Results of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI), Spring 2011
Author: Houston Community College System, Office of Institutional Research
Date: 2011-07-29
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Feedback (Response),Institutional Research,Student Attitudes,Safety,Laboratories,Instructional Materials,Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance,Student Surveys,Two Year College Students,Community Colleges,College Instruction,Instructional Effectiveness,Course Evaluation,College Faculty,Teacher Effectiveness,Tests,Assignments,College Libraries,Questionnaires,Statistical Analysis

The &quot;Student Evaluation of Instruction&quot; (SEOI) was administered to all full-time and part-time faculty. Approximately 121,184 surveys were sent out in (5,346) envelopes; 78,310 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 65%. The Instructors' reports were provided to academic, workforce deans and to the respective executive secretaries on May 20, 2011 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;; 91.5% of students agreed and 1.6% disagreed; (2) &quot;The textbook used for this course is suitable&quot;; 86.8% of respondents agreed while 2.4% disagreed; and (3) &quot;Other instructional materials (tapes, handouts, web sites, etc.) used in this course enhanced my learning of the subject matter&quot;; 83.2% of respondents agreed, and 3.4% 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;; 92.2% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (2) &quot;The instructor communicates clearly&quot;; 88.4% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (3) &quot;The assignments were relevant to the course&quot;; 92.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 1.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (4) &quot;My grades are an indication of learning&quot;; 85.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 4.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (5) &quot;The instructor treats students with respect&quot;; 93.2% agreed or strongly agreed, and 1.9% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (6) &quot;The instructor is available for student consultation&quot;; 88.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed; (7) &quot;The instructor grades impartially&quot;; 80.1% agreed or strongly agreed, and 8.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed; and (8) &quot;The instructor gives me timely feedback on graded work&quot;; 86.8% agreed or strongly agreed, and 3.7% 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;; 85.9% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.2% disagreed or strongly disagreed; and (2) &quot;The instructor links the laboratory exercises to lecture&quot;; 84.6% agreed or strongly agreed, and 2.6% 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;; 88.7% agreed or strongly agreed and 3.0% disagreed or strongly disagreed; and (2) &quot;I would recommend this instructor to other students&quot;; 85.7% agreed or strongly agreed, and 5.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed.