Teaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEP----widewidewide · MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Regular FTES *...

Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research

Teaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEP----widewidewidewide

Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011

REPORT

Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research

KIMEP, 2011

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Regular FTES* Spring 2011 was conducted during April 11–24 following the standard format: online

mode, voluntary approach, standard 15-item instrument.

Teaching quality assessment

− Teaching quality at KIMEP is assessed by students with 4.37 points out of the maximum 5.00.

− Assessments of academic units vary in ranges 4.57 (LC) - 4.32 (BCB).

− Assessing the various aspects of teaching process, students most frequently express the agreement

(“strongly agree” and “agree”) with positive statements of questionnaire - 83.29% of cases.

− Preparedness for classes, Ability to spend time on relevant issues and Clarity of course requirements

are identified as the most strong aspects of teaching process: 4.52, 4.44 and 4.43 correspondingly.

These are the traditional points of students’ appreciation since Fall 2007.

− Faculty’s ability to stimulate interest in the subject, Relevance of session materials to local

environment and Helpfulness of texts and other materials are appreciated relatively less: 4.22; 4.39

and 4.37 accordingly, which is also traditional trend of assessment since Fall 2007.

− Students’ willingness to recommend the courses and faculty members to friends is expressed with

grades 4.34 and 4.31.

Teaching quality dynamics during Fall 2007-Spring 2011

KIMEP-wide:

− Overall level of students’ satisfaction has risen from 4.27 in Fall 2007 to 4.37 in Spring 2011 with the

period of stagnation from Fall 2008 till Spring 2010 (~4.30 - 4.32).

− ‘Strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ of teaching quality, traditionally identified by students during the

observed period, completely coincide with those indicated in the current semester.

By separate departments/areas:

− LC and PS&IR demonstrate steady growth trajectories of teaching quality assessment with peak

results in Spring 2011

− Econ, Fin, MM and PA face changeable growth of teaching evaluations with peak results in Fall 2008

or Spring 2009; their Spring 2011 grades are higher than Fall 2007 ones

− OMIS, SGE and SL grades peaked in Spring 2010 and have since remained at the same level or

slowly declined

− Acc and Journ underwent several increases and decreases of student satisfaction; their Spring 2011

grades are lower than Fall 2007 ones.

By academic ranks of faculty members:

− Professorial courses, mostly evaluated by senior undergraduates and masters, reflect the continuous

improvement of teaching quality.

− Lecturers’ courses, assessed mostly by undergraduates, receive evaluations that form a changeable

growth trajectory (total amplitude = 0.15). Scores’ fluctuation could reflect the changes in faculty

composition, list of courses offered as well as respondents’ subjectivity due to their age and attitude.

− Instructors are mostly evaluated by freshmen, taking LC and SGE courses. Their grades follow a

changeable trajectory (total amplitude = 0.27). Taking into consideration the relative stability of LC and

SGE curriculum and faculty composition, the changeable assessment could be mostly attributed to

subjectivity of respondents’ opinion due to the lack of learning experience at KIMEP.

Resume

Analysis of teaching quality dynamics during the last four years allows suggesting the following ways to

further improve KIMEP academic services to students:

- identifying the reasons of decline in KIMEP’s strongest teaching quality – faculty preparedness for

classes

- providing faculty members with professional development opportunities in the sphere of teaching

methods and student psychology

- continuing work on improving the teaching materials with regard to general helpfulness and

applicability to Kazakhstani environment

- clarifying the reasons that cause fluctuations in student satisfaction with the teaching process in

separate departments/areas.

* Please, kindly consider the list of abbreviations on the next page.

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, Spring 2011

Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research

ABBREVIATIONS

Acc Area of Accounting, Bang College of Business

AY Academic year

BCB Bang College of Business

CISC Computer and Information Systems Center

CSS College of Social Sciences

Econ Department of Economics, College of Social Sciences

Fin Area of Finance, Bang College of Business

FTES Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey

Journ Department of International Journalism and Mass Communications,

College of Social Sciences

KSA KIMEP Students’ Association

LC Language Center

LCD Liquid Crystal Display

MM Area of Management and Marketing, Bang College of Business

OMIS Area of Operations Management and Information Systems, Bang College of Business

PA Department of Public Administration, College of Social Sciences

PS&IR Department of Political Science and International Relations, College of Social Sciences

QAIR Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research

SGE School of General Education

SL School of Law

SQL Structured Query Language

VPAA Vice President of Academic Affairs


Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 2

CONTENT

Management summary

Abbreviations

Background 3

Purpose 3

Technique 3

Data treatment 3

Results presentation 3

Survey results 3

Response statistics 3

Unit’s results overview 3

CSS results overview by departments 4

Comparison of FTES results, Fall 2007 - Spring 2011 7

Purpose 7

Results 7

- KIMEP-wide 7

- By departments/areas 7

- By academic ranks of faculty member 8

Resume 9

Attachment 1: Questionnaire 16

Attachment 2: FTES results: tables 17

Attachment 3: FTES results, F2007-S2011: tables 18



Background

Purpose. FTES is conducted on semestrial basis to measure the quality of teaching at the Institute’s level

by retrieving students’ opinion on the instructional effectiveness, quality of teaching and learning

experience for every subject they are enrolled.

