 73 1429 6344

Row % 36.5% 23.4% 14.7% 1.8% 1.2% 22.5% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-SW Count 9 5 3 7 24

Row % 37.5% 20.8% 12.5% 29.2% 100.0%

Fall2010_library_means.xls 3 07-15-2010

Page 24: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

College campusStrongly

AgreeAgree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Central Hobby Ctr Count 1 1 2

Row % 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-CE Count 2 2 1 5

Row % 40.0% 40.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Willie L Gay Hall Count 348 198 111 10 8 141 816

Row % 42.6% 24.3% 13.6% 1.2% 1.0% 17.3% 100.0%

Central Count 4528 3062 2247 202 105 3623 13767

Row % 32.9% 22.2% 16.3% 1.5% 0.8% 26.3% 100.0%

Main Ctr - CE Count 143 56 49 9 7 158 422

Row % 33.9% 13.3% 11.6% 2.1% 1.7% 37.4% 100.0%

Coleman HS-Off Campus Count 171 115 76 3 124 489

Row % 35.0% 23.5% 15.5% 0.6% 25.4% 100.0%

Health Sci Ctr Count 806 490 512 144 152 992 3096

Row % 26.0% 15.8% 16.5% 4.7% 4.9% 32.0% 100.0%

Northeast NEC-Off Campus Count 21 10 6 3 5 14 59

Row % 35.6% 16.9% 10.2% 5.1% 8.5% 23.7% 100.0%

Automotive Tech. Ctr Count 300 198 119 25 24 17 683

Row % 43.9% 29.0% 17.4% 3.7% 3.5% 2.5% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NE Count 1 2 1 4

Row % 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100.0%

Northline Ctr Count 1796 1062 627 47 28 823 4383

Row % 41.0% 24.2% 14.3% 1.1% 0.6% 18.8% 100.0%

Northeast Campus Count 521 258 254 27 26 373 1459

Row % 35.7% 17.7% 17.4% 1.9% 1.8% 25.6% 100.0%

NE Dual Credit Count 1 1 2

Row % 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

SW College Opt Count 40 18 20 1 16 95

Row % 42.1% 18.9% 21.1% 1.1% 16.8% 100.0%

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2010

Question LR2: "The library instruction received for this course was adequate."

Fall2010_library_means.xls 1 07-15-2010

Page 25: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

College campusStrongly

AgreeAgree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2010

Question LR2: "The library instruction received for this course was adequate."

Pinemont Ctr Count 472 290 166 13 6 257 1204

Row % 39.2% 24.1% 13.8% 1.1% 0.5% 21.3% 100.0%

Northwest NW Dual Credit Count 3 1 1 5

Row % 60.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Town&Country Ctr Count 3203 2042 1500 122 63 2570 9500

Row % 33.7% 21.5% 15.8% 1.3% 0.7% 27.1% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-NW Count 1 1

Row % 100.0% 100.0%

Westgate Ctr Count 1910 1070 951 76 28 1589 5624

Row % 34.0% 19.0% 16.9% 1.4% 0.5% 28.3% 100.0%

NW-Cossaboom Branch YMCACount 4 3 9 2 7 25

Row % 16.0% 12.0% 36.0% 8.0% 28.0% 100.0%

Southeast Distance Ed.-SE Count 20 7 2 10 39

Row % 51.3% 17.9% 5.1% 25.6% 100.0%

Eastside Ctr Count 2197 1419 977 77 34 1227 5931

Row % 37.0% 23.9% 16.5% 1.3% 0.6% 20.7% 100.0%

Office City SE Count 105 35 46 4 28 218

Row % 48.2% 16.1% 21.1% 1.8% 12.8% 100.0%

Felix Fraga Academic CampusCount 263 188 188 19 8 228 894

Row % 29.4% 21.0% 21.0% 2.1% 0.9% 25.5% 100.0%

SE Dual Credit Count 7 4 1 2 8 22

Row % 31.8% 18.2% 4.5% 9.1% 36.4% 100.0%

Southwest Gulfton Ctr Count 468 352 165 22 16 76 1099

Row % 42.6% 32.0% 15.0% 2.0% 1.5% 6.9% 100.0%

SW Dual Credit Count 7 1 1 11 20

Row % 35.0% 5.0% 5.0% 55.0% 100.0%

Alief Ctr Count 1595 961 776 83 38 810 4263

Row % 37.4% 22.5% 18.2% 1.9% 0.9% 19.0% 100.0%

Fall2010_library_means.xls 2 07-15-2010

Page 26: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

College campusStrongly

AgreeAgree Neutral Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

No Basis for

JudgementTotal

Research for Library Resources Questions, Student Evaluation of Instruction Spring 2010

Question LR2: "The library instruction received for this course was adequate."

Alief Cont. Ed. Count 69 71 54 16 14 24 248

Row % 27.8% 28.6% 21.8% 6.5% 5.6% 9.7% 100.0%

Main Ctr - SW Count 7 1 2 10

Row % 70.0% 10.0% 20.0% 100.0%

Karate Studio Count 15 14 7 24 60

Row % 25.0% 23.3% 11.7% 40.0% 100.0%

Stafford Ctr Count 3769 2179 1604 155 82 2214 10003

Row % 37.7% 21.8% 16.0% 1.5% 0.8% 22.1% 100.0%

Missouri City Ctr Count 362 223 145 23 6 216 975

Row % 37.1% 22.9% 14.9% 2.4% 0.6% 22.2% 100.0%

West Loop Ctr Count 2164 1367 976 79 59 1640 6285

Row % 34.4% 21.8% 15.5% 1.3% 0.9% 26.1% 100.0%

Distance Ed.-SW Count 10 4 3 7 24

Row % 41.7% 16.7% 12.5% 29.2% 100.0%

Fall2010_library_means.xls 3 07-15-2010

Page 27: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ANTH Central

N 60 59 55 61 61 61 61 60 60 57 60 22 22 61 61 Mean 1.17 1.15 1.27 1.62 1.74 1.62 1.70 1.43 1.70 1.75 1.87 2.00 2.09 1.64 1.77

Northeast

N 24 24 22 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 4 4 24 24 Mean 1.04 1.50 1.14 1.21 1.42 1.38 1.38 1.46 1.57 1.96 1.57 2.00 2.00 1.38 1.29

Northwest

N 73 72 69 74 73 74 74 74 70 68 72 23 21 73 74 Mean 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.45 1.48 1.38 1.61 1.24 1.50 1.54 1.54 1.39 1.43 1.38 1.50

Southeast

N 25 23 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 25 5 5 25 25 Mean 1.04 1.22 1.12 1.24 1.52 1.24 1.28 1.32 1.63 1.83 1.60 1.40 1.40 1.52 1.28

Southwest

N 60 55 59 63 63 63 63 63 61 61 61 22 22 62 61 Mean 1.03 1.16 1.08 1.38 1.38 1.40 1.44 1.27 1.46 1.57 1.46 1.18 1.18 1.52 1.43

N 242 233 230 247 246 247 247 246 238 233 241 76 74 245 245 Mean 1.07 1.17 1.13 1.43 1.52 1.43 1.53 1.33 1.56 1.67 1.61 1.54 1.58 1.49 1.51

ARAB Central

N 12 12 11 13 13 13 13 13 12 13 13 4 4 13 13 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.09 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.00

Northwest

N 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 3 3 12 12 Mean 1.09 1.27 1.09 1.67 2.17 1.58 1.75 1.58 1.92 1.75 2.00 1.67 1.67 1.58 1.83

N 23 23 22 25 25 25 25 25 24 25 25 7 7 25 25 Mean 1.04 1.17 1.09 1.32 1.64 1.28 1.36 1.28 1.46 1.36 1.48 1.43 1.43 1.28 1.40

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 1 07/14/2010

Page 28: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ARTS Central

N 697 575 652 650 708 702 696 708 685 673 689 379 364 703 698 Mean 1.06 1.17 1.16 1.36 1.36 1.34 1.47 1.29 1.41 1.64 1.39 1.41 1.45 1.39 1.39

Northeast

N 217 193 209 218 222 222 219 221 208 208 221 78 75 218 217 Mean 1.12 1.13 1.20 1.45 1.55 1.44 1.53 1.36 1.56 1.90 1.60 1.63 1.69 1.55 1.57

Northwest

N 313 275 301 303 316 316 318 317 300 308 311 86 82 315 315 Mean 1.08 1.12 1.15 1.44 1.61 1.46 1.67 1.42 1.55 1.71 1.65 1.55 1.56 1.63 1.69

Southeast

N 303 287 294 300 305 302 304 304 293 293 303 71 71 303 302 Mean 1.10 1.24 1.21 1.45 1.45 1.41 1.65 1.40 1.49 1.94 1.61 1.75 1.76 1.58 1.64

Southwest

N 606 529 577 609 624 624 620 624 609 601 618 270 265 628 624 Mean 1.13 1.12 1.17 1.52 1.51 1.45 1.61 1.36 1.54 1.75 1.60 1.46 1.49 1.61 1.65

N 2136 1859 2033 2080 2175 2166 2157 2174 2095 2083 2142 884 857 2167 2156 Mean 1.09 1.15 1.17 1.44 1.47 1.41 1.57 1.35 1.49 1.75 1.54 1.49 1.52 1.53 1.56

ASTR Central

N 21 22 22 22 22 21 22 22 18 20 22 7 9 21 21 Mean 1.19 1.14 1.18 1.41 1.64 1.43 1.68 1.14 1.61 1.70 1.86 1.43 1.56 1.76 1.57

Northwest

N 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 34 33 35 34 10 10 34 34 Mean 1.09 1.09 1.09 1.49 1.97 1.40 1.71 1.41 1.61 1.89 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.68 1.56

Southeast

N 18 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 4 4 18 18 Mean 1.11 1.06 1.17 1.33 1.39 1.28 1.50 1.22 1.59 1.59 1.41 1.75 1.75 1.33 1.17

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 2 07/14/2010

Page 29: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ASTR Southwest

N 20 17 20 19 20 20 19 18 18 18 20 15 15 20 20 Mean 1.35 1.29 1.55 2.11 2.25 1.75 2.05 1.33 1.78 1.72 2.15 2.00 2.20 2.05 2.15

N 93 90 95 94 95 94 94 92 86 90 93 36 38 93 93 Mean 1.17 1.13 1.22 1.56 1.84 1.46 1.73 1.29 1.64 1.76 1.67 1.69 1.79 1.71 1.61

BCIS Central

N 109 110 108 110 114 114 114 114 110 108 110 56 60 114 114 Mean 1.05 1.09 1.11 1.55 1.57 1.36 1.55 1.33 1.52 1.72 1.59 1.57 1.55 1.60 1.55

Northeast

N 38 38 35 37 37 38 38 38 38 36 37 20 21 38 38 Mean 1.13 1.08 1.17 1.41 1.49 1.37 1.61 1.37 1.55 1.97 1.78 2.00 1.95 1.71 1.50

Northwest

N 150 148 142 151 151 149 150 151 148 144 149 80 83 150 150 Mean 1.06 1.15 1.16 1.36 1.52 1.36 1.41 1.33 1.45 1.66 1.52 1.43 1.41 1.54 1.52

Southeast

N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 11 13 5 5 12 12 Mean 1.00 1.15 1.00 1.38 1.15 1.31 1.38 1.15 1.31 1.36 1.23 1.40 1.40 1.42 1.25

Southwest

N 167 165 162 169 169 166 168 168 165 165 164 110 111 168 168 Mean 1.13 1.15 1.21 1.49 1.72 1.50 1.57 1.48 1.56 1.71 1.63 1.65 1.63 1.63 1.71

N 477 474 460 480 484 480 483 484 474 464 473 271 280 482 482 Mean 1.08 1.13 1.16 1.45 1.59 1.41 1.52 1.38 1.51 1.71 1.59 1.59 1.57 1.59 1.59

BIOL Central

N 808 795 774 813 812 807 811 812 780 787 805 671 665 814 808 Mean 1.05 1.13 1.20 1.48 1.61 1.42 1.68 1.32 1.49 1.82 1.49 1.41 1.43 1.53 1.63

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 3 07/14/2010

Page 30: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

BIOL Coleman

N 113 113 112 114 113 110 112 114 106 113 111 113 113 114 113 Mean 1.12 1.10 1.23 1.63 1.88 1.55 1.75 1.62 1.66 1.79 1.65 1.84 1.84 1.58 1.89

Northeast

N 640 630 612 658 657 656 655 651 635 613 652 612 606 654 647 Mean 1.08 1.09 1.16 1.31 1.39 1.31 1.46 1.23 1.36 1.64 1.42 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.39

Northwest

N 958 940 920 980 978 967 978 973 935 935 968 865 869 981 979 Mean 1.15 1.17 1.24 1.57 1.82 1.50 1.84 1.43 1.66 1.77 1.66 1.51 1.54 1.62 1.79

Southeast

N 712 708 673 722 719 714 715 720 692 681 713 635 629 720 713 Mean 1.14 1.12 1.20 1.52 1.65 1.44 1.67 1.34 1.48 1.90 1.56 1.46 1.50 1.51 1.63

Southwest

N 1450 1441 1399 1476 1475 1455 1469 1474 1426 1418 1454 1328 1335 1474 1461 Mean 1.16 1.16 1.28 1.76 1.99 1.64 1.95 1.54 1.72 1.93 1.82 1.65 1.66 1.83 2.05

N 4681 4627 4490 4763 4754 4709 4740 4744 4574 4547 4703 4224 4217 4757 4721 Mean 1.13 1.14 1.23 1.57 1.75 1.50 1.77 1.41 1.58 1.83 1.63 1.51 1.54 1.62 1.77

CHEM Central

N 498 485 463 511 510 505 506 510 493 484 497 502 496 505 503 Mean 1.12 1.18 1.21 1.49 1.84 1.49 1.70 1.36 1.55 1.80 1.64 1.46 1.61 1.64 1.74

Northeast

N 79 78 76 77 77 75 75 78 76 75 76 70 67 78 77 Mean 1.24 1.27 1.22 1.52 1.87 1.60 1.89 1.62 1.63 1.95 2.09 1.59 1.64 1.68 1.99

Northwest

N 509 501 488 516 517 517 513 516 490 494 514 508 507 517 515 Mean 1.11 1.18 1.22 1.55 1.85 1.50 1.79 1.46 1.65 1.70 1.65 1.44 1.56 1.72 1.82

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 4 07/14/2010

Page 31: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

CHEM Southeast

N 138 139 127 139 140 140 140 140 137 132 137 135 134 139 139 Mean 1.20 1.20 1.28 1.51 1.91 1.56 1.69 1.59 1.72 1.89 1.56 1.42 1.56 1.68 1.80

Southwest

N 677 648 644 686 688 677 683 684 659 663 670 667 661 690 682 Mean 1.10 1.22 1.24 1.56 1.76 1.55 1.78 1.43 1.59 1.77 1.69 1.39 1.53 1.69 1.78

N 1901 1851 1798 1929 1932 1914 1917 1928 1855 1848 1894 1882 1865 1929 1916 Mean 1.12 1.20 1.23 1.54 1.82 1.52 1.76 1.44 1.60 1.77 1.67 1.43 1.57 1.68 1.79

CHIN Central

N 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 14 14 8 8 14 15 Mean 1.27 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.47 1.13 1.20 1.07 1.42 1.21 1.29 1.63 1.63 1.07 1.20

Southeast

N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 14 0 0 14 14 Mean 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.14 1.50 1.36 1.43 1.36 1.62 1.36 1.29 . . 1.21 1.29

Southwest

N 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 8 8 1 1 8 8 Mean 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.25 1.88 1.75 1.75 1.38 1.40 1.38 1.88 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.75

N 37 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 30 36 36 9 9 36 37 Mean 1.14 1.08 1.00 1.19 1.57 1.35 1.41 1.24 1.50 1.31 1.42 1.67 1.67 1.22 1.35

COMM Central

N 78 69 75 74 78 80 78 80 75 73 79 35 35 80 79 Mean 1.08 1.35 1.12 1.65 1.42 1.38 1.56 1.34 1.45 1.81 1.48 1.66 1.57 1.38 1.33

