CIEQ Analysis
-U of Arizona-
Aleamoni Course/Instructor
Spring 2001
Evaluation Questionnaire
.r>;
Instructor:
ALEAMONI
• Class: EDPS 640 1 • Sample Size: 23
Process Date: 1112/02
• College Code: 20020
Class Description Results
Class Information
Fr
So
%
0.00
0.00
#
0.00
0.00
M
F
0.26
6.00
0.39
9.00
Sr
0.00
0.00
Jr
0.00
0.00
#
OMIT
0.35
8.00
%
#
OMIT
0.35
8.00
Yes
No
0.00
0.00
Req
0.43
10.00
Elec
0.22
5.00
OMIT
0.35
8.00
Min
0.00
0.00
Oth
0.04
1.00
Major- Minor
Pass-Fail Option
%
#
Oth
0.00
0.00
Course Option
Gender
ll,.
o
Grad
0.65
15.00
0.61
14.00
OMIT
0.39
9.00
ll,.
o
#
Maj
0.61
14.00
OMIT
0.35
8.00
Expected Grade
%
#
~
A
B
C
D
E
0.22
5.00
0.35
8.00
0.09
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OMIT
0.35
8.00
V.P.
Poor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fair
0.04
1.00
Good
0.17
4.00
v.G.
0.22
5.00
Ex
0.17
4.00
OMIT
0.39
9.00
Mean
Fair
0.04
1.00
Good
0.00
0.00
v.G.
0.17
4.00
Ex
0.39
9.00
OMIT
0.39
9.00
Mean
Fair
0.04
1. 00
Good
V.G.
0.13
3.00
0.26
6.00
Ex
0.17
4.00
OMIT
0.39
9.00
Mean
.
Content Rating
%
#
Instructor
%
#
4.86
0.95
S.D.
Rating
v.P.
Poor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.50
0.85
S.D.
Course Rating
%
#
v.P.
Poor
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.93
0.92
S.D.
Subscale Results
Items
Sub scale
Attitude
Method
Content
Interest
Instructor
Total
~
4
4
4
4
5
21
% Res
1. 00
1.00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
1. 00
Mean
3.40
3.35
3.04
2.93
3.64
3.29
S.D.
0.83
0.82
0.88
0.86
0.60
0.83
ReI.
0.94
0.92
0.81
0.82
0.37
0.93
IR
6
9
5
6
CL
D
IN
N
5
8
4
8
9
5
$
6
9
6
7
4
4
5
8
8
8
6
9
6
7
7
9
6
6
9
8
4
9
8
7
6
·C
IR=Instructor Rank; CL=Class Level; D=Department; C=College; IN= Institution; N=Nationwide
NA in a normative decile category indicates that normative data is not available for this category or that this category
is not applicable to the current data. These results based on 1993 Standard CIEQ norms.
MacCIEQTM
2.0
©1993
Lawrence
M.
Aleamoni,
Comprehensive
Data
Evaluation
Services,
Inc.
CIEQ Analysis
• U of Arizona • Spring 2001
• Class: EDPS 640 1 • Sample Size:
Instructor: ALEAMONI
23
,-~
Individual Item Results
1.
%
#
2.
%
#
3.
%
#
4.
%
#
5.
%
#
6.
%
#
7.
l!0
#
8.
%
#
9.
%
#
10.
l!0
#
11.
%
#
It was a very worthwhile course.
D
DS
A
AS
0.30
0.09
0.04
0.57
1.00
7.00
2.00
13.00
I would take another
A
AS
0.17
0.61
4.00
14.00
BEST
AS
MEAN
3.39
.S.D.
0.84
DEe
5
course that was taught this way.
D
DS
OMIT
BEST
0.17
0.04
0.00
AS
1.00
4.00
0.00
MEAN
3.35
S.D.
0.93
DEe
7
in students as individuals.
MEAN
OMIT
BEST
0.00
AS
3.83
0.00
S.D.
0.39
DEe
9
The instructor seemed to be interested
D
DS
A
AS
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
4.00
0.00
19.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
The course material was too difficult.
D
DS
A
AS
0.43
0.22
0.22
0.13
10.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
DS
MEAN
2.74
S.D.
0.96
DEe
It was easy to remain
A
AS
0.35
0.43
8.00
10.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
AS
MEAN
3.22
S.D.
0.80
DEe
7
NOT much
AS
0.04
1.00
attentive.
D
DS
0.22
0.00
5.00
0.00
was gained by taking this course.
D
DS
OMIT
A
0.30
0.09
0.57
0.00
7.00
2.00
13.00
0.00
1
~
BEST
DS
MEAN
3.39
S.D.
0.84
DEe
5
I would have preferred another method of teaching in this course.
D
DS
A
OMIT
BEST
MEAN
AS
0.35
0.17
0.48
3.30
0.00
DS
0.00
11. 00
4.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
S.D.
0.76
DEe
8
The course material
A
AS
0.52
0.43
12.00
10.00
S.D.
0.71
DEe
5
The instructor did NOT synthesize, integrate or summarize effectively.
D
DS
MEAN
A
OMIT
BEST
S.D.
AS
0.39
0.00
0.61
0.00
DS
3.61
0.50
0.00
9.00
0.00
14.00
0.00
0.00
DEe
8
The course
AS
0.35
8.00
DEe
4
seemed
D
0.00
0.00
worthwhile.
DS
0.04
1.00
was quite interesting.
D
DS
A
0.35
0.30
0.00
7.00
8.00
0.00
The instructor encouraged development
D
A
DS
AS
0.17
0.52
0.00
0.30
4.00
12.00
0.00
7.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
AS
BEST
AS
MEAN
3.35
MEAN
3.04
S.D.
0.82
of new viewpoints and appreciations.
OMIT
BEST
MEAN
S.D.
DEe
AS
3.13
0.00
0.69
4
0.00
."---,,
CIEQ Analysis • U of Arizona·
Spring 2001
Instructor: ALEAMONI
• Class: EDPS 640 1 • Sample Size: 23
-~
12. I learn more when other teaching methods are used.
%
#
13.
%
#
AS
0.09
2.00
A
0.09
2.00
D
0.43
10.00
DS
0.39
9.00
AS
0.09
2.00
A
0.13
3.00
D
0.52
12.00
DS
0.26
6.00
D
0.00
0.00
DS
0.00
0.00
#
15.
This was one of my poorest courses.
#
16.
%
#
~17.
9-
0
#
MEAN
3.13
S.D.
0.92
DEe
7
AS
0.04
1.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
DS
MEAN
2.96
S.D.
0.88
DEe
6
demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the subject matter.
A
0.04
1.00
AS
0.96
22.00
%
BEST
DS
Some things were not explained very well.
14. The instructor
%
OMIT
0.00
0.00
A
0.13
3.00
D
0.26
6.00
DS
0.57
13.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
AS
MEAN
3.96
S.D.
0.21
DEC
10
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
DS
MEAN
3.35
S.D.
0.88
DEe
5
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
AS
MEAN
3.13
S.D.
0.87
DEe
5
BEST
DS
MEAN
2.43
S.D.
0.84
DEC
5
The course content was excellent.
AS
0.39
9.00
A
0.39
9.00
D
0.17
4.00
DS
0.04
1.00
Some days I was NOT very interested in this course.
AS
0.09
2.00
A
0.52
12.00
D
0.26
6.00
DS
0.13
3.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
18. I think that the course was taught quite well.
%
#
AS
0.65
15.00
A
0.30
7.00
D
0.04
1.00
DS
0.00
0.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
AS
MEAN
3.61
S.D.
0.58
DEe
9
DS
0.35
8.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
DS
MEAN
3.04
S.D.
0.82
DEe
3
19. The course was quite boring.
%
#
AS
0.00
0.00
A
0.30
7.00
D
0.35
8.00
20. The instructor seemed to consider teaching as a chore or routine activity.
%
#
AS
0.04
1.00
A
0.00
0.00
D
0.17
4.00
21.
Overall, the course was good.
9-
AS
0.61
14.00
0
#
A
0.30
7.00
D
0.04
1.00
DS
0.78
18.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
DS
MEAN
3.70
S.D.
0.70
DEe
8
DS
0.04
1.00
OMIT
0.00
0.00
BEST
AS
MEAN
3.48
S.D.
0.79
DEe
6
r>.
MacCIEQTM 2.0
©1993 Lawrence
M. Aleamoni,
Comprehensive
Data
Evaluation
Services,
Inc.