Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI), Fall 2010
Author: Houston Community College System, Office of Institutional Research
Date: 2011-01-19
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Feedback (Response),Student Attitudes,Instructional Materials,Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance,Teacher Evaluation,Textbooks,Course Descriptions,Teacher Competencies,Grading,Teacher Student Relationship,Teaching Skills,Classroom Techniques,Learning Processes,Communication Skills,Library Services,Community Colleges

The &quot;Student Evaluation of Instruction&quot; (SEOI) was administered to all full-time and part-time faculty. Approximately 123,461 surveys were sent out in 5,516 envelopes; 86,998 surveys were returned to the Office of Institutional Research. The return rate for the SEOI packet envelopes was 97.0%. The instructors' reports were provided to academic, workforce deans and to the respective executive secretaries on December 17, 2010 on a CD. In the responses, respondents who neither agreed nor disagreed, indicated that they were &quot;neutral&quot;, &quot;had no basis for judgment&quot; or simply did not respond to the question. Part I, Evaluation of Instruction, offers the following findings: (1) &quot;The course requirements in the syllabus were clearly stated&quot;; 91.1% of students agreed and 1.7% disagreed; (2) &quot;The textbook used for this course is suitable&quot;; 86.3% of respondents agreed while 2.5% disagreed; and (3) &quot;Other instructional materials (tapes, handouts, web sites, etc.) used in this course enhanced my learning of the subject matter&quot;; 81.4% of respondents agreed, and 3.8% disagreed. Part II, Evaluation of Instructor, offers the following findings: (1) &quot;The instructor asks test questions that deal with material that is covered in the course&quot;; 91.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.5% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (2) &quot;The instructor communicates clearly&quot;; 87.5% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (3) &quot;The assignments were relevant to the course&quot;; 92.6% agreed or strongly agreed, and 1.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (4) &quot;My grades are an indication of learning&quot;; 85.3% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (5) &quot;The instructor treats students with respect&quot;; 93.1% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (6) &quot;The instructor is available for student consultation&quot;; 88.3% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.4% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (7) &quot;The instructor grades impartially&quot;; 79.1% agreed or strongly agreed, and 7.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed; and (8) &quot;The instructor gives me timely feedback on graded work&quot;; 85.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Part III, Lab Evaluation, offers the following findings: (1) &quot;The instructor explains appropriate safety procedures for this laboratory/clinical&quot;; 84.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed; and (2) &quot;The instructor links the laboratory exercises to lecture&quot;; 83.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.8% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Part IV, Overall Evaluation, offers the following findings: (1) &quot;The instructor encourages me to become actively engaged in the learning process&quot;; 87.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 3.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed; and (2) &quot;I would recommend this instructor to other students&quot;; 84.8% agreed or strongly agreed, and 5.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed.