Student Opinion of Teaching Questionnaire Results

University of PittsburghOffice of Measurement and Evaluation ofTeaching

Dear Professor Kartik Mohanram:

Student Opinion of Teaching Questionnaire Results

This form contains evaluation results for COMPUTR ORGZTN & ASSMBLY LANG(COE-147).

Attached is a report in PDF format containing your Student Opinion of Teaching Survey results from lastterm. The report is best viewed and/or printed in color.

The evaluation results are broken down into three distinct categories. The first part of the report shows abreakdown of student responses to the quantitative questions. For each item, the number of students (n)who responded, the average or mean (av.) and standard deviation (dev.) are displayed next to a chart orhistogram that shows the percentage of the class who responded to each option for that question. Thepercentages are above the number on the rating scale which increases from left to right, i.e. the number1 equals the least favorable rating and the number 5 equals the most favorable rating. The sum ofpercentages will equal 100%. A red mark is displayed on the chart where the average or mean islocated. To calculate how many students responded to each option, multiply the number of students whoanswered the question by the percentage for that option. For example, if 14 students answered thequestion and 50% responded to option 3 then 7 students marked option 3 for that item (14 x .50 = 7).The standard deviation is a common measure of dispersion around the mean that may be useful ininterpreting the results.

If your school had previously calculated norms, they will be on OMET’s website (omet.pitt.edu).

The second part displays individual comments to each question in the open-ended section of theevaluation. All the responses to the first question will be listed together after the first question and thenthe responses to the next question will be listed together after the next question, and so on.

The final part gives you a profile of the student responses to the quantitative section of the evaluation.This is a chart listing all of the means for the scaled items with a dashed red line connecting the means.

If you would like help in understanding the statistics on your report, please call the OMET office412-624-6440 to schedule an appointment with the research consultant. We will not give valuejudgments about your ratings.

If the number of respondents for any of the scaled items is fewer than seven, please be cautious ininterpreting the quantitative results.

Office of Measurement and Evaluation of Teaching (OMET)

Professor Kartik Mohanram, COMPUTR ORGZTN & ASSMBLY LANG(COE-147)

05/14/2012 Class Climate evaluation Page 1

Professor Kartik Mohanram

COMPUTR ORGZTN & ASSMBLY LANG(COE-147)25253Spring 2012

RESPONDENTS = 75.76% OF NUMBER REGISTERED

1. SELF RATINGSSELF RATINGSSELF RATINGSSELF RATINGS

Compared to other courses at the same level, theamount of work I did was:

1.1)Much moreMuch less n=25

av.=3.56dev.=0.71

0%

1

4%

2

44%

3

44%

4

8%

5

In this course I have learned:1.2)Much moreMuch less n=24

av.=4.13dev.=0.74

0%

1

0%

2

20.8%

3

45.8%

4

33.3%

5

The grade I expect in this course is:1.3)

n=24A 33.3%

B 66.7%

C 0%

D 0%

F 0%

Other 0%

2. TEACHING EVALUATIONTEACHING EVALUATIONTEACHING EVALUATIONTEACHING EVALUATION

The instructor presented the course in an organizedmanner.

2.1)To a very high degreeHardly at all n=24

av.=4.08dev.=0.93

0%

1

8.3%

2

12.5%

3

41.7%

4

37.5%

5

The instructor stimulated my thinking.2.2)To a very high degreeHardly at all n=25

av.=4.36dev.=0.64

0%

1

0%

2

8%

3

48%

4

44%

5

The instructor evaluated my work fairly.2.3)To a very high degreeHardly at all n=25

av.=4.6dev.=0.5

0%

1

0%

2

0%

3

40%

4

60%

5

The instructor made good use of examples to clarifyconcepts.


av.=4.4dev.=0.71

0%

1

0%

2

12%

3

36%

4

52%

5

The instructor maintained a good learningenvironment.


av.=4.52dev.=0.65

0%

1

0%

2

8%

3

32%

4

60%

5

The instructor was accessible to students. (Do notanswer if no basis to judge)


av.=4.47dev.=0.74

0%

1

0%

2

13.3%

3

26.7%

4

60%

5



Express your judgment of the instructor's overalloveralloveralloverallteaching effectiveness:teaching effectiveness:teaching effectiveness:teaching effectiveness:

2.7)ExcellentIneffective n=24

av.=4.38dev.=0.58

0%

1

0%

2

4.2%

3

54.2%

4

41.7%

5

Would you recommend this course to other students?2.8)

n=24Definitely not 4.2%

Probably not 16.7%

Probably yes 41.7%

Definitely yes 37.5%

Would you recommend this instructor to other students?2.9)

n=24Probably not 4.2%

Probably yes 16.7%

Definitely yes 79.2%

3. SWANSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL ITEMS- select only one answer for each itemSWANSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL ITEMS- select only one answer for each itemSWANSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL ITEMS- select only one answer for each itemSWANSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING ADDITIONAL ITEMS- select only one answer for each item

ability to use math concepts to solve engineeringproblems.

3.1)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=3.08dev.=0.83

0%

1

29.2%

2

33.3%

3

37.5%

4

0%

5

ability to use chemistry concepts to solveengineering problems.


av.=1.08dev.=0.41

95.8%

1

0%

2

4.2%

3

0%

4

0%

5

ability to use physics concepts to help solveengineering problems.


av.=1.54dev.=0.78

62.5%

1

20.8%

2

16.7%

3

0%

4

0%

5

ability to use engineering concepts to help solveproblems.


av.=3.3dev.=0.93

4.3%

1

8.7%

2

47.8%

3

30.4%

4

8.7%

5

ability to design an experiment to obtainmeasurements or gain additional knowledge about aprocess.


av.=2.42dev.=1.18

29.2%

1

25%

2

20.8%

3

25%

4

0%

5

ability to analyze and interpret engineering data.3.6)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=2.54dev.=1.32

33.3%

1

12.5%

2

25%

3

25%

4

4.2%

5

ability to design a device or process to meet a statedneed.


av.=4dev.=1.02

4.2%

1

0%

2

25%

3

33.3%

4

37.5%

5

ability to function effectively in different team roles.3.8)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=1.75dev.=1.07

62.5%

1

8.3%

2

20.8%

3

8.3%

4

0%

5



ability to formulate and solve engineering problems.3.9)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=3.17dev.=1.24

12.5%

1

16.7%

2

25%

3

33.3%

4

12.5%

5

ability to use laboratory procedures and equipment.3.10)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=1.42dev.=1.02

79.2%

1

12.5%

2

0%

3

4.2%

4

4.2%

5

ability to use software packages to solve engineeringproblems.


av.=4.46dev.=0.72

0%

1

0%

2

12.5%

3

29.2%

4

58.3%

5

ability to use CAD software.3.12)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=2.13dev.=1.42

54.2%

1

8.3%

2

16.7%

3

12.5%

4

8.3%

5

knowledge of professional and ethical responsibility.3.13)A great dealNot at all n=22

av.=1.77dev.=1.11

54.5%

1

27.3%

2

9.1%

3

4.5%

4

4.5%

5

ability to write reports effectively.3.14)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=1.17dev.=0.38

83.3%

1

16.7%

2

0%

3

0%

4

0%

5

ability to make effective oral presentations.3.15)A great dealNot at all n=24

av.=1.08dev.=0.28

91.7%

1

8.3%

2

0%

3

0%

4

0%

5

knowledge about the potential risks (to the public)and impacts that an engineering solution or designmay have.


av.=1.5dev.=0.66

58.3%

1

33.3%

2

8.3%

3

0%

4

0%

5

ability to apply knowledge about current issues(economic/environmental/political/societal/etc.) toengineering-related problems.


av.=1.75dev.=0.99

58.3%

1

12.5%

2

25%

3

4.2%

4

0%

5

appreciation of the need to engage in life-longlearning.


av.=3.71dev.=1.08

4.2%

1

8.3%

2

25%

3

37.5%

4

25%

5

4. TEACHING COMMENTSTEACHING COMMENTSTEACHING COMMENTSTEACHING COMMENTS

What were the instructor's major strengths?4.1)











What were the instructor's major weaknesses?4.2)









5. COURSE COMMENTSCOURSE COMMENTSCOURSE COMMENTSCOURSE COMMENTS

What aspects of this course were most beneficial to you?5.1)









What suggestions do you have to improve the course?5.2)











ProfileSubunit: ENGINEERING-ELECTRICAL & COMPUTER Name of the instructor: Professor Kartik Mohanram,Name of the course:(Name of the survey)

COMPUTR ORGZTN & ASSMBLY LANG(COE-147) (25253)

1.1) Compared to other courses at the same level, the amount of work I did was: Much less Much more n=25av.=3.56

1.2) In this course I have learned: Much less Much more n=24av.=4.13

2.1) The instructor presented the course in an organized manner. Hardly at all To a very highdegree

n=24av.=4.08

2.2) The instructor stimulated my thinking. Hardly at all To a very highdegree

n=25av.=4.36

2.3) The instructor evaluated my work fairly. Hardly at all To a very highdegree

n=25av.=4.6

2.4) The instructor made good use of examples to clarify concepts. Hardly at all To a very highdegree

n=25av.=4.4

2.5) The instructor maintained a good learning environment. Hardly at all To a very highdegree

n=25av.=4.52

2.6) The instructor was accessible to students. (Do not answer if no basis to judge) Hardly at all To a very highdegree

n=15av.=4.47

2.7) Express your judgment of the instructor's overall teaching effectiveness:overall teaching effectiveness:overall teaching effectiveness:overall teaching effectiveness: Ineffective Excellent n=24av.=4.38

3.1) ability to use math concepts to solve engineering problems. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=3.08

3.2) ability to use chemistry concepts to solve engineering problems. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=1.08

3.3) ability to use physics concepts to help solve engineering problems. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=1.54

3.4) ability to use engineering concepts to help solve problems. Not at all A great deal n=23av.=3.3

3.5) ability to design an experiment to obtain measurements or gain additionalknowledge about a process.

Not at all A great deal n=24av.=2.42

3.6) ability to analyze and interpret engineering data. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=2.54

3.7) ability to design a device or process to meet a stated need. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=4

3.8) ability to function effectively in different team roles. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=1.75

3.9) ability to formulate and solve engineering problems. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=3.17

3.10) ability to use laboratory procedures and equipment. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=1.42

3.11) ability to use software packages to solve engineering problems. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=4.46

3.12) ability to use CAD software. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=2.13

3.13) knowledge of professional and ethical responsibility. Not at all A great deal n=22av.=1.77

3.14) ability to write reports effectively. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=1.17

3.15) ability to make effective oral presentations. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=1.08



3.16) knowledge about the potential risks (to the public) and impacts that anengineering solution or design may have.


3.17) ability to apply knowledge about current issues (economic/environmental/political/societal/etc.) to engineering-related problems.


3.18) appreciation of the need to engage in life-long learning. Not at all A great deal n=24av.=3.71

Documents

Student Opinion of Teaching Questionnaire Results