Technique. Standard approach: voluntary, online mode, 3-section instrument approved in Fall 2007 (att. 1).

Questionnaire access links at KIMEP website: Summer 1 registration page, main page banner, ‘U-mail’,

and ‘L-drive’.

The survey schedule (April 11– 24) avoids interference with final exams session.

To cover intensive courses of LC and SGE, an additional survey is conducted on February 16–22, 2011.

The information campaign employs regular channels: banners, posters, e-mails, LCD presentations, web-

site announcements, class announcements by KSA members, and info items in social networks. Also, this

semester students of “Introduction to PR” course have produced survey promo video with participation of

the key figures of the Institute’s community: VPAA, faculty members and KSA. This input is made under

the guidance of Dr. Kozhamkulova in cooperation with QAIR team.

Data treatment. The CISC renders technical support in data gathering and treatment. Student inputs are

stored in SQL server to be further processed and used for analysis.

Results presentation. The results were made accessible to faculty and academic management via Intranet

upon the submission of all final grades to the Registrar’s Office by faculty members (May 20, 2011).

Since Fall 2010, Intranet reports include total quality indexes calculated as a product of the average

faculty grade (quality index1) and share of student registrations (quantity index

2).

Survey results

Response statistics

The KIMEP-wide response rate comprises 30.58% of total number of student/course registrations: 5 084

out of 16 623. The response rates by units lie between ~25% (SL) and ~32% (LC and BCB; table A).

Table A. Response rate: KIMEP-wide and by units Units

Data BCB CSS Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE SL KIMEP

# of student registrations 7434 2687 771 363 458 1095 1275 4631 596 16623

# of student responses 2395 727 222 97 155 253 414 1401 147 5084

Response rate out of student

registrations, % 32.22 27.06 28.79 26.72 33.84 23.11 32.47 30.25 24.66 30.58

In general, the distribution of responses by units reflects the composition of the enrolled student body.

Thus, the answers of BCB students present the majority of responses (~47%), followed by students of

SGE and CSS courses (~28% and ~14% accordingly; graph 1). Among the evaluations of CSS courses, the

courses of PA respondents are prevailing (~35%; graph 2).

Units’ results overview

The KIMEP overall assessment comprises 4.37 points out of 5.00 (share of answer ‘strongly agree’ with

questionnaire’s positive statements comprises ~64% of all answers). Overall grades of different units also show

relatively high satisfaction level: 4.32 (BCB) - 4.57 (LC; graphs 3-4).

In general, students evaluate ‘Faculty’, ‘Class sessions’ and ‘Course’ (3 instrument’s sections) with high

grades: 4.36, 4.41 and 4.39 out of 5.00 accordingly. Across the units, LC is evaluated with maximum

grades (4.57-4.6), and BCB – with relative minimums (4.29-4.36; graph 5).

1 Quality index - weighed average calculated according to standard formula. 2 Quantity index – the ratio of student registrations in all courses of a faculty member to the total number of student registrations

in corresponding academic unit.



By separate aspects of teaching process, respondents identify the following stronger and weaker points

(graphs 6-8):

− Faculty’s preparedness for each class (Q1), their ability to spend time on relevant issues (Q10) and

the clarity of course requirements from the start of semester (Q11) are assessed with higher grades.

− Faculty ability to stimulate interest in subject (Q3), relevance of session materials to local

environment (Q9) and helpfulness of texts and other course materials (Q12) are evaluated with

relatively lower scores.

The above trend (most and least appreciated items) has been continuously reflected in FTES results since the

latest changes in survey instrument (Fall 2007).

Following exceptions are presented by Spring 2011 LC and SL students: in their opinion, the clarity of

session objectives compared with the relevance of session materials is the weaker aspect (Qs 8-9). Also,

LC students consider helpfulness of texts/materials as the strong point, and assignments’ contribution to

learning – as the weak one (Qs12-13; graphs 6-8).

Generally, the students are willing to recommend KIMEP courses and faculty (Qs 14-15): 4.34 and 4.31

correspondingly. By units, they mostly recommend the courses and faculty of LC and SL. Courses of

SGE and faculty of BCB are recommended the least (graph 10).

CSS results overview by departments

Within the CSS, PS&IR department was evaluated most highly (4.61), while Econ department got the

lowest assessment (4.31; graph 3).

By accessing the ‘Faculty’, ‘Class session’ and ‘Course’, CSS students mostly follow the KIMEP-wide

trends. Few exceptions are presented by evaluations of Journ and PS&IR departments (graph 11):

− Journ students highly appreciate ability of faculty members to encourage questions and class

participation (Q4) and relevance of session materials to local environment (Q9). They are least

satisfied with class sessions’ being spent on relevant issues (Q10) and assignments’ contribution to

learning (Q13).

− PS&IR respondents are most satisfied with assignments’ contribution to learning (Q13) and least –

with faculty’s ability to provide helpful feedback on assignments (Q6).

Graph 1. Responses’ composition by units Graph 2. CSS responses’ composition by department source: table A, p.3

BCB

47.11%

CSS

14.30%

LC

8.14%

SGE

27.56%

SL

2.89%

source: table A, p.3

Econ

30.54%

IJMC

13.34%

PS&IR

21.32%

PA

34.80%



Graph 3. Overall evaluation source: att. 2, table 1

4.324.43

4.57

4.35

4.54

4.37

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP

Weighed average grade

Graph 4. Distribution of ratings by units source: att. 2, table 2

20.7218.84 15.91

17.2414.83

18.93

67.08 73.04 65.6 72.38 64.3660.81

0%

100%


5 - strongly

agree

4 - agree

3 - neutral

2 - disagree

1 - strongly

disagree

Graph 5. Evaluation in sections “Faculty”, “Class sessions” and “Course” source: att. 2, table 1

4.36 4.364.43 4.46 4.434.57 4.57 4.6

4.344.41 4.37

4.54 4.584.49

4.36 4.41 4.394.29

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Faculty Class sessions Course





Graph 6. Evaluation in individual questions, section “Faculty” source: att. 2, table 1

4.00

4.65

KIMEP

BCB

CSS

LC

SGE

SL

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Graph 7. Evaluation in individual questions, Graph 8. Evaluation in individual questions, section “Class sessions” section “Course” source: att. 2, table 1 source: att. 2, table 1

4.30

4.60

KIMEP

BCB

CSS

LC

SGE

SL

Q8

Q9

Q10

4.25

4.63KIMEP

BCB

CSS

LC

SGE

SL

Q11

Q12

Q13

Graph 9. Evaluation in questions “14. I would recommend this course” and “15. I would recommend this

faculty member” source: att. 2, table 1

4.25

4.4 4.37

4.54 4.53

4.26 4.3

4.54.59

4.34 4.314.33

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Recommend this course Recommend this faculty member





Graph 10. Overall evaluations of CSS departments source: att. 2, table 1

4.43

4.61

4.434.31

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Econ Journ PS&IR PA


Graph 11. Evaluation of CSS departments in individual questions source: att. 2, table 1

4.0

4.5

5.0

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15

Faculty Class sessions Course Summary

questions


Econ Journ PS&IR PA

Comparison of FTES results, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011

Purpose: to identify general tendencies in teaching quality dynamics since Fall 2007 (last revision of

questionnaire).

Results

KIMEP-wide overall satisfaction with teaching quality has increased from 4.27 in Fall 2007 to 4.37 in

Spring 2011 with the period of stagnation (Fall 2008-Spring 2010), with grades within ranges 4.30-4.32

(graph 12). Rise in evaluation is observed with regard to all aspects of teaching process, except for

faculty’s preparedness for classes (Q1): it dropped by 0.13 points in Spring 2008 and, despite following

increases, hasn’t yet reached the level of Fall 2007 (graph 13).

During the analyzed period, same strengths and weaknesses have been continuously identified by students

(graphs 13):

- Faculty’s preparedness for classes, Class time spent on relevant issues, and Clarity of course

requirements form the stable quality pillars.

- Faculty’s ability to stimulate interest, Relevance of session materials to local environment, and

Helpfulness of textbooks/course materials are the traditional areas of lower satisfaction.

By departments/areas

The analysis of 8-semeters’ evaluations of teaching by separate departments/areas allow distinguishing

four types of quality dynamics (graphs 14-17):

- Steady growth – LC and PS&IR: by Spring 2011 grades reached the highest levels since Fall 2007.

Growth trajectories are relatively smooth with no significant decreases.

- Changeable growth – Econ, Fin, MM and PA: Spring 2011 grades are higher than Fall 2007 ones. The

peak performance is demonstrated in Fall 2008 or Spring 2009.



- Stalled growth – OMIS, SGE and SL: grades reached the peak by Spring 2010 and since then have

remained at the same level (SL) or slowly declined (OMIS, SGE).

- Lowering evaluations – Acc and Journ: by Spring 2011 grades became lower than in Fall 2007.

During the period there were several noticeable fluctuations of students’ satisfaction.

By academic ranks of faculty members

Overview of teaching quality dynamics by separate ranks’ faculty – professors, lecturers and instructors –

shows some rank-specific peculiarities (graph 18) 1.

Professorial courses are mostly evaluated by senior undergraduates and masters. Students’ satisfaction

with their performance has been steadily increasing during the 8 semesters (total amplitude = 0.28).

Spring 2011 grades are higher than Fall 2007 ones (+0.27 points). This may reflect the continuous

improvement of teaching quality.

Lecturers’ courses, assessed mostly by undergraduates (freshmen to seniors), receive evaluations that form

a changeable growth trajectory (total amplitude = 0.15). The peak grades were assigned between Springs

2008-09 and the bottom ones - between Fall 2009–Spring 2010. Spring 2011 grades are close to Fall 2007

ones (+0.01 points).

Scores’ fluctuation could be the result of changes in faculty composition, list of courses offered and, to

some degree, respondents’ subjectivity due to their age and attitude.

Instructors are mostly evaluated by freshmen, taking LC and SGE courses. Similar to lecturers’

evaluations, their grades follow a changeable trajectory (total amplitude = 0.27). The highest results were

achieved in AY 2009-10 and the lowest ones – in AY 2010-11. Spring 2011 grades are close to Fall 2007

ones (+0.01 points).

Taking into consideration the relative stability of LC and SGE curriculum and faculty composition, the

changeable assessment could be mostly attributed to subjectivity of respondents’ opinion due to the lack

of learning experience at KIMEP.

In terms of strongest and weakest items of teaching performance, the evaluations of all ranks’ faculty are

very close to the common KIMEP-wide trends mentioned earlier (p. 7; graphs 19-21).

The distinctive features of each rank’s evaluation are presented below.

Professorial faculty (graph 19)

- ‘Faculty’: gap between professors’ preparedness for classes (Q1) and their ability to stimulate

students’ interest in the subject (Q3) has almost twice narrowed: from 0.69 points in Fall 2007 to 0.32

points in Spring 2011. Provision of helpful feedback on assignments (Q6) and clarity of explanation

(Q2) are consistently indicated as the relatively weak qualities.

- ‘Class sessions’: during the period, students’ appreciation for the least satisfactory item - relevance of

materials to local environment (Q9) - has grown the most (0.32 points) compared to the rest of items.

- ‘Course’: each semester respondents assess the helpfulness of study materials (Q12) and assignments’

contribution to learning (Q13) very closely (difference <=0.04 points).

- ‘Summary questions’: gap between willingness to recommend courses (Q14) and faculty members

(Q15) has gradually narrowed from 0.09-0.14 in AY 2007-08 to 0.02 in AY 2010-11.

Lecturers (graph 20)

- ‘Faculty’: student satisfaction with preparedness for classes (Q1) has declined by 0.13 points from

Fall 2007 to Spring 2011. Clarity of explanation (Q2), appreciated by students in AYs 2007-09, has

turned into one of the least satisfactory items in AYs 2009-11.

- ‘Class sessions’: students’ evaluation has risen with regard to relevance of materials to local

environment (Q9; overall +0.07 points), while assessment of the rest of section’s aspects has decreased.

- ‘Course’: the grade assigned to clarity of course requirements (Q11) lowered by 0.04 points from Fall

2007 to Spring 2011, while the scores of two other aspects have grown.

1 Calculation of ranks’ results was based on corresponding ‘Faculty lists’ and excluded the courses taught by more

than one faculty member.



- ‘Summary questions’: in Fall 2007 students were more willing to recommend faculty members (Q15)

than courses (Q14). In the rest of the period, courses (Q14) are more strongly recommended than

faculty members (Q15).

Instructors (graph 21)

- ‘Faculty’: over the period, evaluations declined with regard to two items - instructors’ preparedness

for classes (Q1) and the clarity of explanation (Q2). Faculty accessibility outside the class (Q7) has

increased the most (0.12 points).

- ‘Class sessions’: appreciation for relevance of materials to local environment (Q9) has grown by 0.10

points. Spring 2011 satisfaction with other aspects is close to the Fall 2007 level (±0.01 points).

- ‘Course’: while evaluations of all aspects changed significantly within the observed period (both up

and down), by the end of it they have almost returned to the Fall 2007 level.

- ‘Summary questions’: students’ willingness to recommend courses (Q14) and faculty members (Q15)

at the end of discussed period was lower than at its beginning (by 0.09 and 0.07 points accordingly).

Resume

Analysis of teaching quality dynamics during the last four years allows suggesting the following ways to

further improve KIMEP academic services to students:

- identifying the reasons of decline in KIMEP’s strongest teaching quality – faculty preparedness for

classes

- providing faculty members with professional development opportunities in the sphere of teaching

methods and student psychology

- continuing work on improving the teaching materials with regard to general helpfulness and

applicability to Kazakhstani environment

- clarifying the reasons that cause fluctuations in student satisfaction with the teaching process in

separate departments/areas.