Northwest

N 22 22 22 23 23 23 23 23 22 23 23 5 6 23 23 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.35 1.39 1.35 1.52 1.39 1.36 1.48 1.30 1.20 1.17 1.39 1.48

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 5 07/14/2010

Page 32: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

COMM Southwest

N 37 36 31 37 37 37 37 37 33 35 36 12 11 36 36 Mean 1.11 1.08 1.13 1.49 1.49 1.30 1.57 1.27 1.52 1.60 1.69 1.33 1.45 1.61 1.44

N 137 127 128 134 138 140 138 140 130 131 138 52 52 139 138 Mean 1.07 1.21 1.12 1.55 1.43 1.35 1.56 1.33 1.45 1.69 1.51 1.54 1.50 1.44 1.38

COSC Central

N 32 32 30 32 32 32 32 32 32 31 31 16 18 32 32 Mean 1.13 1.06 1.17 1.47 1.63 1.31 1.63 1.44 1.47 1.74 1.42 1.81 1.33 1.47 1.69

Northwest

N 39 39 35 40 40 40 37 39 39 37 39 20 20 38 39 Mean 1.10 1.08 1.29 1.38 1.70 1.38 1.49 1.59 1.56 1.46 1.51 1.40 1.40 1.58 1.74

Southwest

N 61 61 58 59 62 62 60 62 57 59 61 23 28 61 61 Mean 1.11 1.16 1.10 1.44 1.56 1.31 1.48 1.29 1.46 1.47 1.52 1.43 1.32 1.38 1.49

N 132 132 123 131 134 134 129 133 128 127 131 59 66 131 132 Mean 1.11 1.11 1.17 1.43 1.62 1.33 1.52 1.41 1.49 1.54 1.50 1.53 1.35 1.46 1.61

CRIJ Central

N 31 30 28 33 33 33 33 32 33 33 32 16 16 33 33 Mean 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.24 1.27 1.21 1.36 1.31 1.39 1.67 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.36 1.27

Northeast

N 49 49 45 49 49 49 49 49 49 46 49 19 19 48 46 Mean 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.24 1.29 1.20 1.31 1.14 1.22 1.57 1.27 1.37 1.37 1.17 1.11

Northwest

N 48 46 46 48 47 48 46 48 44 48 48 14 14 47 47 Mean 1.02 1.13 1.11 1.29 1.23 1.31 1.57 1.23 1.32 1.77 1.46 1.57 1.71 1.47 1.34

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 6 07/14/2010

Page 33: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

CRIJ Southeast

N 60 60 57 58 61 60 61 61 60 60 61 15 15 61 59 Mean 1.05 1.03 1.11 1.26 1.23 1.22 1.31 1.16 1.45 1.80 1.41 1.73 1.80 1.25 1.24

Southwest

N 127 126 119 127 129 129 128 129 125 118 126 42 42 128 128 Mean 1.13 1.07 1.24 1.50 1.52 1.47 1.67 1.42 1.54 1.86 1.66 1.67 1.69 1.57 1.55

N 315 311 295 315 319 319 317 319 311 305 316 106 106 317 313 Mean 1.07 1.07 1.15 1.36 1.36 1.33 1.50 1.29 1.43 1.77 1.49 1.57 1.60 1.41 1.36

DANC Central

N 107 65 91 102 110 109 109 111 109 103 104 45 45 111 110 Mean 1.00 1.15 1.05 1.19 1.17 1.28 1.31 1.16 1.28 1.49 1.38 1.38 1.36 1.21 1.23

Northwest

N 86 39 70 80 88 84 88 88 83 85 84 33 28 87 87 Mean 1.01 1.36 1.14 1.28 1.20 1.15 1.27 1.18 1.27 1.34 1.31 1.33 1.25 1.20 1.23

N 193 104 161 182 198 193 197 199 192 188 188 78 73 198 197 Mean 1.01 1.23 1.09 1.23 1.19 1.22 1.29 1.17 1.27 1.42 1.35 1.36 1.32 1.20 1.23

DRAM Central

N 91 87 88 90 91 91 89 91 86 84 87 40 36 91 91 Mean 1.10 1.15 1.16 1.36 1.37 1.29 1.47 1.40 1.48 1.68 1.39 1.25 1.25 1.32 1.47

Northeast

N 26 26 25 26 26 26 26 26 24 25 25 13 13 26 26 Mean 1.08 1.31 1.32 1.38 1.42 1.38 1.54 1.38 1.54 2.44 1.68 2.08 2.00 1.73 1.77

Northwest

N 45 30 43 40 48 47 43 47 45 40 36 15 14 48 47 Mean 1.04 1.13 1.05 1.20 1.19 1.17 1.30 1.19 1.22 1.35 1.19 1.40 1.43 1.15 1.21

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 7 07/14/2010

Page 34: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

DRAM Southeast

N 39 39 38 39 39 39 39 39 37 37 39 4 3 38 37 Mean 1.03 1.15 1.11 1.28 1.59 1.31 1.56 1.38 1.59 1.86 1.67 1.50 1.67 1.63 1.59

Southwest

N 63 58 58 64 64 64 63 62 62 61 62 22 22 63 63 Mean 1.10 1.09 1.24 1.34 1.27 1.23 1.49 1.18 1.34 1.72 1.52 1.41 1.41 1.52 1.60

N 264 240 252 259 268 267 260 265 254 247 249 94 88 266 264 Mean 1.08 1.15 1.17 1.32 1.35 1.27 1.47 1.31 1.42 1.74 1.47 1.44 1.44 1.42 1.50

ECON Central

N 243 238 227 253 250 251 249 250 237 240 249 87 77 250 246 Mean 1.23 1.15 1.33 1.57 1.99 1.62 1.81 1.54 1.65 1.85 1.69 1.70 1.73 1.66 1.81

Northeast

N 94 93 86 94 94 94 93 94 92 92 92 31 29 94 94 Mean 1.18 1.12 1.30 1.57 1.81 1.60 1.77 1.70 1.68 1.91 1.63 1.61 1.66 1.67 1.79

Northwest

N 319 313 297 325 325 319 324 324 307 304 317 72 70 324 324 Mean 1.13 1.23 1.31 1.64 1.85 1.62 1.86 1.44 1.64 1.82 1.74 1.94 1.94 1.72 1.88

Southeast

N 104 103 99 104 105 104 104 104 103 97 103 27 26 103 103 Mean 1.06 1.19 1.21 1.43 1.70 1.56 1.66 1.38 1.58 1.91 1.62 1.67 1.69 1.63 1.77

Southwest

N 505 488 456 512 509 505 504 507 497 500 503 165 153 504 502 Mean 1.13 1.26 1.35 1.61 1.76 1.60 1.87 1.51 1.70 1.89 1.74 1.80 1.86 1.69 1.96

N 1265 1235 1165 1288 1283 1273 1274 1279 1236 1233 1264 382 355 1275 1269 Mean 1.15 1.21 1.32 1.59 1.83 1.60 1.83 1.50 1.66 1.87 1.71 1.78 1.82 1.68 1.88

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 8 07/14/2010

Page 35: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

EDUC Central

N 74 72 69 74 75 75 74 74 72 74 74 26 26 75 75 Mean 1.01 1.14 1.09 1.31 1.17 1.17 1.41 1.16 1.31 1.85 1.43 1.35 1.42 1.28 1.19

Northeast

N 53 54 53 55 55 55 54 55 55 51 53 16 16 55 55 Mean 1.23 1.19 1.23 1.47 1.60 1.49 1.59 1.40 1.55 1.78 1.60 1.69 1.69 1.51 1.51

Northwest

N 57 56 54 56 59 59 59 58 58 58 57 13 12 59 59 Mean 1.11 1.20 1.15 1.34 1.41 1.24 1.41 1.21 1.36 1.67 1.28 2.15 2.25 1.39 1.37

Southeast

N 47 47 45 47 48 48 48 48 47 45 48 16 16 48 48 Mean 1.02 1.04 1.09 1.30 1.38 1.23 1.48 1.29 1.34 1.78 1.38 1.75 1.94 1.33 1.42

Southwest

N 71 69 70 72 72 72 68 73 71 62 67 20 20 73 72 Mean 1.38 1.17 1.27 1.63 1.63 1.71 1.99 1.55 1.69 2.13 1.91 1.90 1.90 1.58 1.78

N 302 298 291 304 309 309 303 308 303 290 299 91 90 310 309 Mean 1.16 1.15 1.17 1.42 1.43 1.38 1.58 1.32 1.46 1.85 1.53 1.71 1.78 1.42 1.45

ENGD Central

N 340 336 315 335 343 343 343 339 337 325 337 198 191 343 337 Mean 1.08 1.12 1.22 1.36 1.30 1.33 1.46 1.27 1.42 1.73 1.42 1.69 1.63 1.41 1.40

Northeast

N 218 216 208 219 216 217 215 215 215 207 212 109 107 217 215 Mean 1.12 1.17 1.20 1.42 1.49 1.48 1.65 1.40 1.56 1.85 1.49 1.59 1.60 1.41 1.54

Northwest

N 286 279 276 289 292 289 292 291 286 285 286 157 152 288 284 Mean 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.63 1.66 1.63 1.75 1.54 1.67 2.18 1.75 1.80 1.80 1.65 1.73

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 9 07/14/2010

Page 36: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ENGD Southeast

N 255 253 244 260 261 262 259 259 255 240 258 156 153 261 257 Mean 1.10 1.20 1.21 1.47 1.42 1.40 1.57 1.31 1.51 1.61 1.46 1.73 1.79 1.43 1.45

Southwest

N 597 592 585 608 608 603 605 607 601 588 602 431 423 606 595 Mean 1.12 1.14 1.26 1.54 1.50 1.46 1.63 1.37 1.52 1.88 1.60 1.68 1.68 1.51 1.61

N 1696 1676 1628 1711 1720 1714 1714 1711 1694 1645 1695 1051 1026 1715 1688 Mean 1.12 1.16 1.23 1.49 1.48 1.46 1.61 1.38 1.53 1.86 1.56 1.70 1.70 1.49 1.55

ENGF Central

N 263 258 254 274 274 273 270 276 270 269 270 145 140 271 270 Mean 1.20 1.21 1.32 1.59 1.69 1.62 1.80 1.65 1.66 1.80 1.63 1.81 1.79 1.70 1.89

Northeast

N 12 12 12 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 14 9 9 13 12 Mean 1.33 2.08 1.67 1.79 1.86 1.71 1.71 1.86 1.92 2.29 2.07 2.67 2.56 2.00 2.17

Northwest

N 98 97 96 105 102 102 101 103 100 99 100 53 51 104 102 Mean 1.20 1.32 1.25 1.53 1.48 1.57 1.62 1.44 1.54 1.59 1.62 1.64 1.67 1.62 1.68

Southeast

N 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 23 22 40 40 Mean 1.10 1.13 1.25 1.48 1.27 1.49 1.49 1.41 1.51 1.54 1.54 1.65 1.73 1.45 1.45

Southwest

N 453 448 438 475 471 465 468 471 467 463 464 275 271 469 465 Mean 1.26 1.32 1.36 1.75 1.82 1.76 1.80 1.69 1.76 1.91 1.82 1.87 1.86 1.83 1.96

N 866 855 840 908 902 895 894 905 891 886 889 505 493 897 889 Mean 1.23 1.29 1.34 1.67 1.72 1.68 1.77 1.64 1.69 1.83 1.73 1.83 1.83 1.75 1.89

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 10 07/14/2010

Page 37: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ENGL Central

N 1204 1174 1137 1180 1223 1224 1217 1223 1193 1157 1209 473 456 1213 1201 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.23 1.53 1.52 1.48 1.67 1.40 1.55 1.80 1.68 1.74 1.73 1.52 1.59

Northeast

N 676 660 630 675 690 690 685 683 675 647 679 241 233 686 679 Mean 1.08 1.15 1.20 1.39 1.38 1.33 1.52 1.28 1.42 1.76 1.50 1.70 1.69 1.44 1.43

Northwest

N 1210 1180 1140 1166 1229 1223 1214 1221 1178 1168 1210 322 306 1218 1202 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.23 1.56 1.61 1.47 1.77 1.47 1.61 1.81 1.70 1.69 1.72 1.60 1.74

Southeast

N 625 623 601 616 636 634 626 635 622 599 621 186 185 631 629 Mean 1.10 1.09 1.18 1.47 1.46 1.40 1.56 1.36 1.52 1.89 1.63 1.70 1.72 1.49 1.54

Southwest

N 1872 1815 1808 1824 1906 1908 1897 1903 1869 1822 1879 677 643 1902 1888 Mean 1.10 1.14 1.20 1.51 1.52 1.43 1.70 1.41 1.50 1.83 1.63 1.63 1.65 1.56 1.67

N 5587 5452 5316 5461 5684 5679 5639 5665 5537 5393 5598 1899 1823 5650 5599 Mean 1.11 1.14 1.21 1.51 1.52 1.43 1.67 1.40 1.53 1.82 1.64 1.68 1.70 1.54 1.62

ENGR Central

N 30 30 28 29 30 29 29 30 26 28 29 6 7 30 30 Mean 1.37 1.13 1.64 2.10 2.23 1.86 2.14 1.37 1.62 2.32 1.97 2.17 1.86 1.83 2.33

Northwest

N 38 38 36 39 40 40 39 40 40 39 38 18 18 40 39 Mean 1.08 1.16 1.22 1.28 1.30 1.20 1.31 1.23 1.35 1.54 1.32 1.89 1.83 1.23 1.26

Southeast

N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 8 8 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.38 1.13 1.25 1.13 1.38 1.75 1.38 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.38

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 11 07/14/2010

Page 38: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ENGR Southwest

N 110 107 96 112 112 109 112 111 106 106 108 34 34 112 112 Mean 1.15 1.14 1.27 1.52 1.67 1.54 1.80 1.39 1.68 1.70 1.64 1.91 1.76 1.46 1.59

N 186 183 168 188 190 186 188 189 180 181 183 62 63 190 189 Mean 1.16 1.14 1.31 1.54 1.67 1.50 1.73 1.34 1.58 1.76 1.61 1.89 1.76 1.47 1.63

ENVR Central

N 76 75 75 77 77 76 77 76 68 70 73 32 31 73 75 Mean 1.22 1.19 1.36 1.91 1.97 1.84 1.86 1.50 1.72 2.04 1.82 1.69 1.71 2.00 2.00

Northwest

N 80 70 76 82 81 77 78 81 78 75 79 30 28 82 80 Mean 1.14 1.23 1.17 1.40 1.62 1.53 1.58 1.33 1.67 1.55 1.52 1.73 1.64 1.67 1.75

Southeast

N 34 34 30 35 35 35 35 34 35 30 34 13 11 33 34 Mean 1.09 1.09 1.20 1.34 1.51 1.37 1.43 1.12 1.31 1.83 1.50 1.77 1.82 1.33 1.26

Southwest

N 140 136 130 142 141 139 142 140 140 135 140 69 65 142 139 Mean 1.08 1.13 1.22 1.50 1.77 1.48 1.68 1.31 1.51 1.83 1.55 1.67 1.71 1.67 1.65

N 330 315 311 336 334 327 332 331 321 310 326 144 135 330 328 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.24 1.55 1.75 1.57 1.67 1.34 1.57 1.81 1.60 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.72

ESOL Central

N 716 711 683 759 758 751 756 756 750 751 742 341 342 750 746 Mean 1.14 1.18 1.28 1.52 1.53 1.56 1.62 1.48 1.55 1.66 1.58 1.74 1.80 1.61 1.64

Northeast

N 333 328 313 342 342 340 342 341 338 341 336 264 271 340 337 Mean 1.13 1.19 1.29 1.43 1.39 1.49 1.51 1.41 1.45 1.55 1.57 1.56 1.59 1.50 1.52

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 12 07/14/2010

Page 39: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ESOL Northwest

N 444 437 427 448 447 443 447 446 446 444 439 332 329 448 442 Mean 1.23 1.25 1.36 1.61 1.70 1.68 1.77 1.69 1.75 1.74 1.76 1.80 1.83 1.78 1.81

Southeast

N 528 530 514 541 538 534 535 534 531 533 533 454 459 539 533 Mean 1.14 1.20 1.25 1.46 1.46 1.54 1.51 1.39 1.46 1.52 1.48 1.60 1.60 1.47 1.48

Southwest

N 2211 2185 2148 2268 2269 2259 2266 2252 2255 2248 2235 659 693 2190 2176 Mean 1.16 1.21 1.24 1.47 1.48 1.52 1.56 1.44 1.48 1.53 1.54 1.70 1.68 1.53 1.57

N 4232 4191 4085 4358 4354 4327 4346 4329 4320 4317 4285 2050 2094 4267 4234 Mean 1.16 1.20 1.27 1.49 1.50 1.55 1.58 1.46 1.51 1.57 1.56 1.68 1.69 1.56 1.59

FREN Central

N 60 60 59 61 61 61 60 61 60 56 60 30 34 61 61 Mean 1.08 1.20 1.20 1.31 1.46 1.28 1.72 1.30 1.57 1.64 1.52 1.80 1.82 1.39 1.39

Northeast

N 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 3 4 8 8 Mean 1.00 1.25 1.38 1.89 1.50 1.63 1.75 1.63 1.78 2.00 1.78 1.67 1.75 1.38 2.00

Northwest

N 33 32 31 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 33 5 8 33 33 Mean 1.00 1.09 1.10 1.15 1.58 1.21 1.33 1.39 1.41 1.47 1.55 1.80 1.63 1.42 1.55

Southwest

N 56 55 55 56 56 56 56 55 51 54 56 11 12 56 55 Mean 1.09 1.11 1.18 1.23 1.50 1.36 1.43 1.56 1.51 1.56 1.41 1.73 1.75 1.50 1.60

N 157 155 153 159 158 158 157 157 152 151 158 49 58 158 157 Mean 1.06 1.15 1.18 1.28 1.50 1.31 1.54 1.43 1.53 1.60 1.50 1.78 1.78 1.44 1.53

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 13 07/14/2010

Page 40: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

GEOG Central

N 17 17 17 18 18 18 17 18 18 17 18 2 2 18 18 Mean 1.29 1.18 1.41 1.67 1.72 1.61 1.47 1.61 1.78 2.24 1.83 2.50 3.00 1.94 2.00

Northeast

N 16 13 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 15 16 1 0 16 16 Mean 1.00 1.69 1.06 1.75 1.47 1.69 1.75 1.31 1.63 1.93 1.56 1.00 . 1.50 1.31

Northwest

N 94 93 91 93 93 93 93 93 89 89 92 25 22 93 94 Mean 1.03 1.08 1.07 1.39 1.27 1.29 1.66 1.22 1.28 1.71 1.37 1.80 1.95 1.32 1.28

Southeast

N 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 20 21 21 22 10 9 22 22 Mean 1.05 1.14 1.18 1.14 1.45 1.36 1.45 1.20 1.24 1.52 1.32 1.90 1.56 1.59 1.82

Southwest

N 29 28 28 32 31 32 32 32 32 30 30 11 10 32 32 Mean 1.07 1.43 1.11 1.53 1.61 1.59 1.75 1.28 1.63 1.57 1.50 1.73 1.70 1.66 1.84

N 178 173 174 181 179 181 180 179 176 172 178 49 43 181 182 Mean 1.06 1.20 1.12 1.44 1.41 1.42 1.64 1.27 1.42 1.73 1.45 1.82 1.86 1.49 1.52

GEOL Central

N 66 62 61 66 65 65 66 64 64 66 66 61 61 66 65 Mean 1.18 1.32 1.25 1.71 1.65 1.48 2.05 1.44 1.59 1.77 1.62 1.52 1.49 1.73 1.63

Northeast

N 18 15 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 14 16 18 18 Mean 1.06 1.13 1.00 1.17 1.22 1.17 1.39 1.11 1.22 1.17 1.33 1.36 1.25 1.28 1.17

Northwest

N 155 151 148 158 157 153 156 158 151 146 155 128 129 158 157 Mean 1.13 1.10 1.17 1.56 1.71 1.44 1.70 1.34 1.56 1.68 1.48 1.38 1.34 1.55 1.63

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 14 07/14/2010

Page 41: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

GEOL Southeast

N 28 28 26 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 28 19 20 28 28 Mean 1.14 1.32 1.31 1.61 1.82 1.82 1.89 1.50 1.71 1.81 1.75 2.05 2.10 1.86 1.68

Southwest

N 208 203 199 212 212 212 209 210 205 202 209 178 183 210 208 Mean 1.07 1.08 1.11 1.47 1.55 1.42 1.66 1.35 1.40 1.72 1.52 1.50 1.40 1.56 1.53

N 475 459 452 482 480 476 477 478 466 459 476 400 409 480 476 Mean 1.11 1.14 1.15 1.53 1.62 1.45 1.73 1.36 1.49 1.70 1.53 1.49 1.42 1.59 1.57

GERM Central

N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 14 15 16 6 6 16 16 Mean 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.19 1.44 1.38 1.64 1.27 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.19 1.19

N 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 14 15 16 6 6 16 16 Mean 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.19 1.44 1.38 1.64 1.27 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.19 1.19

GOVT Central

N 588 573 510 602 604 592 594 599 571 570 585 200 186 596 594 Mean 1.19 1.21 1.36 1.61 1.77 1.57 1.77 1.46 1.73 1.89 1.76 1.92 1.92 1.70 1.80

Northeast

N 498 481 459 511 509 505 509 507 487 486 502 169 163 507 505 Mean 1.16 1.18 1.24 1.51 1.68 1.50 1.61 1.52 1.64 1.84 1.63 1.69 1.69 1.63 1.66

Northwest

N 999 989 938 1018 1015 1002 1012 1013 975 967 997 213 205 1006 1001 Mean 1.07 1.14 1.24 1.53 1.55 1.47 1.78 1.37 1.49 1.73 1.63 1.78 1.77 1.58 1.68

Southeast

N 406 400 373 412 410 410 410 408 394 384 405 103 100 407 408 Mean 1.05 1.11 1.22 1.42 1.37 1.41 1.59 1.24 1.50 1.97 1.64 1.66 1.68 1.52 1.51

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 15 07/14/2010

Page 42: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

GOVT Southwest

N 1632 1600 1533 1652 1656 1641 1643 1649 1593 1553 1608 490 460 1646 1636 Mean 1.07 1.16 1.24 1.47 1.47 1.44 1.66 1.35 1.51 1.80 1.56 1.69 1.75 1.55 1.53

N 4123 4043 3813 4195 4194 4150 4168 4176 4020 3960 4097 1175 1114 4162 4144 Mean 1.10 1.16 1.25 1.50 1.55 1.47 1.69 1.38 1.55 1.82 1.62 1.74 1.77 1.58 1.62

GUST Central

N 794 784 776 805 807 800 807 808 797 782 789 465 461 792 788 Mean 1.09 1.13 1.20 1.38 1.35 1.35 1.53 1.30 1.46 1.76 1.53 1.56 1.56 1.41 1.42

Northeast

N 514 513 501 524 524 526 516 523 512 496 509 335 333 521 512 Mean 1.13 1.21 1.27 1.55 1.56 1.57 1.75 1.57 1.63 1.98 1.73 1.69 1.69 1.55 1.68

Northwest

N 837 835 792 862 861 855 854 855 840 823 842 399 397 855 844 Mean 1.15 1.18 1.27 1.47 1.51 1.49 1.66 1.42 1.57 1.79 1.69 1.63 1.63 1.47 1.61

Southeast

N 427 427 417 435 438 439 436 434 429 414 431 260 256 435 432 Mean 1.11 1.18 1.27 1.45 1.43 1.49 1.58 1.34 1.52 1.85 1.66 1.77 1.70 1.45 1.50

Southwest

N 1516 1499 1467 1545 1544 1538 1533 1536 1525 1493 1516 1053 1040 1530 1516 Mean 1.14 1.14 1.29 1.52 1.58 1.52 1.71 1.49 1.59 1.81 1.66 1.66 1.67 1.55 1.63

N 4088 4058 3953 4171 4174 4158 4146 4156 4103 4008 4087 2512 2487 4133 4092 Mean 1.13 1.16 1.26 1.48 1.50 1.48 1.66 1.44 1.56 1.82 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.49 1.58

HIST Central

N 696 676 635 707 709 705 705 708 678 674 696 223 219 701 700 Mean 1.08 1.25 1.25 1.44 1.46 1.46 1.71 1.41 1.57 1.84 1.57 1.82 1.88 1.60 1.64

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 16 07/14/2010

Page 43: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

HIST Northeast

N 392 388 375 395 394 392 393 393 379 369 388 110 100 390 390 Mean 1.04 1.12 1.16 1.31 1.38 1.29 1.51 1.26 1.47 1.78 1.46 1.62 1.63 1.38 1.41

Northwest

N 1370 1321 1269 1396 1394 1386 1381 1386 1327 1332 1372 348 332 1384 1381 Mean 1.09 1.32 1.28 1.61 1.58 1.52 1.87 1.45 1.57 1.86 1.70 1.77 1.83 1.69 1.78

Southeast

N 479 475 460 477 486 484 479 485 471 439 474 131 125 480 481 Mean 1.10 1.25 1.18 1.44 1.42 1.39 1.57 1.29 1.48 1.81 1.56 1.63 1.66 1.58 1.56

Southwest

N 1257 1196 1195 1285 1286 1278 1272 1274 1221 1220 1265 419 396 1270 1263 Mean 1.07 1.24 1.18 1.39 1.39 1.37 1.56 1.32 1.45 1.71 1.53 1.58 1.60 1.53 1.52

N 4194 4056 3934 4260 4269 4245 4230 4246 4076 4034 4195 1231 1172 4225 4215 Mean 1.08 1.26 1.22 1.47 1.47 1.43 1.68 1.37 1.51 1.80 1.59 1.69 1.73 1.59 1.62

HUMA Central

N 87 86 85 89 89 88 89 88 86 87 87 42 40 88 87 Mean 1.16 1.23 1.21 1.45 1.53 1.45 1.58 1.39 1.45 1.95 1.48 1.64 1.73 1.43 1.48

Northeast

N 14 14 12 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 6 6 14 14 Mean 1.00 1.29 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.21 1.07 1.14 1.33 1.33 1.07 1.14

Northwest

N 46 42 42 46 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 12 12 46 45 Mean 1.17 1.21 1.19 1.63 1.72 1.69 1.98 1.93 1.75 2.25 1.93 1.67 1.67 1.63 2.04

Southeast

N 30 28 28 30 30 30 29 30 27 30 30 8 8 30 29 Mean 1.10 1.18 1.18 1.63 1.90 1.60 1.83 1.47 1.81 2.00 1.90 1.50 1.63 1.67 1.69

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 17 07/14/2010

Page 44: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

HUMA Southwest

N 50 44 49 50 50 48 50 50 45 48 50 23 22 49 49 Mean 1.16 1.14 1.12 1.52 1.46 1.40 1.62 1.46 1.58 1.92 1.48 1.70 1.68 1.51 1.45

N 227 214 216 229 229 225 227 227 216 223 225 91 88 227 224 Mean 1.15 1.21 1.18 1.50 1.57 1.48 1.67 1.50 1.57 1.96 1.60 1.63 1.67 1.50 1.59

JAPN Central

N 26 26 24 26 26 26 25 26 23 24 25 10 11 25 25 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.27 1.19 1.12 1.08 1.35 1.50 1.24 1.30 1.27 1.16 1.12

Northwest

N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 14 13 3 3 14 14 Mean 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.43 1.14 1.29 1.14 1.42 1.43 1.15 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00

N 40 40 38 40 40 40 39 40 35 38 38 13 14 39 39 Mean 1.05 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.33 1.18 1.18 1.10 1.37 1.47 1.21 1.31 1.29 1.10 1.08

KORE Northwest

N 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 4 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.33 1.33 1.50 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.75 1.17 1.33

N 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 4 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.33 1.33 1.50 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.75 1.17 1.33

MATD Central

N 837 822 778 845 849 846 841 849 813 809 835 414 416 843 836 Mean 1.13 1.14 1.29 1.51 1.82 1.52 1.70 1.56 1.77 1.87 1.73 1.88 1.88 1.76 1.87

Northeast

N 746 740 708 756 755 755 753 749 743 723 745 334 328 751 743 Mean 1.06 1.09 1.23 1.38 1.55 1.38 1.58 1.32 1.52 1.86 1.58 1.70 1.68 1.50 1.50

Northwest

N 1258 1237 1175 1279 1274 1272 1265 1264 1235 1197 1252 473 469 1263 1257

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 18 07/14/2010

Page 45: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.06 1.11 1.21 1.28 1.43 1.28 1.54 1.28 1.41 1.68 1.48 1.55 1.53 1.46 1.46

MATD Southeast

N 685 659 634 687 693 692 685 687 674 650 674 290 285 686 678 Mean 1.05 1.18 1.23 1.42 1.56 1.36 1.55 1.32 1.48 1.82 1.57 1.72 1.75 1.58 1.59

Southwest

N 2250 2168 2097 2299 2289 2287 2272 2280 2205 2173 2232 1120 1111 2272 2249 Mean 1.07 1.16 1.21 1.33 1.51 1.34 1.51 1.29 1.50 1.75 1.55 1.60 1.61 1.51 1.52

N 5776 5626 5392 5866 5860 5852 5816 5829 5670 5552 5738 2631 2609 5815 5763 Mean 1.07 1.14 1.22 1.36 1.55 1.36 1.56 1.33 1.52 1.78 1.57 1.66 1.66 1.54 1.56

MATH Central

N 638 626 514 648 644 640 637 639 608 619 622 212 208 639 630 Mean 1.13 1.17 1.38 1.59 2.00 1.58 1.89 1.55 1.85 1.89 1.88 2.02 2.05 2.00 2.09

Northeast

N 342 337 307 346 347 344 345 343 337 328 340 83 82 346 346 Mean 1.05 1.07 1.22 1.34 1.44 1.29 1.54 1.33 1.52 1.81 1.62 1.67 1.71 1.40 1.43

Northwest

N 1157 1137 1037 1186 1182 1173 1181 1175 1118 1136 1163 319 318 1168 1164 Mean 1.10 1.17 1.29 1.51 1.76 1.50 1.74 1.51 1.70 1.74 1.65 1.76 1.78 1.79 1.86

Southeast

N 480 473 421 488 488 487 483 482 468 455 475 144 140 484 486 Mean 1.07 1.10 1.23 1.36 1.63 1.35 1.57 1.33 1.51 1.86 1.53 1.62 1.66 1.56 1.63

Southwest

N 2037 1991 1861 2085 2082 2059 2072 2072 1998 2003 2046 644 631 2064 2056 Mean 1.08 1.15 1.23 1.38 1.55 1.38 1.58 1.34 1.55 1.71 1.56 1.69 1.70 1.56 1.58

N 4654 4564 4140 4753 4743 4703 4718 4711 4529 4541 4646 1402 1379 4701 4682 Mean 1.09 1.15 1.26 1.44 1.67 1.43 1.66 1.41 1.62 1.76 1.63 1.75 1.77 1.67 1.71

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 19 07/14/2010

Page 46: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

MUAP Central

N 61 55 61 59 64 64 59 64 63 56 59 31 31 64 63 Mean 1.02 1.05 1.02 1.20 1.06 1.11 1.17 1.06 1.19 1.32 1.12 1.19 1.23 1.11 1.11

Northwest

N 36 28 37 32 41 41 39 42 38 33 34 14 15 41 41 Mean 1.11 1.04 1.03 1.06 1.12 1.10 1.15 1.12 1.13 1.18 1.24 1.14 1.07 1.07 1.10

Southwest

N 19 13 19 15 19 19 18 18 19 17 18 9 8 19 19 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.05 1.27 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.06 1.11 1.35 1.11 1.33 1.63 1.05 1.00

N 116 96 117 106 124 124 116 124 120 106 111 54 54 124 123 Mean 1.04 1.05 1.03 1.17 1.07 1.09 1.19 1.08 1.16 1.28 1.15 1.20 1.24 1.09 1.09

MUSI Central

N 218 203 201 209 220 218 216 220 209 197 212 75 78 213 214 Mean 1.04 1.10 1.11 1.21 1.20 1.17 1.32 1.12 1.35 1.56 1.31 1.37 1.36 1.32 1.25

Northeast

N 25 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 25 10 12 24 25 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.08 1.44 1.68 1.48 1.92 1.48 1.72 2.04 1.80 2.00 1.67 1.67 1.92

Northwest

N 300 260 285 291 313 310 302 310 297 292 294 122 126 311 312 Mean 1.06 1.13 1.13 1.21 1.32 1.24 1.39 1.21 1.33 1.43 1.30 1.28 1.25 1.25 1.31

Southeast

N 34 34 33 34 34 33 33 34 33 31 33 9 9 34 34 Mean 1.03 1.18 1.15 1.53 1.82 1.55 1.97 1.24 1.70 2.29 1.85 1.89 1.78 1.50 1.74

Southwest

N 192 182 181 192 197 195 195 197 191 183 191 59 58 195 193 Mean 1.06 1.13 1.10 1.22 1.25 1.17 1.41 1.17 1.31 1.65 1.35 1.53 1.57 1.36 1.30

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 20 07/14/2010

Page 47: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 769 703 724 751 789 781 771 786 755 727 755 275 283 777 778 Mean 1.05 1.12 1.12 1.24 1.30 1.23 1.42 1.18 1.36 1.58 1.36 1.40 1.38 1.32 1.33

PHED Central

N 167 92 155 152 170 168 161 170 168 154 157 79 78 168 168 Mean 1.05 1.18 1.14 1.48 1.23 1.39 1.39 1.38 1.41 1.97 1.59 1.30 1.29 1.32 1.39

Northwest

N 54 38 49 53 55 53 52 55 54 50 46 25 24 54 55 Mean 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.09 1.15 1.09 1.13 1.11 1.19 1.30 1.17 1.20 1.21 1.20 1.16

Southwest

N 86 67 75 87 89 89 88 89 89 84 82 55 50 89 86 Mean 1.05 1.19 1.11 1.41 1.33 1.26 1.30 1.25 1.34 2.21 1.40 1.20 1.24 1.29 1.31

N 307 197 279 292 314 310 301 314 311 288 285 159 152 311 309 Mean 1.05 1.16 1.11 1.39 1.24 1.30 1.32 1.29 1.35 1.93 1.47 1.25 1.26 1.29 1.33

PHIL Central

N 193 191 184 195 195 194 193 195 187 187 191 51 50 194 194 Mean 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.31 1.41 1.29 1.41 1.24 1.36 1.56 1.57 1.39 1.46 1.46 1.48

Northeast

N 99 97 95 101 101 101 99 101 97 95 100 24 24 100 99 Mean 1.11 1.18 1.15 1.26 1.39 1.28 1.41 1.23 1.38 1.69 1.50 1.33 1.38 1.31 1.44

Northwest

N 354 346 315 362 362 361 359 361 343 346 358 102 100 356 358 Mean 1.08 1.17 1.17 1.41 1.53 1.33 1.60 1.29 1.41 1.76 1.56 1.59 1.65 1.47 1.51

Southeast

N 86 84 77 87 87 87 87 87 84 80 87 20 19 87 85 Mean 1.03 1.23 1.14 1.21 1.43 1.26 1.49 1.13 1.21 1.58 1.24 1.65 1.68 1.40 1.35

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 21 07/14/2010

Page 48: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

PHIL Southwest

N 129 120 116 131 129 127 130 130 128 130 129 31 27 129 128 Mean 1.09 1.28 1.16 1.36 1.48 1.39 1.59 1.32 1.45 1.62 1.53 1.84 1.74 1.48 1.55

N 861 838 787 876 874 870 868 874 839 838 865 228 220 866 864 Mean 1.08 1.18 1.15 1.34 1.47 1.32 1.53 1.26 1.38 1.67 1.52 1.56 1.59 1.45 1.49

PHYS Central

N 161 157 118 159 161 159 155 159 144 154 158 98 97 160 161 Mean 1.15 1.34 1.52 1.96 2.52 1.79 2.24 1.62 1.98 1.92 2.05 1.80 1.96 2.12 2.41

Northwest

N 153 143 139 151 157 156 156 157 153 153 154 104 109 157 157 Mean 1.06 1.10 1.18 1.32 1.52 1.37 1.66 1.38 1.53 1.70 1.64 1.62 1.62 1.49 1.49

Southeast

N 41 41 39 41 41 41 41 41 41 39 40 29 29 41 41 Mean 1.10 1.20 1.26 1.56 1.90 1.54 1.73 1.34 1.44 1.69 1.80 1.45 1.28 1.59 1.71

Southwest

N 297 281 282 297 307 307 305 306 298 293 303 216 215 306 304 Mean 1.09 1.27 1.33 1.55 1.74 1.53 1.79 1.40 1.57 1.63 1.70 1.51 1.57 1.63 1.76

N 652 622 578 648 666 663 657 663 636 639 655 447 450 664 663 Mean 1.10 1.24 1.33 1.60 1.89 1.56 1.86 1.44 1.64 1.72 1.78 1.60 1.65 1.71 1.85

PSYC Central

N 508 498 469 517 518 515 512 513 499 492 510 190 186 515 514 Mean 1.05 1.08 1.17 1.36 1.34 1.33 1.58 1.24 1.39 1.70 1.46 1.59 1.60 1.49 1.40

Northeast

N 284 273 276 289 290 290 290 287 284 269 286 108 103 287 286 Mean 1.10 1.11 1.15 1.38 1.35 1.31 1.49 1.28 1.43 1.77 1.48 1.56 1.59 1.40 1.39

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 22 07/14/2010

Page 49: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

PSYC Northwest

N 859 856 832 876 874 873 874 866 840 836 859 259 250 868 862 Mean 1.08 1.12 1.17 1.41 1.47 1.41 1.64 1.32 1.46 1.68 1.58 1.67 1.68 1.51 1.49

Southeast

N 484 476 457 490 491 490 487 489 482 472 480 173 163 489 489 Mean 1.06 1.13 1.21 1.38 1.42 1.36 1.56 1.26 1.43 1.78 1.54 1.58 1.60 1.51 1.50

Southwest

N 982 966 925 995 993 987 981 984 963 943 973 372 353 983 975 Mean 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.38 1.35 1.34 1.56 1.26 1.42 1.75 1.45 1.55 1.57 1.42 1.39

N 3117 3069 2959 3167 3166 3155 3144 3139 3068 3012 3108 1102 1055 3142 3126 Mean 1.06 1.10 1.17 1.39 1.39 1.36 1.58 1.27 1.43 1.73 1.50 1.59 1.61 1.47 1.43

SGNL Central

N 91 79 87 93 94 91 90 94 87 86 89 27 32 92 91 Mean 1.23 1.56 1.26 1.51 1.55 1.59 1.59 1.33 1.52 1.74 1.67 1.81 1.78 1.41 1.47

N 91 79 87 93 94 91 90 94 87 86 89 27 32 92 91 Mean 1.23 1.56 1.26 1.51 1.55 1.59 1.59 1.33 1.52 1.74 1.67 1.81 1.78 1.41 1.47

SOCI Central

N 251 252 225 252 252 254 252 253 246 249 247 86 85 252 249 Mean 1.06 1.08 1.24 1.37 1.42 1.41 1.54 1.33 1.44 1.76 1.49 1.60 1.65 1.45 1.49

Northeast

N 193 182 188 196 196 194 195 194 188 185 192 68 63 196 194 Mean 1.02 1.13 1.13 1.39 1.38 1.35 1.57 1.29 1.47 1.80 1.55 1.69 1.81 1.41 1.38

Northwest

N 509 505 477 517 514 511 514 512 488 487 503 142 139 512 510 Mean 1.09 1.13 1.22 1.32 1.58 1.40 1.62 1.39 1.58 1.80 1.52 1.58 1.63 1.43 1.47

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 23 07/14/2010

Page 50: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

SOCI Southeast

N 173 173 161 176 176 176 174 175 169 158 172 59 59 175 174 Mean 1.06 1.08 1.20 1.36 1.51 1.41 1.60 1.32 1.51 1.95 1.63 1.85 1.92 1.51 1.51

Southwest

N 707 693 672 717 715 710 708 716 689 679 700 243 232 710 708 Mean 1.09 1.14 1.20 1.45 1.48 1.42 1.59 1.33 1.49 1.75 1.59 1.60 1.66 1.50 1.48

N 1833 1805 1723 1858 1853 1845 1843 1850 1780 1758 1814 598 578 1845 1835 Mean 1.08 1.12 1.20 1.39 1.49 1.41 1.59 1.34 1.51 1.79 1.56 1.63 1.69 1.47 1.47

SPAN Central

N 232 232 214 235 235 234 234 233 220 220 228 90 98 233 230 Mean 1.13 1.22 1.31 1.56 1.71 1.52 1.74 1.63 1.78 1.75 1.61 1.96 1.89 1.64 1.74

Northeast

N 57 57 57 59 58 58 59 57 59 55 57 29 30 58 59 Mean 1.04 1.26 1.21 1.42 1.47 1.40 1.42 1.32 1.37 1.76 1.46 1.62 1.47 1.41 1.71

Northwest

N 202 204 194 211 211 212 209 211 204 201 208 86 98 209 209 Mean 1.17 1.14 1.19 1.30 1.64 1.37 1.48 1.36 1.52 1.59 1.56 1.63 1.60 1.42 1.53

Southeast

N 115 116 108 116 116 116 112 116 114 107 115 49 54 114 114 Mean 1.07 1.07 1.22 1.52 1.77 1.49 1.55 1.80 1.82 1.94 1.84 1.80 1.74 1.78 1.88

Southwest

N 241 241 236 245 245 242 242 243 236 236 241 67 71 245 243 Mean 1.05 1.18 1.16 1.29 1.42 1.28 1.53 1.30 1.42 1.58 1.43 1.69 1.55 1.36 1.42

N 847 850 809 866 865 862 856 860 833 819 849 321 351 859 855 Mean 1.10 1.17 1.22 1.41 1.60 1.40 1.57 1.47 1.59 1.69 1.57 1.76 1.68 1.51 1.61

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 24 07/14/2010

Page 51: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

SPCH Central

N 333 327 304 322 334 335 332 334 328 312 329 114 109 335 329 Mean 1.12 1.14 1.19 1.45 1.40 1.39 1.58 1.45 1.46 1.79 1.48 1.69 1.72 1.36 1.49

Northeast

N 241 232 224 241 242 243 238 243 239 232 238 70 69 242 241 Mean 1.11 1.17 1.23 1.48 1.34 1.36 1.42 1.31 1.45 1.64 1.48 1.79 1.80 1.33 1.41

Northwest

N 331 267 292 298 337 337 331 338 325 317 327 84 80 335 330 Mean 1.09 1.33 1.18 1.46 1.28 1.27 1.40 1.31 1.33 1.62 1.41 1.54 1.59 1.26 1.25

Southeast

N 247 246 241 247 248 248 248 246 245 237 245 67 65 247 242 Mean 1.03 1.07 1.10 1.25 1.15 1.21 1.32 1.16 1.27 1.68 1.27 1.58 1.57 1.25 1.22

Southwest

N 390 382 362 388 394 394 393 394 386 380 387 149 144 394 389 Mean 1.07 1.14 1.15 1.44 1.29 1.30 1.50 1.23 1.35 1.64 1.41 1.50 1.52 1.35 1.38

N 1542 1454 1423 1496 1555 1557 1542 1555 1523 1478 1526 484 467 1553 1531 Mean 1.08 1.17 1.17 1.42 1.30 1.31 1.46 1.29 1.37 1.67 1.42 1.61 1.63 1.31 1.36

TECA Central

N 81 80 79 83 82 83 83 82 78 80 83 41 39 83 83 Mean 1.07 1.05 1.11 1.36 1.52 1.33 1.64 1.41 1.46 1.61 1.37 1.34 1.33 1.48 1.54

Northeast

N 67 67 66 68 68 68 68 68 66 66 68 27 27 68 68 Mean 1.03 1.03 1.14 1.12 1.19 1.19 1.24 1.18 1.23 1.50 1.32 1.26 1.26 1.19 1.18

Northwest

N 79 77 77 79 79 79 79 78 78 77 79 23 25 79 79 Mean 1.04 1.08 1.04 1.27 1.24 1.25 1.29 1.12 1.22 1.77 1.34 1.30 1.28 1.23 1.16

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 25 07/14/2010

Page 52: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 ACADEMIC SUBJECTS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

TECA Southeast

N 39 38 38 40 40 40 40 40 40 38 40 22 20 40 40 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.20 1.10 1.13 1.20 1.13 1.28 1.37 1.30 1.18 1.25 1.18 1.18

Southwest

N 132 127 127 135 134 133 134 134 134 126 133 53 50 134 134 Mean 1.29 1.06 1.27 1.53 1.59 1.47 1.84 1.57 1.48 1.98 1.66 1.87 1.90 1.54 1.68

N 398 389 387 405 403 403 404 402 396 387 403 166 161 404 404 Mean 1.12 1.05 1.15 1.34 1.39 1.32 1.53 1.34 1.36 1.72 1.45 1.47 1.48 1.37 1.42

VIET Central

N 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 5 5 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.22 1.11 1.33 1.22 1.22 1.00 1.25 1.11 1.40 1.60 1.22 1.22

N 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 5 5 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.22 1.11 1.33 1.22 1.22 1.00 1.25 1.11 1.40 1.60 1.22 1.22

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-ACA.pdf 26 07/14/2010

Page 53: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ABDR Northeast

N 108 107 107 111 109 110 109 111 110 108 110 110 110 111 108 Mean 1.08 1.19 1.12 1.40 1.42 1.35 1.46 1.32 1.37 1.64 1.35 1.30 1.44 1.32 1.29

N 108 107 107 111 109 110 109 111 110 108 110 110 110 111 108 Mean 1.08 1.19 1.12 1.40 1.42 1.35 1.46 1.32 1.37 1.64 1.35 1.30 1.44 1.32 1.29

ACCT Central

N 210 206 200 213 213 209 211 210 209 204 210 108 106 209 207 Mean 1.15 1.15 1.22 1.48 1.57 1.50 1.64 1.45 1.56 1.66 1.61 1.64 1.65 1.57 1.59

Northeast

N 40 40 34 41 41 41 40 40 40 39 41 9 8 39 41 Mean 1.10 1.15 1.24 1.88 1.88 1.73 1.98 1.43 1.65 2.00 1.71 2.22 2.25 1.77 2.15

Northwest

N 203 199 187 205 205 202 204 204 194 200 201 65 64 203 198 Mean 1.12 1.12 1.30 1.48 1.70 1.51 1.65 1.46 1.64 1.80 1.68 1.57 1.64 1.64 1.69

Southeast

N 57 58 52 60 60 60 60 60 59 56 59 19 18 57 58 Mean 1.12 1.05 1.23 1.50 1.92 1.40 1.50 1.33 1.58 1.84 1.53 1.42 1.44 1.65 1.84

Southwest

N 472 472 433 476 477 473 475 477 459 464 468 171 172 476 474 Mean 1.09 1.13 1.23 1.45 1.62 1.46 1.68 1.40 1.50 1.72 1.58 1.60 1.67 1.59 1.67

N 982 975 906 995 996 985 990 991 961 963 979 372 368 984 978 Mean 1.11 1.13 1.24 1.49 1.66 1.49 1.67 1.42 1.55 1.74 1.61 1.61 1.66 1.61 1.69

ACNT Central

N 78 77 69 80 79 79 80 80 75 80 79 34 33 80 80 Mean 1.05 1.09 1.25 1.36 1.48 1.37 1.64 1.29 1.48 1.65 1.49 1.56 1.55 1.44 1.44

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 1 07/14/2010

Page 54: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ACNT Northeast

N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 3 3 13 13 Mean 1.15 1.23 1.31 1.69 1.85 1.46 1.46 1.54 1.69 2.08 1.67 2.33 2.33 1.62 1.69

Northwest

N 67 65 63 70 69 68 69 69 66 68 68 23 23 70 70 Mean 1.12 1.18 1.21 1.46 1.62 1.40 1.75 1.32 1.52 1.63 1.44 1.87 1.91 1.64 1.63

Southeast

N 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 1 1 4 4 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00

Southwest

N 482 470 444 487 489 488 479 490 471 470 480 191 187 487 488 Mean 1.06 1.14 1.23 1.45 1.64 1.38 1.54 1.34 1.45 1.55 1.47 1.46 1.51 1.51 1.62

N 644 628 593 654 654 652 645 656 629 634 643 252 247 654 655 Mean 1.07 1.14 1.23 1.44 1.62 1.38 1.57 1.33 1.46 1.58 1.47 1.52 1.57 1.52 1.60

AERM Central

N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50

N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50

ARCE Northeast

N 14 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 8 9 14 14 Mean 1.07 1.08 1.31 1.43 1.57 1.43 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.86 1.71 1.75 1.78 1.57 1.71

Northwest

N 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 9 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.22 1.40 2.00 1.40 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.75 1.56 1.80 2.00

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 2 07/14/2010

Page 55: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ARCE Southwest

N 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 11 11 5 6 11 11 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.27 1.36 1.27 1.55 1.45 1.33 1.82 1.36 1.40 1.17 1.64 2.00

N 34 33 33 35 35 35 35 35 33 35 35 21 24 35 35 Mean 1.03 1.06 1.18 1.37 1.63 1.37 1.57 1.54 1.52 1.74 1.51 1.67 1.54 1.66 1.89

ARTC Southwest

N 304 233 287 280 309 307 295 307 294 277 295 174 181 310 300 Mean 1.10 1.39 1.22 1.63 1.60 1.36 1.62 1.46 1.61 1.74 1.77 1.67 1.65 1.58 1.64

N 304 233 287 280 309 307 295 307 294 277 295 174 181 310 300 Mean 1.10 1.39 1.22 1.63 1.60 1.36 1.62 1.46 1.61 1.74 1.77 1.67 1.65 1.58 1.64

ARTV Southwest

N 32 31 29 32 33 33 29 34 34 30 29 18 18 34 32 Mean 1.19 1.45 1.24 1.72 1.79 1.58 1.69 1.74 1.68 1.73 2.00 1.78 1.67 1.59 1.75

N 32 31 29 32 33 33 29 34 34 30 29 18 18 34 32 Mean 1.19 1.45 1.24 1.72 1.79 1.58 1.69 1.74 1.68 1.73 2.00 1.78 1.67 1.59 1.75

AUMT Northeast

N 386 387 381 396 398 397 385 397 394 369 385 389 388 398 395 Mean 1.22 1.10 1.20 1.47 1.55 1.47 1.63 1.43 1.49 1.70 1.62 1.41 1.59 1.58 1.56

N 386 387 381 396 398 397 385 397 394 369 385 389 388 398 395 Mean 1.22 1.10 1.20 1.47 1.55 1.47 1.63 1.43 1.49 1.70 1.62 1.41 1.59 1.58 1.56

BARB Southeast

N 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 36 36 37 35 36 35 36 37 Mean 1.08 1.08 1.14 1.41 1.43 1.41 1.51 1.33 1.33 1.86 1.26 1.36 1.34 1.31 1.41

N 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 36 36 37 35 36 35 36 37 Mean 1.08 1.08 1.14 1.41 1.43 1.41 1.51 1.33 1.33 1.86 1.26 1.36 1.34 1.31 1.41

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 3 07/14/2010

Page 56: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

BIOM Northeast

N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.30 1.50 1.50 1.20 1.50 1.20 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.50 1.50 1.30 1.50

N 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.30 1.50 1.50 1.20 1.50 1.20 1.10 1.10 1.20 1.20 1.50 1.50 1.30 1.50

BITC Northeast

N 12 12 10 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 11 12 12 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.75 1.17 1.25 1.18 1.25 1.25 1.27 1.50 1.55 1.45 1.33 1.33

N 12 12 10 12 12 12 11 12 12 11 12 11 11 12 12 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.10 1.75 1.17 1.25 1.18 1.25 1.25 1.27 1.50 1.55 1.45 1.33 1.33

BMGT Central

N 47 47 42 47 47 47 47 47 45 45 45 21 23 47 47 Mean 1.06 1.04 1.10 1.34 1.47 1.38 1.49 1.36 1.49 1.56 1.51 1.48 1.65 1.55 1.57

Northeast

N 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 2 2 10 10 Mean 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.78 1.60 1.70 1.90 1.60 1.89 1.89 1.56 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.70

Northwest

N 20 20 21 20 21 21 21 21 21 19 20 7 7 21 21 Mean 1.10 1.05 1.19 1.35 1.38 1.33 1.48 1.14 1.38 1.68 1.40 1.29 1.57 1.57 1.57

Southeast

N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.67 . . 2.33 2.00

Southwest

N 104 101 100 102 103 103 101 103 103 99 99 53 48 102 100 Mean 1.02 1.05 1.12 1.18 1.21 1.21 1.24 1.14 1.20 1.44 1.24 1.40 1.44 1.20 1.16

N 184 181 176 181 184 184 182 184 181 175 176 83 80 183 181

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 4 07/14/2010

Page 57: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.04 1.05 1.13 1.27 1.32 1.30 1.38 1.22 1.34 1.52 1.35 1.42 1.51 1.37 1.36

BNKG Central

N 18 10 16 19 17 17 17 17 16 15 16 11 9 18 17 Mean 1.00 1.60 1.06 1.26 1.29 1.24 1.59 1.35 1.50 1.60 1.31 1.55 1.44 1.50 1.35

N 18 10 16 19 17 17 17 17 16 15 16 11 9 18 17 Mean 1.00 1.60 1.06 1.26 1.29 1.24 1.59 1.35 1.50 1.60 1.31 1.55 1.44 1.50 1.35

BUSG Central

N 90 86 84 93 93 93 92 92 90 86 91 32 31 90 90 Mean 1.04 1.05 1.11 1.22 1.28 1.25 1.39 1.18 1.40 1.62 1.45 1.69 1.77 1.27 1.30

Northeast

N 64 52 64 61 64 63 64 63 64 62 63 9 8 64 64 Mean 1.00 1.04 1.11 1.30 1.23 1.19 1.44 1.14 1.23 1.44 1.32 1.44 1.50 1.27 1.25

Northwest

N 93 83 83 93 96 96 93 96 93 87 95 28 27 92 91 Mean 1.05 1.06 1.05 1.28 1.22 1.25 1.45 1.19 1.32 1.36 1.25 1.39 1.44 1.22 1.23

Southeast

N 23 21 22 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 4 4 23 23 Mean 1.04 1.00 1.18 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.22 1.13 1.35 1.43 1.26 1.50 1.50 1.13 1.13

Southwest

N 155 139 140 156 159 155 157 159 155 148 151 53 53 159 158 Mean 1.16 1.17 1.21 1.36 1.43 1.41 1.58 1.31 1.47 1.80 1.58 1.47 1.57 1.45 1.51

N 425 381 393 426 435 430 429 433 425 406 423 126 123 428 426 Mean 1.08 1.09 1.13 1.29 1.31 1.30 1.47 1.22 1.38 1.59 1.42 1.51 1.59 1.32 1.35

CDEC Central

N 125 124 123 129 131 130 130 129 131 124 132 92 91 132 131 Mean 1.13 1.06 1.15 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.62 1.37 1.46 2.04 1.54 1.39 1.44 1.43 1.49

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 5 07/14/2010

Page 58: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 125 124 123 129 131 130 130 129 131 124 132 92 91 132 131 Mean 1.13 1.06 1.15 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.62 1.37 1.46 2.04 1.54 1.39 1.44 1.43 1.49

CETT Northeast

N 61 61 57 61 62 62 62 62 61 59 60 55 59 62 62 Mean 1.03 1.15 1.04 1.43 1.45 1.40 1.68 1.34 1.44 1.64 1.52 1.36 1.42 1.42 1.44

N 61 61 57 61 62 62 62 62 61 59 60 55 59 62 62 Mean 1.03 1.15 1.04 1.43 1.45 1.40 1.68 1.34 1.44 1.64 1.52 1.36 1.42 1.42 1.44

CHEF Central

N 293 256 278 295 308 308 302 306 300 291 300 255 250 307 305 Mean 1.04 1.13 1.13 1.26 1.34 1.27 1.42 1.25 1.38 1.47 1.42 1.35 1.28 1.34 1.31

N 293 256 278 295 308 308 302 306 300 291 300 255 250 307 305 Mean 1.04 1.13 1.13 1.26 1.34 1.27 1.42 1.25 1.38 1.47 1.42 1.35 1.28 1.34 1.31

CJLE Northeast

N 114 114 113 115 116 114 116 113 116 112 116 80 77 116 113 Mean 1.02 1.04 1.09 1.23 1.29 1.25 1.52 1.32 1.32 1.44 1.27 1.28 1.31 1.25 1.24

N 114 114 113 115 116 114 116 113 116 112 116 80 77 116 113 Mean 1.02 1.04 1.09 1.23 1.29 1.25 1.52 1.32 1.32 1.44 1.27 1.28 1.31 1.25 1.24

CJSA Northeast

N 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

N 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

CMSW Coleman

N 59 59 54 60 60 60 58 59 58 57 59 19 17 60 60 Mean 1.19 1.27 1.28 1.55 1.52 1.53 1.88 1.34 1.47 1.84 1.64 1.84 2.12 1.40 1.63

N 59 59 54 60 60 60 58 59 58 57 59 19 17 60 60 Mean 1.19 1.27 1.28 1.55 1.52 1.53 1.88 1.34 1.47 1.84 1.64 1.84 2.12 1.40 1.63

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 6 07/14/2010

Page 59: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

CNBT Central

N 91 72 81 91 91 89 86 91 81 84 83 59 57 90 87 Mean 1.30 1.42 1.36 1.80 1.87 1.76 1.87 1.36 1.68 1.92 1.84 1.68 1.81 1.81 1.99

N 91 72 81 91 91 89 86 91 81 84 83 59 57 90 87 Mean 1.30 1.42 1.36 1.80 1.87 1.76 1.87 1.36 1.68 1.92 1.84 1.68 1.81 1.81 1.99

CPMT Central

N 13 13 12 11 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 8 9 13 13 Mean 1.08 1.15 1.17 1.36 1.85 1.31 1.77 1.23 1.38 1.77 1.69 1.25 1.56 1.38 1.38

Northeast

N 66 64 60 67 69 68 68 67 66 68 68 58 58 68 66 Mean 1.15 1.11 1.25 1.55 2.20 1.53 1.79 1.43 1.71 2.04 2.07 1.74 1.74 1.90 1.95

Northwest

N 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 24 26 26 18 18 24 26 Mean 1.23 1.38 1.31 1.54 2.54 2.00 2.31 1.38 1.42 1.54 1.77 1.56 1.67 2.25 2.31

N 105 103 98 104 108 107 107 106 103 107 107 84 85 105 105 Mean 1.16 1.18 1.26 1.53 2.24 1.62 1.92 1.40 1.60 1.89 1.95 1.65 1.71 1.91 1.97

CRPT Central

N 16 6 14 17 17 17 16 17 15 13 14 15 14 17 16 Mean 1.25 1.33 1.00 1.24 1.18 1.24 1.13 1.12 1.33 1.00 1.21 1.27 1.07 1.24 1.19

N 16 6 14 17 17 17 16 17 15 13 14 15 14 17 16 Mean 1.25 1.33 1.00 1.24 1.18 1.24 1.13 1.12 1.33 1.00 1.21 1.27 1.07 1.24 1.19

CSIR Central

N 17 15 18 19 19 19 19 19 17 18 17 17 17 19 19 Mean 1.47 1.67 1.44 1.53 1.95 1.89 1.95 1.63 1.71 1.72 1.88 1.76 2.06 2.05 2.26

N 17 15 18 19 19 19 19 19 17 18 17 17 17 19 19 Mean 1.47 1.67 1.44 1.53 1.95 1.89 1.95 1.63 1.71 1.72 1.88 1.76 2.06 2.05 2.26

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 7 07/14/2010

Page 60: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

CSME Central

N 62 62 60 64 65 65 64 65 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 Mean 1.15 1.08 1.23 1.50 1.83 1.58 1.67 1.66 1.58 1.95 1.73 1.45 1.53 1.51 1.85

Northeast

N 116 114 115 118 118 117 116 117 114 111 116 117 117 118 117 Mean 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.38 1.47 1.40 1.43 1.37 1.39 1.78 1.50 1.36 1.43 1.46 1.48

Northwest

N 209 211 208 215 215 216 215 215 213 210 215 199 195 217 211 Mean 1.13 1.14 1.19 1.37 1.54 1.43 1.47 1.40 1.46 1.62 1.59 1.39 1.44 1.40 1.52

Southeast

N 165 166 163 165 165 166 163 166 164 159 165 148 148 166 166 Mean 1.25 1.12 1.19 1.41 1.55 1.40 1.44 1.42 1.37 1.61 1.49 1.39 1.45 1.45 1.51

N 552 553 546 562 563 564 558 563 555 544 560 528 524 566 559 Mean 1.16 1.12 1.18 1.40 1.56 1.43 1.48 1.43 1.43 1.69 1.56 1.39 1.45 1.44 1.55

CTEC Northeast

N 24 22 23 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 21 25 25 Mean 1.04 1.00 1.13 1.17 1.20 1.20 1.24 1.04 1.28 1.68 1.32 1.15 1.14 1.12 1.20

N 24 22 23 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 21 25 25 Mean 1.04 1.00 1.13 1.17 1.20 1.20 1.24 1.04 1.28 1.68 1.32 1.15 1.14 1.12 1.20

CTMT Coleman

N 33 27 31 34 35 33 34 33 33 32 32 25 21 34 35 Mean 1.12 1.33 1.03 1.56 1.29 1.33 1.71 1.33 1.24 1.28 1.31 1.20 1.38 1.35 1.51

N 33 27 31 34 35 33 34 33 33 32 32 25 21 34 35 Mean 1.12 1.33 1.03 1.56 1.29 1.33 1.71 1.33 1.24 1.28 1.31 1.20 1.38 1.35 1.51

DAAC Coleman

N 107 103 104 105 108 106 106 108 108 98 104 55 52 109 109

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 8 07/14/2010

Page 61: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.07 1.05 1.12 1.33 1.44 1.30 1.73 1.27 1.38 1.73 1.67 1.60 1.54 1.23 1.29

N 107 103 104 105 108 106 106 108 108 98 104 55 52 109 109 Mean 1.07 1.05 1.12 1.33 1.44 1.30 1.73 1.27 1.38 1.73 1.67 1.60 1.54 1.23 1.29

DEMR Northeast

N 135 136 136 136 136 137 137 135 134 135 137 136 134 137 134 Mean 1.18 1.25 1.11 1.28 1.26 1.41 1.60 1.31 1.36 1.72 1.30 1.25 1.29 1.36 1.30

N 135 136 136 136 136 137 137 135 134 135 137 136 134 137 134 Mean 1.18 1.25 1.11 1.28 1.26 1.41 1.60 1.31 1.36 1.72 1.30 1.25 1.29 1.36 1.30

DFTG Northeast

N 133 109 126 132 136 135 132 136 132 129 133 79 93 136 135 Mean 1.14 1.30 1.21 1.48 1.53 1.41 1.64 1.43 1.50 1.67 1.63 1.51 1.42 1.54 1.57

Northwest

N 164 155 157 165 167 166 165 165 159 159 161 102 113 164 162 Mean 1.13 1.27 1.26 1.65 1.85 1.37 1.75 1.39 1.67 1.70 1.78 1.73 1.64 1.77 1.85

Southeast

N 100 94 100 101 101 99 100 101 99 93 100 56 59 101 99 Mean 1.13 1.35 1.18 1.38 1.56 1.38 1.54 1.41 1.56 1.56 1.49 1.79 1.56 1.59 1.60

Southwest

N 218 217 216 227 231 230 227 230 227 224 225 144 156 230 230 Mean 1.23 1.29 1.21 1.56 1.71 1.47 1.63 1.36 1.48 1.66 1.50 1.63 1.58 1.67 1.76

