Student Evaluations- CWU Scanned Responses
Summer 2002
[For all questions: 5 is highest rating, 1 is lowest rating]
| Ellensburg | Yakima | Wenatchee | Moses Lake |
| Averages- Ellensburg | ||||
| Class | Dept. | COB | CWU | |
| DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR | ||||
| Instructor met class regularly and on time. | 5.00 | 4.84 | 4.78 | 4.80 |
| Class sessions were well organized. | 4.77 | 4.56 | 4.53 | 4.54 |
| The instructor provided useful feedback on student progress. | 4.54 | 4.21 | 4.22 | 4.36 |
| I was confident in the instructor's knowledge. | 4.85 | 4.71 | 4.70 | 4.72 |
| The instructor was enthusiastic. | 4.62 | 4.53 | 4.53 | 4.64 |
| The instructor encouraged students to express themselves. | 4.54 | 4.40 | 4.45 | 4.57 |
| Extra help was available when needed. | 4.62 | 4.41 | 4.36 | 4.49 |
| Course objectives were clearly stated. | 4.85 | 4.48 | 4.46 | 4.52 |
| The instructor gave clear explanations. | 4.46 | 4.38 | 4.37 | 4.42 |
| The instructor presented alternative explanations when needed. | 4.46 | 4.37 | 4.39 | 4.51 |
| Answers to student questions were clear and meaningful. | 4.33 | 4.42 | 4.40 | 4.48 |
| Instructor raised important questions or problems. | 4.50 | 4.49 | 4.48 | 4.60 |
| Appropriate examples and illustrations were used. | 4.58 | 4.51 | 4.50 | 4.60 |
| The instructor's speech was clear and easily understood. | 4.50 | 4.63 | 4.55 | 4.64 |
| INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE | ||||
| Class time was used efficiently. | 4.62 | 4.43 | 4.43 | 4.49 |
| Instructor was interested in whether students learned. | 4.38 | 4.40 | 4.41 | 4.56 |
| Instructor helped develop an appreciation for the field. | 4.31 | 4.39 | 4.34 | 4.51 |
| Instructor applied course material to real world issues. | 4.85 | 4.54 | 4.55 | 4.64 |
| Course objectives were met. | 4.77 | 4.55 | 4.50 | 4.61 |
| Assigned readings and other out-of-class work were useful. | 4.54 | 4.36 | 4.24 | 4.38 |
| Evaluative and grading techniques (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were fair. | 4.38 | 4.43 | 4.35 | 4.47 |
| Amount of work was appropriate to course level and credits. | 4.23 | 4.32 | 4.36 | 4.48 |
| Student responsibilities and requirements were clearly stated. | 4.54 | 4.52 | 4.47 | 4.55 |
| Instructor treated students with respect, regardless of sex, race or age. | 4.69 | 4.81 | 4.80 | 4.81 |
| HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE? | ||||
| The intellectual challenge presented to you. | 4.62 | 4.29 | 4.22 | 4.31 |
| The amount of effort needed to succeed in this course | 4.38 | 4.34 | 4.25 | 4.35 |
| Your involvement (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) | 4.38 | 4.43 | 4.41 | 4.55 |
| GENERAL EVALUATION | ||||
| Course as a whole was: | 4.38 | 4.32 | 4.30 | 4.40 |
| Instructor's teaching effectiveness was: | 4.62 | 4.45 | 4.39 | 4.45 |
| Top |
| Averages-Yakima | ||||
| Class | Dept. | COB | CWU | |
| DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR | ||||
| Instructor met class regularly and on time. | 5.00 | 4.84 | 4.78 | 4.80 |
| Class sessions were well organized. | 4.50 | 4.56 | 4.53 | 4.54 |
| The instructor provided useful feedback on student progress. | 4.00 | 4.21 | 4.22 | 4.36 |
| I was confident in the instructor's knowledge. | 4.50 | 4.71 | 4.70 | 4.72 |
| The instructor was enthusiastic. | 4.00 | 4.53 | 4.53 | 4.64 |
| The instructor encouraged students to express themselves. | 4.00 | 4.40 | 4.45 | 4.57 |
| Extra help was available when needed. | 3.50 | 4.41 | 4.36 | 4.49 |
| Course objectives were clearly stated. | 4.00 | 4.48 | 4.46 | 4.52 |
| The instructor gave clear explanations. | 4.00 | 4.38 | 4.37 | 4.42 |
| The instructor presented alternative explanations when needed. | 4.50 | 4.37 | 4.39 | 4.51 |
| Answers to student questions were clear and meaningful. | 4.50 | 4.42 | 4.40 | 4.48 |
| Instructor raised important questions or problems. | 4.50 | 4.49 | 4.48 | 4.60 |
| Appropriate examples and illustrations were used. | 4.50 | 4.51 | 4.50 | 4.60 |
| The instructor's speech was clear and easily understood. | 4.50 | 4.63 | 4.55 | 4.64 |
| INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE | ||||
| Class time was used efficiently. | 4.50 | 4.43 | 4.43 | 4.49 |
| Instructor was interested in whether students learned. | 3.50 | 4.40 | 4.41 | 4.56 |
| Instructor helped develop an appreciation for the field. | 4.00 | 4.39 | 4.34 | 4.51 |
| Instructor applied course material to real world issues. | 4.50 | 4.54 | 4.55 | 4.64 |
| Course objectives were met. | 4.50 | 4.55 | 4.50 | 4.61 |
| Assigned readings and other out-of-class work were useful. | 4.50 | 4.36 | 4.24 | 4.38 |
| Evaluative and grading techniques (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were fair. | 4.00 | 4.43 | 4.35 | 4.47 |
| Amount of work was appropriate to course level and credits. | 4.00 | 4.32 | 4.36 | 4.48 |
| Student responsibilities and requirements were clearly stated. | 4.50 | 4.52 | 4.47 | 4.55 |
| Instructor treated students with respect, regardless of sex, race or age. | 4.00 | 4.81 | 4.80 | 4.81 |
| HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE? | ||||
| The intellectual challenge presented to you. | 5.00 | 4.29 | 4.22 | 4.31 |
| The amount of effort needed to succeed in this course | 5.00 | 4.34 | 4.25 | 4.35 |
| Your involvement (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) | 5.00 | 4.43 | 4.41 | 4.55 |
| GENERAL EVALUATION | ||||
| Course as a whole was: | 4.00 | 4.32 | 4.30 | 4.40 |
| Instructor's teaching effectiveness was: | 4.50 | 4.45 | 4.39 | 4.45 |
| Top |
| Averages-Wenatchee | ||||
| Class | Dept. | COB | CWU | |
| DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR | ||||
| Instructor met class regularly and on time. | 5.00 | 4.84 | 4.78 | 4.80 |
| Class sessions were well organized. | 4.50 | |||