Graph 12. KIMEP-wide teaching quality: overall grade dynamics, F2007-S2011 source: att. 3, table 1

4.27 4.28

4.32 4.31 4.34.32

4.354.37

4.0

4.4

F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


Graph 13. KIMEP-wide teaching quality: grade dynamics by questions, F2007-S2011 source: att. 3, table 1

Faculty section Class session section

4.0

4.6

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Q5 Q6 Q7

4.2

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q8 Q9 Q10

Course section Summary questions

4.2

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q11 Q12 Q13

4.2

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q14 Q15



Graph 14. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with steady growth source: att. 3, table 2

4.0

4.8

Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


LC PS&IR

Graph 15. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with changeable growth source: att. 3, table 2

4.0

4.8


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


Econ Fin MM PA

Graph 16. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with stalled growth source: att. 3, table 2

4.0

4.8


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


OMIS SGE SL



Graph 17. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with lowering evaluations source: att. 3, table 2

4.0

4.8


2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11


Acc Journ

Graph 18. Teaching quality dynamics by faculty ranks, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3

4.13 4.19

4.19

4.28 4.32 4.37 4.41

4.28

4.38

4.39

4.40

4.25

4.26

4.33

4.29

4.39

4.37

4.50

4.45 4.51

4.52

4.25

4.40

4.14

4.0

4.6

Fall '07

Spring '08

Fall '08

Spring '09

Fall '09

Spring '10

Fall '10

Spring '11

Fall '07

Spring '08

Fall '08

Spring '09

Fall '09

Spring '10

Fall '10

Spring '11

Fall '07

Spring '08

Fall '08

Spring '09

Fall '09

Spring '10

Fall '10

Spring '11

Professors Lecturers Instructors




Graph 19. Professorial teaching quality dynamics, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3

Faculty section Class session section Course section Summary questions

3.8

4.6

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Q5 Q6 Q7

4.0

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q8 Q9 Q10

4.0

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q11 Q12 Q13

4.0

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q14 Q15

Legend

Faculty Course

Q1. Is prepared for each class Q11. Course requirements are made clear at the start of the course

Q2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly Q12. Texts and other course materials are helpful

Q3. Stimulates my interest in the subject Q13. Assignments contribute to my learning

Q4. Encourages questions and class participation

Q5. Evaluates work fairly Summary questions

Q6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments Q14. I would recommend this course

Q7. Is accessible outside the class Q15. I would recommend this faculty member

Class sessions

Q8. Session objectives are made clear at the start

Q9. Sessions relate materials to local environment where appropriate

Q10. Class time is spent on relevant issues



Graph 20. Lecturers’ teaching quality dynamics, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3


4.0

4.6

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Q5 Q6 Q7

4.1

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q8 Q9 Q10

4.1

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q11 Q12 Q13

4.1

4.5

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q14 Q15

Legend

Faculty Course








Class sessions






Graph 21. Instructors’ teaching quality dynamics, Fall 2007 – Spring 2011 source: att. 3, table 3


4.1

4.7

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Q5 Q6 Q7

4.1

4.6

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q8 Q9 Q10

4.1

4.6

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q11 Q12 Q13

4.1

4.6

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Q14 Q15

Legend

Faculty Course








Class sessions






Attachment 1

QUESIONNAIRE

Dear Student,

We kindly invite you to take part in regular Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey Fall 2010, which is a

critical tool to maintain and promote the quality of teaching at our Institute.

As recognition grows in Kazakhstan and internationally of KIMEP as an institution educating tomorrow's

leaders, your input and commitment to institute's development become critical to prove this good

reputation. Take the lead with your education. Have your say.

Please, note: your personal data will be treated strictly confidentially – Department of Quality Assurance

and Institutional Research will process and analyze the survey responses without the access to your

individual information.

Course _____________________________ Faculty member _________________________________

Strongly

agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

disagree

5 4 3 2 1

Faculty

1. Is prepared for each class

2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly

3. Stimulates my interest in the subject

4. Encourages questions and class

participation

5. Evaluates work fairly

6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments

7. Is accessible outside the class

Class Sessions

8. Session objectives are made clear at the

start

9. Sessions relate materials to local

environment where appropriate

10. Class time is spent on relevant issues

Course

11. Course requirements are made clear at the

start of the course

12. Texts and other course materials are

helpful

13. Assignments contribute to my learning

Summary Questions

14. I would recommend this course

15. I would recommend this faculty member

Is there anything that you would like to tell us about your faculty member?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Is there anything you want to tell us about the course or the class sessions?

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for you valuable contribution!



Attachment 2

FTES RESULTS: TABLES

Table 1. Assessment of KIMEP units Units

Survey results BCB CSS Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE SL KIMEP

Section ‘Faculty’

AVG 4.47 4.57 4.49 4.49 4.75 4.57 4.67 4.52 4.65 4.52 1. Is prepared for each class

StDev 0.90 0.86 0.96 0.94 0.61 0.86 0.68 0.96 0.72 0.89

AVG 4.26 4.40 4.23 4.42 4.65 4.40 4.56 4.34 4.60 4.33 2. Explains concepts and ideas clearly

StDev 1.09 1.03 1.14 1.09 0.69 1.05 0.83 1.11 0.83 1.06

AVG 4.15 4.31 4.14 4.36 4.55 4.30 4.48 4.20 4.46 4.22 3. Stimulates my interest in the subject

StDev 1.19 1.10 1.19 1.15 0.87 1.10 0.94 1.21 1.00 1.16

AVG 4.31 4.42 4.28 4.53 4.52 4.45 4.66 4.30 4.57 4.36 4. Encourages questions and class participation

StDev 1.02 1.01 1.13 0.93 0.89 0.99 0.68 1.13 0.81 1.03

AVG 4.35 4.44 4.38 4.44 4.62 4.38 4.50 4.37 4.46 4.38 5. Evaluates work fairly

StDev 1.00 0.98 1.03 1.04 0.70 1.05 0.90 1.07 1.02 1.01

AVG 4.22 4.39 4.32 4.41 4.51 4.39 4.53 4.30 4.52 4.30 6. Provides helpful feedback on assignments

StDev 1.10 1.02 1.08 1.09 0.85 1.04 0.89 1.12 0.85 1.08

AVG 4.28 4.48 4.40 4.48 4.61 4.47 4.59 4.38 4.54 4.37 7. Is accessible outside the class

StDev 1.03 0.95 1.04 0.98 0.71 0.97 0.80 1.04 0.85 1.00

AVG 4.29 4.43 4.32 4.45 4.60 4.42 4.57 4.34 4.54 4.36 Overall section grade

StDev 1.05 1.00 1.09 1.03 0.77 1.01 0.83 1.10 0.88 1.04

Section ‘Class sessions’

AVG 4.35 4.45 4.30 4.46 4.64 4.46 4.55 4.40 4.55 4.40 8. Session objectives are made clear at the start

StDev 0.99 0.96 1.06 1.06 0.71 0.94 0.84 1.03 0.80 0.99

AVG 4.34 4.43 4.30 4.47 4.61 4.40 4.57 4.39 4.57 4.39 9. Sessions relate materials to local environment

where appropriate StDev 0.99 0.99 1.07 1.03 0.73 1.01 0.76 1.02 0.79 0.98

AVG 4.39 4.50 4.41 4.44 4.65 4.49 4.61 4.44 4.61 4.44 10. Class time is spent on relevant issues

StDev 0.98 0.94 0.99 1.05 0.66 0.98 0.75 1.02 0.75 0.96


StDev 0.99 0.96 1.04 1.04 0.70 0.98 0.79 1.02 0.78 0.98

Section ‘Course’

AVG 4.39 4.45 4.33 4.43 4.61 4.47 4.59 4.43 4.52 4.43 11. Course requirements are made clear at the

start of the course StDev 0.98 0.98 1.06 1.09 0.78 0.97 0.78 1.02 0.89 0.97

AVG 4.34 4.39 4.23 4.41 4.55 4.43 4.63 4.33 4.46 4.37 12. Texts and other course materials are helpful

StDev 1.02 1.03 1.13 1.09 0.83 1.02 0.78 1.09 0.95 1.03

AVG 4.34 4.44 4.32 4.35 4.63 4.47 4.58 4.34 4.50 4.38 13. Assignments contribute to my learning

StDev 1.03 0.98 1.07 1.12 0.75 0.94 0.82 1.09 0.92 1.02


StDev 1.01 1.00 1.09 1.10 0.78 0.97 0.79 1.07 0.92 1.01

Summary questions

AVG 4.33 4.40 4.31 4.32 4.60 4.39 4.54 4.26 4.50 4.34 14. I would recommend this course

StDev 1.05 1.04 1.15 1.17 0.77 1.01 0.89 1.20 0.97 1.08

AVG 4.25 4.37 4.23 4.35 4.59 4.38 4.53 4.30 4.59 4.31 15. I would recommend this faculty member

StDev 1.16 1.08 1.20 1.20 0.80 1.06 0.93 1.19 0.89 1.14

AVG 4.32 4.43 4.31 4.43 4.61 4.43 4.57 4.35 4.54 4.37 Overall weighed average grade

StDev 1.04 1.00 1.09 1.07 0.76 1.00 0.82 1.09 0.87 1.03



Table 2. Distribution of rating by units Rating

Units

5

Strongly

Agree

4

Agree

3

Neutral

2

Disagree

1

Strongly

Disagree

Total

# 21844 7441 4092 1271 1272 35920 BCB

% 60.81 20.72 11.39 3.54 3.54 100

# 7315 2055 833 317 385 10905 CSS

% 67.08 18.84 7.64 2.91 3.53 100

# 2063 674 304 139 150 3330 Econ

% 61.95 20.24 9.13 4.17 4.5 100

# 999 271 67 42 76 1455 Journ

% 68.66 18.63 4.6 2.89 5.22 100

# 1714 386 158 56 11 2325 PS&IR

% 73.72 16.6 6.8 2.41 0.47 100

# 2539 724 304 80 148 3795 PA

% 66.9 19.08 8.01 2.11 3.9 100

# 4536 988 461 154 71 6210 LC

% 73.04 15.91 7.42 2.48 1.14 100

# 13786 3624 1829 797 979 21015 SGE

% 65.6 17.24 8.7 3.79 4.66 100

# 1596 327 197 47 38 2205 SL

% 72.38 14.83 8.93 2.13 1.72 100

# 49077 14435 7412 2586 2745 76255 KIMEP

% 64.36 18.93 9.72 3.39 3.6 100

Attachment 3

FTES RESULTS, F2007-S2011: TABLES

Table 1. KIMEP-wide assessment, F2007-S2011 Semesters

Survey results F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011

Section ‘Faculty’

AVG 4.57 4.44 4.45 4.49 4.47 4.48 4.53 4.52 1. Is prepared for each class

StDev 0.76 0.93 0.94 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.88 0.89

AVG 4.25 4.26 4.29 4.26 4.26 4.27 4.32 4.33 2. Explains concepts and ideas

clearly StDev 1.01 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.07 1.06

AVG 4.02 4.15 4.2 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.19 4.22 3. Stimulates my interest in the

subject StDev 1.13 1.16 1.15 1.19 1.2 1.2 1.19 1.16

AVG 4.22 4.26 4.31 4.31 4.28 4.32 4.34 4.36 4. Encourages questions and class

participation StDev 1.00 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.03

AVG 4.28 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.31 4.32 4.38 4.38 5. Evaluates work fairly

StDev 0.97 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.05 1.07 1.02 1.01

AVG 4.13 4.23 4.26 4.24 4.23 4.25 4.28 4.30 6. Provides helpful feedback on

assignments StDev 1.04 1.09 1.09 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.08

AVG 4.19 4.27 4.31 4.33 4.29 4.31 4.34 4.37 7. Is accessible outside the class

StDev 1.00 1.04 1.03 1.01 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.00

Section ‘Class sessions’

AVG 4.36 4.34 4.36 4.36 4.34 4.35 4.39 4.40 8. Session objectives are made

clear at the start StDev 0.89 1.00 1.02 1 1.02 1.03 1.00 0.99

AVG 4.23 4.30 4.34 4.33 4.33 4.34 4.37 4.39 9. Sessions relate materials to local

environment where appropriate StDev 0.93 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.00 0.98

AVG 4.40 4.35 4.38 4.39 4.38 4.39 4.41 4.44 10. Class time is spent on relevant

issues StDev 0.86 1.00 1 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.96

Section ‘Course’

AVG 4.37 4.35 4.37 4.38 4.36 4.37 4.41 4.43 11. Course requirements are made

clear at the start of the course StDev 0.88 1.00 1 0.99 1.02 1.02 0.98 0.97

AVG 4.22 4.26 4.31 4.29 4.3 4.32 4.35 4.37 12. Texts and other course

materials are helpful StDev 1.01 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03



Semesters

Survey results F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011

AVG 4.23 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.31 4.32 4.36 4.38 13. Assignments contribute to my

learning StDev 0.95 1.04 1.04 1.07 1.05 1.06 1.03 1.02

Summary questions

AVG 4.26 4.27 4.32 4.29 4.29 4.3 4.34 4.34 14. I would recommend this course

StDev 1.05 1.09 1.07 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.09 1.08

AVG 4.26 4.22 4.27 4.26 4.23 4.25 4.29 4.31 15. I would recommend this

faculty member StDev 1.12 1.16 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.14

AVG 4.27 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.30 4.32 4.35 4.37 Overall weighed average grade

StDev 0.98 1.06 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.03

Table 2. Overall assessment of KIMEP units/areas, F2007-S2011

Unit

Semester Acc Fin MM OMIS SL Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE KIMEP

Fall 2007 4.41 4.03 4.32 4.09 4.16 4.56 4.29 4.24 4.36 4.27

Spring 2008 4.31 4.18 4.20 4.28 4.20 4.45 4.36 4.34 4.34 4.28

Fall 2008 4.28 4.18 4.26 4.07 4.44 4.40 4.24 4.31 4.48 4.47 4.11 4.32

Spring 2009 4.31 4.28 4.31 4.09 4.14 4.34 4.45 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.13 4.31

Fall 2009 4.05 4.23 4.14 4.27 4.55 4.23 4.19 4.43 4.35 4.49 4.38 4.30

Spring 2010 4.18 4.17 4.20 4.36 4.55 4.25 4.19 4.46 4.32 4.48 4.40 4.32

Fall 2010 4.24 4.23 4.32 4.34 4.55 4.26 4.54 4.57 4.25 4.51 4.39 4.35

Spring 2011 4.26 4.24 4.47 4.23 4.54 4.31 4.43 4.61 4.43 4.57 4.35 4.37

Table 3. Teaching quality assessment by faculty academic ranks, F2007-S2011

Question

Semester Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Total

Professors

Fall 2007 4.51 4.03 3.82 4.06 4.20 3.96 4.13 4.25 4.09 4.31 4.28 4.08 4.12 4.17 4.08 4.14

Spring 2008 4.32 4.07 3.96 4.09 4.14 4.04 4.14 4.19 4.13 4.21 4.22 4.12 4.15 4.16 4.02 4.13

Fall 2008 4.36 4.12 4.03 4.18 4.20 4.11 4.23 4.24 4.21 4.27 4.26 4.18 4.19 4.21 4.12 4.19

Spring 2009 4.41 4.10 3.97 4.17 4.23 4.10 4.27 4.25 4.19 4.30 4.28 4.17 4.18 4.17 4.13 4.19

Fall 2009 4.46 4.23 4.11 4.27 4.31 4.19 4.25 4.32 4.29 4.36 4.34 4.27 4.28 4.27 4.21 4.28

Spring 2010 4.49 4.26 4.15 4.31 4.35 4.25 4.32 4.35 4.33 4.42 4.37 4.32 4.32 4.30 4.27 4.32

Fall 2010 4.54 4.34 4.20 4.32 4.42 4.31 4.37 4.40 4.37 4.42 4.42 4.36 4.39 4.34 4.32 4.37

Spring 2011 4.59 4.38 4.27 4.38 4.45 4.35 4.43 4.45 4.41 4.48 4.48 4.40 4.42 4.38 4.36 4.41

Lecturers

Fall 2007 4.57 4.31 4.03 4.23 4.29 4.15 4.18 4.39 4.27 4.43 4.40 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.28 4.28

Spring 2008 4.51 4.38 4.27 4.36 4.37 4.33 4.33 4.43 4.42 4.44 4.44 4.36 4.39 4.37 4.33 4.38

Fall 2008 4.50 4.38 4.28 4.37 4.38 4.34 4.34 4.42 4.42 4.44 4.44 4.38 4.40 4.38 4.35 4.39

Spring 2009 4.56 4.38 4.23 4.39 4.37 4.33 4.35 4.44 4.44 4.48 4.45 4.40 4.41 4.40 4.37 4.40

Fall 2009 4.43 4.19 4.06 4.21 4.24 4.17 4.24 4.30 4.30 4.35 4.33 4.28 4.27 4.25 4.16 4.25

Spring 2010 4.43 4.21 4.08 4.26 4.26 4.18 4.24 4.30 4.30 4.33 4.32 4.27 4.26 4.25 4.17 4.26

Fall 2010 4.52 4.29 4.15 4.34 4.34 4.24 4.29 4.38 4.37 4.42 4.41 4.34 4.34 4.33 4.24 4.33

Spring 2011 4.42 4.24 4.12 4.29 4.30 4.22 4.28 4.32 4.34 4.38 4.36 4.32 4.31 4.28 4.22 4.29

Instructors

Fall 2007 4.64 4.44 4.24 4.41 4.38 4.30 4.28 4.45 4.34 4.46 4.44 4.36 4.36 4.38 4.43 4.39

Spring 2008 4.53 4.38 4.26 4.40 4.37 4.35 4.39 4.42 4.40 4.42 4.39 4.31 4.33 4.29 4.36 4.37

Fall 2008 4.59 4.49 4.42 4.53 4.50 4.47 4.49 4.52 4.52 4.54 4.52 4.48 4.49 4.47 4.49 4.50

Spring 2009 4.60 4.44 4.32 4.50 4.43 4.41 4.50 4.49 4.50 4.47 4.49 4.41 4.42 4.37 4.40 4.45

Fall 2009 4.64 4.50 4.42 4.53 4.51 4.48 4.54 4.51 4.52 4.55 4.51 4.48 4.51 4.46 4.48 4.51

Spring 2010 4.62 4.53 4.43 4.55 4.50 4.52 4.55 4.53 4.54 4.57 4.54 4.49 4.51 4.46 4.51 4.52

Fall 2010 4.42 4.27 4.14 4.27 4.20 4.20 4.30 4.30 4.28 4.26 4.30 4.21 4.23 4.23 4.14 4.25

Spring 2011 4.53 4.38 4.32 4.48 4.38 4.36 4.40 4.44 4.44 4.45 4.42 4.34 4.41 4.29 4.36 4.40

Teaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEP----widewidewide · MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Regular FTES *...

Documents

Transcript of Teaching quality KIMEPTeaching quality KIMEP----widewidewide · MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Regular FTES *...