N 615 575 599 625 635 630 624 632 617 605 619 381 421 631 626 Mean 1.17 1.30 1.22 1.54 1.69 1.42 1.65 1.39 1.54 1.66 1.60 1.65 1.56 1.65 1.72

DMSO Coleman

N 68 60 59 60 61 59 60 61 59 60 60 43 42 66 65 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.48 1.44 1.41 1.53 1.26 1.37 1.28 1.35 1.23 1.29 1.36 1.32

N 68 60 59 60 61 59 60 61 59 60 60 43 42 66 65 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.48 1.44 1.41 1.53 1.26 1.37 1.28 1.35 1.23 1.29 1.36 1.32

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 9 07/14/2010

Page 62: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

DNTA Coleman

N 60 60 58 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 46 60 60 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.13 1.10 1.23 1.15 1.08 1.78 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.12 1.12

N 60 60 58 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 46 46 60 60 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.13 1.10 1.23 1.15 1.08 1.78 1.10 1.15 1.15 1.12 1.12

ECRD Coleman

N 47 47 47 50 50 51 51 49 51 47 47 49 49 51 49 Mean 1.11 1.21 1.15 1.48 1.56 1.45 1.61 1.49 1.57 1.77 1.51 1.45 1.45 1.51 1.49

N 47 47 47 50 50 51 51 49 51 47 47 49 49 51 49 Mean 1.11 1.21 1.15 1.48 1.56 1.45 1.61 1.49 1.57 1.77 1.51 1.45 1.45 1.51 1.49

ELMT Central

N 12 8 10 14 14 14 13 15 14 14 10 11 11 14 14 Mean 1.42 1.50 1.50 1.71 1.86 1.64 1.92 1.93 1.86 1.79 1.60 1.91 1.82 1.64 2.14

N 12 8 10 14 14 14 13 15 14 14 10 11 11 14 14 Mean 1.42 1.50 1.50 1.71 1.86 1.64 1.92 1.93 1.86 1.79 1.60 1.91 1.82 1.64 2.14

ELPT Central

N 238 237 223 249 249 249 245 250 246 236 243 197 193 243 244 Mean 1.17 1.12 1.13 1.38 1.47 1.39 1.51 1.32 1.43 1.63 1.59 1.38 1.49 1.41 1.44

N 238 237 223 249 249 249 245 250 246 236 243 197 193 243 244 Mean 1.17 1.12 1.13 1.38 1.47 1.39 1.51 1.32 1.43 1.63 1.59 1.38 1.49 1.41 1.44

EMSP Northeast

N 134 129 130 129 136 132 133 135 135 134 134 127 126 134 132 Mean 1.06 1.12 1.12 1.61 1.66 1.59 1.84 1.44 1.59 2.03 1.71 1.43 1.50 1.53 1.70

Northwest

N 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 13 13 8 8 12 13 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.23 1.38 1.38 1.15 1.54 1.25 1.08 1.31 1.23 1.25 1.38 1.25 1.15

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 10 07/14/2010

Page 63: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

EMSP Southwest

N 34 34 33 32 33 33 32 33 34 34 33 30 31 34 34 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.41 1.39 1.33 2.03 1.64 1.38 2.03 1.55 1.43 1.58 1.44 1.47

N 181 176 176 174 182 178 178 180 181 181 180 165 165 180 179 Mean 1.04 1.09 1.14 1.56 1.59 1.51 1.85 1.47 1.51 1.98 1.64 1.42 1.51 1.49 1.61

ENTC Central

N 20 19 19 21 21 21 20 21 20 17 20 19 19 21 21 Mean 1.10 1.05 1.21 1.57 1.62 1.38 1.55 1.24 1.50 1.35 1.25 1.37 1.47 1.29 1.43

N 20 19 19 21 21 21 20 21 20 17 20 19 19 21 21 Mean 1.10 1.05 1.21 1.57 1.62 1.38 1.55 1.24 1.50 1.35 1.25 1.37 1.47 1.29 1.43

ETWR Southwest

N 13 11 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 8 9 13 13 Mean 1.46 1.27 1.36 2.00 2.00 1.92 1.77 1.23 2.08 1.75 1.83 1.88 1.78 1.77 2.31

N 13 11 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 8 9 13 13 Mean 1.46 1.27 1.36 2.00 2.00 1.92 1.77 1.23 2.08 1.75 1.83 1.88 1.78 1.77 2.31

FIRS Northeast

N 202 198 196 206 207 206 207 207 207 201 202 172 170 207 206 Mean 1.22 1.22 1.15 1.67 1.85 1.58 1.61 1.48 1.57 2.11 1.54 1.56 1.66 1.50 1.70

N 202 198 196 206 207 206 207 207 207 201 202 172 170 207 206 Mean 1.22 1.22 1.15 1.67 1.85 1.58 1.61 1.48 1.57 2.11 1.54 1.56 1.66 1.50 1.70

FIRT Northeast

N 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 Mean 1.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 . . 2.00 1.50

N 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 2 2 Mean 1.50 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 . . 2.00 1.50

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 11 07/14/2010

Page 64: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

FITT Central

N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 21 19 24 24 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.17 1.13 1.13 1.17 1.17 1.24 1.16 1.13 1.13

N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 21 19 24 24 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13 1.17 1.13 1.13 1.17 1.17 1.24 1.16 1.13 1.13

FLMC Northwest

N 123 120 120 126 125 125 122 126 124 122 124 86 84 124 124 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.45 1.50 1.43 1.59 1.43 1.46 1.68 1.61 1.49 1.56 1.35 1.50

N 123 120 120 126 125 125 122 126 124 122 124 86 84 124 124 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.45 1.50 1.43 1.59 1.43 1.46 1.68 1.61 1.49 1.56 1.35 1.50

FMKT Northwest

N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 5 8 8 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.38 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

N 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 5 8 8 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.38 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

FSHD Central

N 366 289 325 339 382 378 360 381 370 348 367 255 268 383 378 Mean 1.08 1.18 1.09 1.29 1.37 1.17 1.29 1.24 1.33 1.49 1.35 1.31 1.27 1.24 1.27

Northwest

N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.33 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00

N 370 293 329 343 386 382 364 385 374 351 371 258 271 387 382 Mean 1.08 1.18 1.09 1.29 1.37 1.18 1.29 1.24 1.33 1.49 1.35 1.30 1.27 1.24 1.27

FSHN Central

N 105 98 96 93 107 105 101 105 101 84 100 50 55 106 105 Mean 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.38 1.40 1.25 1.42 1.23 1.34 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.33 1.36

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 12 07/14/2010

Page 65: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 105 98 96 93 107 105 101 105 101 84 100 50 55 106 105 Mean 1.10 1.10 1.13 1.38 1.40 1.25 1.42 1.23 1.34 1.38 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.33 1.36

GAME Southwest

N 311 270 299 303 325 324 312 327 317 304 310 142 147 316 307 Mean 1.16 1.26 1.25 1.51 1.58 1.46 1.60 1.52 1.57 1.78 1.76 1.65 1.63 1.58 1.61

N 311 270 299 303 325 324 312 327 317 304 310 142 147 316 307 Mean 1.16 1.26 1.25 1.51 1.58 1.46 1.60 1.52 1.57 1.78 1.76 1.65 1.63 1.58 1.61

GISC Southwest

N 29 17 26 28 28 28 21 27 27 23 22 15 21 29 28 Mean 1.03 1.24 1.15 1.46 1.82 1.61 1.71 1.44 1.52 1.61 1.73 1.47 1.62 1.62 1.89

N 29 17 26 28 28 28 21 27 27 23 22 15 21 29 28 Mean 1.03 1.24 1.15 1.46 1.82 1.61 1.71 1.44 1.52 1.61 1.73 1.47 1.62 1.62 1.89

HALT Northwest

N 69 67 61 68 69 67 67 69 63 63 66 39 39 68 67 Mean 1.01 1.15 1.08 1.21 1.30 1.22 1.40 1.14 1.33 1.76 1.36 1.41 1.38 1.25 1.30

N 69 67 61 68 69 67 67 69 63 63 66 39 39 68 67 Mean 1.01 1.15 1.08 1.21 1.30 1.22 1.40 1.14 1.33 1.76 1.36 1.41 1.38 1.25 1.30

HAMG Central

N 102 98 94 102 106 103 105 105 105 104 105 42 42 105 104 Mean 1.07 1.15 1.28 1.40 1.47 1.43 1.50 1.27 1.37 1.46 1.44 1.81 1.81 1.42 1.38

N 102 98 94 102 106 103 105 105 105 104 105 42 42 105 104 Mean 1.07 1.15 1.28 1.40 1.47 1.43 1.50 1.27 1.37 1.46 1.44 1.81 1.81 1.42 1.38

HART Central

N 233 233 225 244 245 243 241 242 240 233 236 235 232 244 243 Mean 1.12 1.18 1.23 1.41 1.57 1.42 1.52 1.53 1.49 1.73 1.54 1.42 1.49 1.48 1.50

N 233 233 225 244 245 243 241 242 240 233 236 235 232 244 243 Mean 1.12 1.18 1.23 1.41 1.57 1.42 1.52 1.53 1.49 1.73 1.54 1.42 1.49 1.48 1.50

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 13 07/14/2010

Page 66: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

HITT Coleman

N 97 90 91 94 98 100 97 99 98 95 96 60 56 100 99 Mean 1.12 1.14 1.22 1.73 1.81 1.71 1.88 1.65 1.73 2.00 2.13 1.60 1.57 1.66 1.94

N 97 90 91 94 98 100 97 99 98 95 96 60 56 100 99 Mean 1.12 1.14 1.22 1.73 1.81 1.71 1.88 1.65 1.73 2.00 2.13 1.60 1.57 1.66 1.94

HLAB Coleman

N 85 82 82 87 86 85 86 85 86 83 84 66 66 87 86 Mean 1.08 1.13 1.13 1.49 1.51 1.36 1.48 1.29 1.36 1.57 1.42 1.32 1.41 1.38 1.57

N 85 82 82 87 86 85 86 85 86 83 84 66 66 87 86 Mean 1.08 1.13 1.13 1.49 1.51 1.36 1.48 1.29 1.36 1.57 1.42 1.32 1.41 1.38 1.57

HPRS Coleman

N 488 485 475 489 491 493 492 492 483 471 490 268 269 487 484 Mean 1.03 1.12 1.14 1.28 1.22 1.25 1.45 1.17 1.34 1.60 1.41 1.46 1.45 1.26 1.25

N 488 485 475 489 491 493 492 492 483 471 490 268 269 487 484 Mean 1.03 1.12 1.14 1.28 1.22 1.25 1.45 1.17 1.34 1.60 1.41 1.46 1.45 1.26 1.25

HRPO Central

N 37 37 37 38 38 38 38 36 36 36 38 21 21 38 38 Mean 1.05 1.08 1.19 1.42 1.37 1.42 1.55 1.33 1.50 2.06 1.58 1.76 1.71 1.42 1.47

Northeast

N 16 15 13 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 16 4 3 16 16 Mean 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.31 1.38 1.25 1.50 1.13 1.25 1.33 1.31 1.50 1.33 1.06 1.13

Northwest

N 26 26 24 28 28 28 28 28 28 22 28 5 4 27 27 Mean 1.08 1.04 1.21 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.46 1.36 1.61 1.82 1.50 1.20 1.00 1.44 1.52

Southwest

N 58 56 54 58 60 60 59 60 58 54 57 25 24 60 60

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 14 07/14/2010

Page 67: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.00 1.04 1.15 1.26 1.20 1.25 1.39 1.15 1.29 1.57 1.40 1.68 1.67 1.23 1.22

N 137 134 128 140 142 142 141 140 138 127 139 55 52 141 141 Mean 1.03 1.06 1.16 1.36 1.32 1.35 1.46 1.24 1.41 1.72 1.46 1.65 1.62 1.30 1.33

IBUS Central

N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 1 0 4 4 Mean 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.75 1.75 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.00 . 1.25 2.00

Northwest

N 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 2 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.33 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.14 1.43 1.00 1.00 1.43 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Southwest

N 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 4 4 12 12 Mean 1.27 1.09 1.58 1.58 1.83 1.67 1.75 1.58 1.83 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.00 1.67 2.17

N 21 21 22 23 23 23 23 23 22 23 23 7 6 23 23 Mean 1.14 1.24 1.32 1.39 1.48 1.52 1.65 1.35 1.45 1.57 1.65 1.71 1.67 1.39 1.78

IMED Southwest

N 83 74 78 75 85 83 79 84 79 72 79 50 56 85 84 Mean 1.06 1.26 1.17 1.49 1.44 1.34 1.54 1.29 1.57 1.60 1.77 1.52 1.50 1.61 1.58

N 83 74 78 75 85 83 79 84 79 72 79 50 56 85 84 Mean 1.06 1.26 1.17 1.49 1.44 1.34 1.54 1.29 1.57 1.60 1.77 1.52 1.50 1.61 1.58

INDS Central

N 169 168 165 160 168 168 169 168 169 166 169 106 114 168 166 Mean 1.04 1.13 1.08 1.39 1.27 1.23 1.42 1.26 1.35 1.40 1.34 1.46 1.44 1.31 1.31

N 169 168 165 160 168 168 169 168 169 166 169 106 114 168 166 Mean 1.04 1.13 1.08 1.39 1.27 1.23 1.42 1.26 1.35 1.40 1.34 1.46 1.44 1.31 1.31

INEW Southwest

N 12 9 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 8 8 12 12 Mean 1.00 1.22 1.45 1.27 1.42 1.33 1.50 1.25 1.42 1.55 1.50 1.63 1.50 1.67 1.33

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 15 07/14/2010

Page 68: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 12 9 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 12 8 8 12 12 Mean 1.00 1.22 1.45 1.27 1.42 1.33 1.50 1.25 1.42 1.55 1.50 1.63 1.50 1.67 1.33

INTC Northeast

N 26 26 25 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 25 25 27 27 Mean 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.30 1.44 1.48 1.63 1.26 1.41 1.78 1.37 1.20 1.20 1.37 1.48

N 26 26 25 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 25 25 27 27 Mean 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.30 1.44 1.48 1.63 1.26 1.41 1.78 1.37 1.20 1.20 1.37 1.48

ITCC Central

N 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 Mean 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.40 1.60 1.60 1.40 1.50

Southwest

N 18 17 17 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 13 13 19 18 Mean 1.00 1.12 1.06 1.32 1.26 1.32 1.58 1.26 1.33 1.56 1.39 1.23 1.15 1.26 1.28

N 22 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 18 18 24 22 Mean 1.00 1.14 1.05 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.50 1.21 1.35 1.43 1.39 1.33 1.28 1.29 1.32

ITMT Central

N 14 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 14 8 11 14 14 Mean 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.21 1.36 1.21 1.36 1.36 1.46 1.57 1.50 1.25 1.36 1.57 1.50

N 14 14 13 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 14 8 11 14 14 Mean 1.07 1.07 1.00 1.21 1.36 1.21 1.36 1.36 1.46 1.57 1.50 1.25 1.36 1.57 1.50

ITNW Central

N 17 12 15 15 18 18 16 18 17 16 15 8 9 18 18 Mean 1.24 1.08 1.40 1.47 1.56 1.44 1.88 1.33 1.53 1.44 1.40 1.75 1.67 1.50 1.56

Northwest

N 11 11 10 11 11 11 11 11 10 11 11 5 6 11 10 Mean 1.09 1.18 1.10 1.27 1.18 1.27 1.55 1.00 1.10 1.45 1.18 1.40 1.50 1.55 1.30

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 16 07/14/2010

Page 69: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ITNW Southwest

N 9 5 9 7 9 8 8 9 9 6 8 3 5 9 8 Mean 1.22 1.80 1.11 1.00 1.33 1.13 1.38 1.11 1.11 1.00 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.13

N 37 28 34 33 38 37 35 38 36 33 34 16 20 38 36 Mean 1.19 1.25 1.24 1.30 1.39 1.32 1.66 1.18 1.31 1.36 1.26 1.50 1.45 1.45 1.39

ITSC Central

N 52 50 50 56 54 56 54 56 54 55 54 36 35 54 54 Mean 1.08 1.30 1.34 1.63 1.81 1.64 1.78 1.98 2.11 1.84 1.85 1.92 1.91 1.81 1.93

Northeast

N 33 33 32 33 32 32 32 33 31 30 32 20 20 33 31 Mean 1.06 1.06 1.13 1.18 1.16 1.13 1.28 1.21 1.23 1.60 1.28 1.35 1.35 1.33 1.32

Northwest

N 36 36 35 36 36 35 35 36 36 35 36 25 25 36 36 Mean 1.08 1.39 1.23 1.33 1.47 1.23 1.63 1.25 1.42 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.44 1.44 1.39

Southeast

N 27 27 27 27 26 27 27 27 25 26 27 17 17 27 27 Mean 1.19 1.07 1.30 1.22 1.19 1.07 1.22 1.07 1.28 1.42 1.44 1.71 1.29 1.41 1.52

Southwest

N 135 130 129 142 142 142 140 141 140 140 138 81 80 141 139 Mean 1.04 1.08 1.15 1.39 1.42 1.35 1.60 1.35 1.38 1.54 1.39 1.48 1.45 1.43 1.48

N 283 276 273 294 290 292 288 293 286 286 287 179 177 291 287 Mean 1.07 1.16 1.21 1.39 1.45 1.34 1.57 1.42 1.50 1.60 1.48 1.56 1.51 1.49 1.54

ITSE Central

N 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 26 26 27 13 18 28 28 Mean 1.07 1.11 1.26 1.61 1.71 1.50 1.64 1.68 2.04 1.58 1.85 1.62 1.44 1.64 1.79

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 17 07/14/2010

Page 70: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

ITSE Northwest

N 28 28 25 29 29 29 29 29 28 26 29 16 17 29 29 Mean 1.07 1.32 1.20 1.55 1.86 1.52 1.76 1.34 1.46 2.04 1.72 1.75 1.47 1.90 1.72

Southwest

N 27 26 23 21 27 27 19 27 23 17 23 12 15 27 27 Mean 1.07 1.38 1.09 1.62 2.04 1.44 1.74 1.89 1.87 1.47 2.57 1.42 1.73 1.67 1.89

N 82 81 75 78 84 84 76 84 77 69 79 41 50 84 84 Mean 1.07 1.27 1.19 1.59 1.87 1.49 1.71 1.63 1.78 1.72 2.01 1.61 1.54 1.74 1.80

ITSW Central

N 10 10 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 4 4 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.50 1.70 1.50 1.70 2.00 1.90 1.78 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50

N 10 10 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 4 4 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.50 1.70 1.50 1.70 2.00 1.90 1.78 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50

LBRA Southwest

N 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 4 4 9 8 Mean 1.11 1.22 1.00 1.67 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.25 1.00 1.44 1.56 1.25 1.50 1.67 1.50

N 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 4 4 9 8 Mean 1.11 1.22 1.00 1.67 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.25 1.00 1.44 1.56 1.25 1.50 1.67 1.50

LEAD Central

N 142 122 141 146 148 146 147 146 141 139 145 94 94 144 142 Mean 1.18 1.26 1.29 1.51 1.39 1.47 1.56 1.32 1.55 1.78 1.76 1.59 1.55 1.51 1.46

Northeast

N 50 49 50 49 52 51 49 52 52 45 49 50 50 52 51 Mean 1.14 1.24 1.12 1.31 1.38 1.41 1.59 1.27 1.42 1.78 1.51 1.20 1.26 1.38 1.33

Northwest

N 56 40 50 55 56 56 55 56 55 55 55 25 24 54 53

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 18 07/14/2010

Page 71: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.07 1.55 1.08 1.29 1.34 1.39 1.47 1.20 1.38 1.75 1.36 1.64 1.71 1.26 1.32

LEAD Southeast

N 15 14 14 15 15 15 14 15 14 15 15 8 8 15 15 Mean 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.13 1.29 1.20 1.07 1.47 1.20 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.13

Southwest

N 126 117 118 124 127 128 127 128 127 122 122 61 62 128 126 Mean 1.04 1.14 1.15 1.27 1.17 1.21 1.36 1.14 1.23 1.52 1.37 1.33 1.39 1.23 1.21

N 389 342 373 389 398 396 392 397 389 376 386 238 238 393 387 Mean 1.11 1.24 1.19 1.36 1.30 1.36 1.48 1.23 1.39 1.68 1.53 1.42 1.45 1.35 1.33

LGLA Central

N 232 221 188 230 237 233 228 237 228 220 223 68 60 234 230 Mean 1.08 1.05 1.18 1.41 1.46 1.42 1.54 1.36 1.45 1.59 1.54 1.76 1.73 1.54 1.51

N 232 221 188 230 237 233 228 237 228 220 223 68 60 234 230 Mean 1.08 1.05 1.18 1.41 1.46 1.42 1.54 1.36 1.45 1.59 1.54 1.76 1.73 1.54 1.51

MCHN Central

N 96 104 103 105 110 108 110 110 110 100 102 110 103 109 109 Mean 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.54 1.53 1.53 1.55 1.38 1.54 1.60 1.59 1.28 1.50 1.45 1.46

N 96 104 103 105 110 108 110 110 110 100 102 110 103 109 109 Mean 1.17 1.19 1.22 1.54 1.53 1.53 1.55 1.38 1.54 1.60 1.59 1.28 1.50 1.45 1.46

MDCA Coleman

N 149 147 140 154 154 152 154 154 152 142 148 122 118 154 153 Mean 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.37 1.47 1.34 1.42 1.35 1.38 1.61 1.53 1.31 1.33 1.44 1.43

Southwest

N 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 25 11 11 25 25 Mean 1.08 1.00 1.04 1.24 1.32 1.16 1.36 1.20 1.12 1.54 1.24 1.64 1.55 1.20 1.24

N 173 171 164 179 179 177 179 179 177 166 173 133 129 179 178 Mean 1.04 1.06 1.10 1.35 1.45 1.32 1.41 1.33 1.34 1.60 1.49 1.34 1.35 1.41 1.40

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 19 07/14/2010

Page 72: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

MLAB Coleman

N 141 141 135 146 146 146 146 146 144 145 145 146 146 146 146 Mean 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.32 1.39 1.35 1.56 1.24 1.30 1.47 1.54 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.42

N 141 141 135 146 146 146 146 146 144 145 145 146 146 146 146 Mean 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.32 1.39 1.35 1.56 1.24 1.30 1.47 1.54 1.25 1.29 1.32 1.42

MRKG Central

N 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 17 5 5 17 16 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.18 1.18 1.06 1.12 1.53 1.00 1.19 1.75 1.18 1.40 1.40 1.18 1.19

Southwest

N 27 27 25 27 27 27 27 27 26 24 26 6 6 26 27 Mean 1.19 1.00 1.36 1.70 1.78 1.74 2.15 1.52 1.42 2.04 1.62 2.33 2.33 1.69 1.85

N 44 44 42 44 44 44 44 44 42 40 43 11 11 43 43 Mean 1.11 1.00 1.29 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.91 1.32 1.33 1.93 1.44 1.91 1.91 1.49 1.60

MRMT Southeast

N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00

Southwest

N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 4 Mean 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.25 2.25 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.25 1.25

N 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.17 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.33 1.50 2.17 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.33 1.17

MSSG Coleman

N 38 37 37 38 38 39 38 39 37 36 37 35 36 39 39 Mean 1.13 1.24 1.27 1.63 1.79 1.69 1.68 1.62 1.62 1.50 1.57 1.51 1.50 1.54 1.87

N 38 37 37 38 38 39 38 39 37 36 37 35 36 39 39 Mean 1.13 1.24 1.27 1.63 1.79 1.69 1.68 1.62 1.62 1.50 1.57 1.51 1.50 1.54 1.87

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 20 07/14/2010

Page 73: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

MUSB Central

N 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 1 6 6 Mean 1.00 1.20 1.50 1.17 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.17

Northeast

N 17 18 15 16 18 16 16 18 17 16 16 8 7 18 18 Mean 1.06 1.00 1.07 1.13 1.17 1.13 1.25 1.06 1.12 1.75 1.06 1.25 1.29 1.06 1.06

Northwest

N 57 53 42 55 57 57 57 57 53 55 56 17 16 56 56 Mean 1.09 1.09 1.14 1.20 1.35 1.35 1.53 1.25 1.49 1.67 1.61 1.53 1.44 1.38 1.50

N 80 76 63 77 81 79 79 81 76 77 78 26 24 80 80 Mean 1.08 1.08 1.16 1.18 1.31 1.30 1.48 1.19 1.37 1.69 1.47 1.42 1.38 1.30 1.38

MUSC Central

N 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 9 9 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.22 1.11 1.22 1.22 1.33 1.78 1.56 1.33 1.67 1.22 1.11

Northwest

N 258 240 248 270 273 272 268 272 267 254 258 203 213 271 270 Mean 1.07 1.15 1.11 1.27 1.34 1.30 1.44 1.23 1.35 1.54 1.45 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.37

Southeast

N 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 Mean 1.14 1.11 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.44 1.33 1.33 1.78 1.33 1.50 1.56 1.22 1.33

N 274 258 266 288 291 290 286 290 285 272 276 217 228 289 288 Mean 1.07 1.14 1.11 1.27 1.33 1.29 1.43 1.23 1.35 1.55 1.45 1.38 1.38 1.36 1.36

MUSP Northeast

N 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 21 07/14/2010

Page 74: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

MUSP Northwest

N 63 41 62 51 68 66 58 68 66 55 46 28 29 67 67 Mean 1.06 1.15 1.03 1.45 1.37 1.36 1.52 1.31 1.39 1.55 1.48 1.39 1.31 1.31 1.25

N 67 42 66 55 72 70 62 72 70 59 50 31 32 71 71 Mean 1.06 1.14 1.03 1.44 1.36 1.36 1.50 1.31 1.39 1.54 1.46 1.35 1.28 1.31 1.25

NMTT Coleman

N 56 55 53 57 57 57 57 57 54 57 57 51 51 57 57 Mean 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.26 1.25 1.19 1.28 1.25 1.20 1.26 1.25 1.16 1.22 1.26 1.23

N 56 55 53 57 57 57 57 57 54 57 57 51 51 57 57 Mean 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.26 1.25 1.19 1.28 1.25 1.20 1.26 1.25 1.16 1.22 1.26 1.23

OTHA Coleman

N 127 125 119 119 129 123 116 128 127 114 117 105 102 125 128 Mean 1.19 1.08 1.18 1.75 2.05 1.62 1.83 1.66 1.92 1.86 2.04 1.36 1.48 1.71 1.98

N 127 125 119 119 129 123 116 128 127 114 117 105 102 125 128 Mean 1.19 1.08 1.18 1.75 2.05 1.62 1.83 1.66 1.92 1.86 2.04 1.36 1.48 1.71 1.98

PHRA Coleman

N 234 232 231 241 240 241 237 241 237 238 238 218 224 238 236 Mean 1.09 1.16 1.10 1.63 1.68 1.51 1.65 1.53 1.58 1.59 1.68 1.55 1.54 1.66 1.69

N 234 232 231 241 240 241 237 241 237 238 238 218 224 238 236 Mean 1.09 1.16 1.10 1.63 1.68 1.51 1.65 1.53 1.58 1.59 1.68 1.55 1.54 1.66 1.69

PHTC Southwest

N 39 38 37 40 43 43 39 42 42 36 41 23 21 43 43 Mean 1.31 1.24 1.19 1.45 1.35 1.33 1.51 1.36 1.36 1.67 1.66 1.52 1.67 1.33 1.44

N 39 38 37 40 43 43 39 42 42 36 41 23 21 43 43 Mean 1.31 1.24 1.19 1.45 1.35 1.33 1.51 1.36 1.36 1.67 1.66 1.52 1.67 1.33 1.44

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 22 07/14/2010

Page 75: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

PLAB Coleman

N 5 5 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.29 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.43 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14

N 5 5 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.29 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.43 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14

POFI Central

N 98 95 91 101 101 100 100 101 99 96 98 82 81 102 102 Mean 1.09 1.07 1.21 1.30 1.37 1.30 1.31 1.26 1.33 1.52 1.40 1.44 1.44 1.38 1.39

Northeast

N 60 60 54 58 58 60 58 60 58 58 57 37 36 60 60 Mean 1.25 1.20 1.28 1.76 1.81 1.60 1.84 1.78 1.74 2.03 1.91 1.89 1.83 1.92 1.90

Northwest

N 37 37 35 38 39 39 38 39 37 37 39 22 21 37 36 Mean 1.05 1.05 1.26 1.53 1.54 1.41 1.58 1.46 1.59 2.11 1.67 1.82 1.76 1.57 1.64

Southeast

N 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 40 42 28 28 42 42 Mean 1.02 1.02 1.07 1.40 1.33 1.33 1.40 1.26 1.31 1.40 1.21 1.50 1.46 1.26 1.29

Southwest

N 211 207 197 217 219 218 219 218 217 210 214 137 135 217 215 Mean 1.08 1.10 1.21 1.43 1.41 1.30 1.49 1.26 1.44 1.66 1.42 1.53 1.53 1.48 1.50

N 448 441 419 456 459 459 457 460 453 441 450 306 301 458 455 Mean 1.10 1.10 1.21 1.45 1.46 1.35 1.50 1.34 1.45 1.69 1.48 1.57 1.55 1.50 1.52

POFM Southeast

N 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 3 5 5 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.00 1.00

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 23 07/14/2010

Page 76: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

POFM Southwest

N 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 12 12 19 19 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 1.16 1.11 1.37 1.11 1.21 1.32 1.26 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.11

N 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 22 24 16 15 24 24 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.13 1.13 1.08 1.33 1.08 1.17 1.27 1.21 1.13 1.27 1.13 1.08

POFT Central

N 55 47 53 54 55 55 54 56 54 53 54 37 38 56 56 Mean 1.00 1.11 1.23 1.44 1.40 1.35 1.52 1.18 1.26 1.58 1.37 1.54 1.58 1.41 1.46

Northeast

N 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 16 15 14 15 11 10 16 14 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.31 1.56 1.31 1.44 1.31 1.40 1.71 1.67 1.55 1.40 1.31 1.50

Northwest

N 10 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 8 7 11 9 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.22 1.60 1.90 1.50 1.90 1.50 1.70 2.44 1.80 2.13 1.71 1.55 1.56

Southeast

N 11 10 9 11 11 11 11 11 10 9 10 5 4 10 10 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.09 1.36 1.36 1.09 1.20 1.67 1.30 1.20 1.25 1.20 1.10

Southwest

N 85 84 82 88 89 88 87 88 86 86 88 56 56 88 89 Mean 1.06 1.05 1.26 1.42 1.49 1.49 1.45 1.33 1.44 1.69 1.53 1.50 1.43 1.56 1.61

N 177 166 168 179 181 180 178 181 175 171 177 117 115 181 178 Mean 1.03 1.05 1.21 1.41 1.47 1.42 1.49 1.28 1.38 1.70 1.50 1.55 1.49 1.47 1.52

PSTR Central

N 169 168 160 151 174 168 157 173 171 153 148 160 160 174 173 Mean 1.03 1.05 1.10 1.22 1.23 1.16 1.16 1.18 1.23 1.42 1.22 1.13 1.16 1.23 1.25

N 169 168 160 151 174 168 157 173 171 153 148 160 160 174 173

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 24 07/14/2010

Page 77: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Mean 1.03 1.05 1.10 1.22 1.23 1.16 1.16 1.18 1.23 1.42 1.22 1.13 1.16 1.23 1.25

PTAC Northeast

N 92 87 85 97 95 93 93 95 95 93 92 70 68 97 96 Mean 1.08 1.20 1.24 1.45 1.62 1.45 1.58 1.51 1.51 1.76 1.54 1.54 1.59 1.51 1.69

N 92 87 85 97 95 93 93 95 95 93 92 70 68 97 96 Mean 1.08 1.20 1.24 1.45 1.62 1.45 1.58 1.51 1.51 1.76 1.54 1.54 1.59 1.51 1.69

PTHA Coleman

N 112 112 108 114 114 114 113 114 112 114 113 108 106 114 113 Mean 1.11 1.23 1.30 1.70 1.84 1.79 1.83 1.75 1.70 1.80 1.58 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.83

N 112 112 108 114 114 114 113 114 112 114 113 108 106 114 113 Mean 1.11 1.23 1.30 1.70 1.84 1.79 1.83 1.75 1.70 1.80 1.58 1.56 1.58 1.60 1.83

PTRT Northeast

N 70 64 62 69 69 71 70 71 68 68 70 37 41 71 70 Mean 1.09 1.11 1.10 1.20 1.26 1.25 1.40 1.07 1.25 1.53 1.44 1.49 1.41 1.20 1.21

N 70 64 62 69 69 71 70 71 68 68 70 37 41 71 70 Mean 1.09 1.11 1.10 1.20 1.26 1.25 1.40 1.07 1.25 1.53 1.44 1.49 1.41 1.20 1.21

RADR Coleman

N 96 85 87 98 99 96 96 98 98 94 98 81 79 99 97 Mean 1.01 1.02 1.09 1.30 1.41 1.31 1.41 1.35 1.43 1.50 1.34 1.32 1.35 1.37 1.40

N 96 85 87 98 99 96 96 98 98 94 98 81 79 99 97 Mean 1.01 1.02 1.09 1.30 1.41 1.31 1.41 1.35 1.43 1.50 1.34 1.32 1.35 1.37 1.40

RELE Southwest

N 53 40 51 45 53 53 50 53 52 45 48 18 17 52 52 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.19 1.15 1.22 1.09 1.12 1.64 1.08 1.11 1.29 1.15 1.21

N 53 40 51 45 53 53 50 53 52 45 48 18 17 52 52 Mean 1.00 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.19 1.15 1.22 1.09 1.12 1.64 1.08 1.11 1.29 1.15 1.21

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 25 07/14/2010

Page 78: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

RNSG Coleman

N 948 913 887 939 961 933 951 955 933 910 912 789 782 956 949 Mean 1.09 1.15 1.20 1.56 1.58 1.52 1.73 1.57 1.51 1.70 1.76 1.44 1.47 1.49 1.61

N 948 913 887 939 961 933 951 955 933 910 912 789 782 956 949 Mean 1.09 1.15 1.20 1.56 1.58 1.52 1.73 1.57 1.51 1.70 1.76 1.44 1.47 1.49 1.61

RSPT Coleman

N 145 140 138 153 153 152 152 152 152 152 151 125 125 153 152 Mean 1.02 1.10 1.10 1.35 1.33 1.36 1.53 1.30 1.25 1.51 1.34 1.20 1.22 1.31 1.38

N 145 140 138 153 153 152 152 152 152 152 151 125 125 153 152 Mean 1.02 1.10 1.10 1.35 1.33 1.36 1.53 1.30 1.25 1.51 1.34 1.20 1.22 1.31 1.38

RSTO Central

N 105 96 96 108 108 107 106 106 102 102 102 42 42 107 106 Mean 1.13 1.13 1.33 1.46 1.77 1.50 1.62 1.47 1.64 1.76 1.73 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.77

N 105 96 96 108 108 107 106 106 102 102 102 42 42 107 106 Mean 1.13 1.13 1.33 1.46 1.77 1.50 1.62 1.47 1.64 1.76 1.73 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.77

RTVB Northwest

N 184 155 176 183 189 188 183 188 177 179 183 141 146 187 188 Mean 1.14 1.23 1.18 1.53 1.58 1.47 1.56 1.42 1.54 1.62 1.56 1.57 1.60 1.36 1.56

Southwest

N 32 32 31 33 33 33 33 33 32 32 33 19 19 33 33 Mean 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.24 1.21 1.15 1.36 1.27 1.34 1.19 1.42 1.32 1.47 1.36 1.27

N 216 187 207 216 222 221 216 221 209 211 216 160 165 220 221 Mean 1.12 1.19 1.15 1.49 1.53 1.43 1.53 1.40 1.51 1.55 1.54 1.54 1.58 1.36 1.52

SCIT Coleman

N 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 11 11 14 14 Mean 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.29 1.21 1.43 1.50 1.29 1.43 1.43 1.46 1.36 1.36 1.29 1.29

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 26 07/14/2010

Page 79: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

SCIT Northeast

N 10 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Mean 1.30 1.44 1.20 1.70 1.70 1.60 1.40 1.40 1.50 2.10 1.50 1.30 1.40 1.30 1.30

N 24 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 21 21 24 24 Mean 1.17 1.22 1.13 1.46 1.42 1.50 1.46 1.33 1.46 1.71 1.48 1.33 1.38 1.29 1.29

SLNG Central

N 124 106 124 123 128 125 116 128 119 117 122 25 29 128 128 Mean 1.15 1.25 1.23 1.40 1.52 1.46 1.59 1.38 1.58 1.79 1.93 2.04 2.00 1.45 1.57

N 124 106 124 123 128 125 116 128 119 117 122 25 29 128 128 Mean 1.15 1.25 1.23 1.40 1.52 1.46 1.59 1.38 1.58 1.79 1.93 2.04 2.00 1.45 1.57

SRGT Coleman

N 67 65 63 68 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 61 57 69 69 Mean 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.38 1.38 1.25 1.46 1.38 1.42 1.49 1.38 1.26 1.25 1.38 1.46

N 67 65 63 68 69 69 69 69 69 68 68 61 57 69 69 Mean 1.00 1.02 1.00 1.38 1.38 1.25 1.46 1.38 1.42 1.49 1.38 1.26 1.25 1.38 1.46

TRVM Central

N 89 84 84 90 90 90 89 91 91 88 88 55 57 91 91 Mean 1.00 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.13 1.18 1.28 1.09 1.13 1.26 1.18 1.33 1.33 1.12 1.11

N 89 84 84 90 90 90 89 91 91 88 88 55 57 91 91 Mean 1.00 1.04 1.11 1.17 1.13 1.18 1.28 1.09 1.13 1.26 1.18 1.33 1.33 1.12 1.11

VNSG Central

N 27 27 26 26 27 27 27 26 25 24 27 3 3 26 27 Mean 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.65 1.70 1.52 1.85 1.12 1.52 1.83 1.44 1.67 1.33 1.27 1.37

Coleman

N 368 368 364 379 383 375 378 382 366 358 369 273 268 380 379 Mean 1.24 1.24 1.27 1.80 1.79 1.70 2.02 1.49 1.57 1.81 1.69 1.65 1.73 1.68 1.84

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 27 07/14/2010

Page 80: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College System STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTOR: SUMMARY OF MEANS REPORT : SPRING 2010 WORKFORCE SECTIONS

Subject College Q01 Q02 Q03 Q04 Q05 Q06 Q07 Q08 Q09 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

N 395 395 390 405 410 402 405 408 391 382 396 276 271 406 406 Mean 1.22 1.23 1.26 1.79 1.78 1.69 2.00 1.47 1.57 1.81 1.68 1.65 1.73 1.65 1.81

VTHT Northwest

N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 53 54 53 54 48 48 54 52 Mean 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.44 1.08 1.26 1.28 1.24 1.17 1.25 1.28 1.15

N 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 53 54 53 54 48 48 54 52 Mean 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.44 1.08 1.26 1.28 1.24 1.17 1.25 1.28 1.15

WLDG Central

N 88 93 95 96 96 94 95 97 96 90 90 95 95 95 95 Mean 1.19 1.15 1.22 1.43 1.41 1.43 1.54 1.35 1.50 1.61 1.63 1.28 1.55 1.44 1.47

N 88 93 95 96 96 94 95 97 96 90 90 95 95 95 95 Mean 1.19 1.15 1.22 1.43 1.41 1.43 1.54 1.35 1.50 1.61 1.63 1.28 1.55 1.44 1.47

Houston Community College Office Of Institutional Research

FinalReport_Spring2010-WFC.pdf 28 07/14/2010

Page 81: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College SEOI – Instructor Office of Institutional Research Updated on: 1/06/03

INSTRUCTOR’S DIRECTIONS

Enclosed are two sets of forms. All students are requested to complete an SEOI Questionnaire. The Written Comments form is optional. Please do not staple the forms together. 1. Specify an individual and location for the student proctor to return completed surveys, usually a department or campus office. 2. Recruit a student proctor to conduct the survey. Review with the student proctor their directions as the proctor (see Student Proctor's Directions). 3. Give the survey packet to the student proctor. Inform the student proctor about the return

of the surveys (name of individual and location). In order to ensure proper handling of SEOI forms, be sure to give the student proctor the envelope in which the survey materials were received. This is the return envelope.

4. Write your name and the Class number (not the course number) on the blackboard.

Explain to your students that the purpose of this survey is to improve certain aspects of the course and to help you improve the way you teach. Please be sure to explain that the survey is anonymous. Under no circumstances will the instructor know the student’s identity. Introduce the student proctor to the class.

5. Leave the room and do not return until the students have completed and turned in their surveys to the student proctor. The proctor is responsible for turning the materials in. Please make sure the student proctor understands where to turn in the survey packet.

If you have any questions regarding these directions please call 713-718-6259

Page 82: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College SEOI – Proctor Office of Institutional Research Updated on: 1/06/03

STUDENT PROCTOR’S DIRECTIONS

Enclosed are two sets of forms. All students are requested to complete an SEOI Questionnaire. The Written Comments form is optional. Please do not staple the forms together. 1. Make sure that the Class number that the instructor wrote on the board matches the class

number on the survey packet. After the instructor has left the room, pass out both sheets of the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) survey. Keep any extra forms in your possession.

2. Read “Statement of Intent” to the students:

This survey instrument has been designed to identify strengths and weaknesses of your instructor and your perceptions of the effectiveness of the class instruction. Please give us your serious and fair evaluation of both your and class instruction.

3. Read the following instructions to the students:

• Use only a #2 pencil or a blue or black ink pen. • Write the instructor’s name and bubble in the Class number in the upper

right corner of the Questionnaire and the Written Comments sheet, if used. (Check to see that this is being done properly.)

• Fill out the Questionnaire independently, without consultation with other students. • Do not sign your name or leave any marks of identification on the answer sheet. • If this is a lecture class, you do not need to complete Section III. If this is a lab, clinical, workshop or practicum class complete all sections. • Written comments are optional but very much encouraged.

4. When students have completed the survey, collect the forms, place them face up in the

same direction, and place both completed and unused forms into the original envelope and close it.

5. Return the envelope (containing all forms) to the location and individual specified by

your instructor. (This is most likely the department or campus secretary) Do not return the forms to the instructor.

Page 83: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CLASSNUMBER

Instructor's Name:

This survey instrument has been designed to identify strengths and weaknesses of your

instructor and your perceptions of the effectiveness of the class instruction.

Please give us your serious and fair evaluation of both your instructor and class instruction.

Statement of Intent:

MARKING INSTRUCTIONS

Part I. Evaluation of Instruction[To be completed by all students.]

The course requirements in the syllabus were clearly stated.The textbook used for this course is suitable.Other instructional materials (tapes, handouts, web sites, etc.) used in this course enhanced my learning of the subject matter.

1.2.3.

` ` ` `

` ` ` `

` ` ` `

Yes Neutral NoNo Basis forJudgement

OFFICE USE ONLY: ````````````

Use a No. 2 pencil or a blue or black ink pen only.

Erase cleanly any answer you wish to change.

Part II. Evaluation of Instructor[To be completed by all students.]

The instructor asks test questions that deal with material that is covered in the course.The instructor communicates clearly.The assignments were relevant to the course.My grades are an indication of my learning.The instructor treats students with respect.

4.

5.6.7.8.

CORRECT: ~

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

The instructor is available for student consultation.The instructor grades impartially.The instructor gives me timely feedback on graded work.

9.10.11.

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

Part III. Lab Evaluation [To be completed by students enrolled in a laboratory or clinical class.]

The instructor explains appropriate safety procedures for this laboratory/clinical.The instructor links the laboratory exercises to lecture.

12.

13.` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

Part IV. Overall Evaluation[To be completed by all students.]

The instructor encourages me to become actively engaged in the learning process.I would recommend this instructor to other students.

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

Part V. Library Resources[To be completed by all students.]

` ` `` ` `

` ` `` ` `

14.

15.

The HCCS library resources were adequate for the needs of this course.If provided, the library instruction received for this course was adequate.

LR1.

LR2.

DRC ScanDocs™ 9076-54321

Neutral DisagreeNo Basis forJudgementAgree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Neutral DisagreeNo Basis forJudgementAgree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Neutral DisagreeNo Basis forJudgementAgree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Neutral DisagreeNo Basis forJudgementAgree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI)

Houston Community CollegeOffice of Institutional Research

Page 84: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

INFORMATION SHEET - STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION (SEOI) PROGRAM

• TOTAL - The "TOTAL " row shown reflects the total number of students in a specific course who responded to each item. The numbers underneath "TOTAL" correspond to the items on the

HOW TO READ THE INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTOR REPORT

Your individual evaluation report contains the following information: • Name, Class Number (CRN), Course Title, Course Number • Question identification numbers (Q01 – Q15) appear across the top of the evaluation report. The

numbers correspond with the items on the standard questionnaire forms.

answer scale for the standard questionnaire.

Values for the answer scale to Questions 01-03:

1 = YES 2 = NEUTRAL 3 = NO 4 = NO BASIS FOR JUDGMENT

Values for the answer scale to Questions 04-15

:

1 = STRONGLY AGREE 2 = AGREE 3 = NEUTRAL 4 = DISAGREE 5 = STRONGLY DISAGREE 6 = NO BASIS FOR JUDGMENT

• MEAN - Averaged scores for each questionnaire item per individual class. At the bottom of the last page for each report, you will find cumulative statistics which provide the following information: • TOT. FREQ (total frequency) - Indicates the cumulative sum of students from your combined classes who

responded to each item. • TOTAL MEAN - Indicates combined mean scores for each questionnaire item for all your classes. • SYST MEAN – Indicates the combined mean scores on each questionnaire item for your discipline across the

entire college system. NOTE: If you taught more than one course during the semester, the data for those courses appear on the printout under the respective course numbers. Now, turn to the other side of this sheet for an illustration of how to read your report.

Page 85: Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) · Methods Used: The optical-scan survey instrument was created using ScanTools for Windows, by National Computer Systems. The

Houston Community College Office of Institutional Research

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM STUDENT EVALUATION REPORT - BY INSTRUCTOR

NAME CRN

MEAN 1.87 1.12 1.25 1.25 1.12 0 0 0

Q01 Q02 Q03 Q4 ……. Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 DOE, J. M. 54321 ABCD 2301 TOTAL 8 8 8 8 ……. 8 0 0 0 1 3 7 7 3 7 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

TOT. FREQ 8 8 8 8 ……. 8 0 0 0 1 3 7 7 3 7 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 TOTAL MEAN 1.87 1.12 1.12 1.87 ……. 1.12 0 0 0 SYST MEAN 1.85 1.20 1.19 1.85 1.17 0 0 0

FOR QUESTIONS 01 - 03: Look at the TOTAL Now look under the column Q01: • Eight students responded to questionnaire item

one. • Three students answered "Yes" to Question 1. • Three students answered "Neutral" to Question 1. • Two students answered "No" to Question 1. • None of the students answered "No Basis for

Judgement" to Question 1. There are four possible answers to Q1-Q3, but if a field is not populated, it does not appear on the report.

FOR QUESTIONS 04 - 15: Look at the TOTAL.

Now look under the column Q04: • Eight students responded to questionnaire item

four. • Three students answered "Strongly Agree" to

Question 4. • Three students answered "Agree" to Question 4. • Two students answered "Neutral" to Question 4 • None of the students answered "Disagree",

"Strongly Disagree", or "No Basis for Judgement" to Question 4. There are six possible answers to Q4-Q15, but if a field is not populated, it does not appear on the report.

Look at the TOT. FREQ row that (number of responses). Now look under column Q01: • The total number of responses for all classes taught by the instructor is eight. In the example, the number for the

cumulative statistic is the same because the instructor only taught one class. For an instructor who taught more than one class, the cumulative statistics would reflect the total responses received from all students taught during the semester.

The System mean is the cumulative average for all instructors from the appropriate teaching area who participated in the program during the semester. These figures provide comparative performance information.