summaries of teaching evaluations - George Mason University

'~
~tJ0
RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
Fall Semester 2006
Economics Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section 03
Class Size:28
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1 (%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
----------
A. Made course a positive learning experience 0 0 22 41 37 3.15 0.77 3.24 3.24 3.11 3.06 3.09
B. Attended class 0 0 0 18 82 3.82 0.39 3.81 3.81 3.71 3.76 3.72
C. Prepared for class 0 0 14 64 21 3.07 0.60 3.13 3.13 3.01 3.00 3.05
D. Was actively engaged 0 7 18 43 32 3.00 0.90 3.22 3.22 2.91 2.97 2.96
E. Stayed up-to-date in course work 0 0 0 54 46 3.46 0.51 3.39 3.39 3.24 3.13 3.16
F. Sought help when needed 0 12 24 32 32 2.84 1.03 2.92 2.92 2.64 2.56 2.74
1. High academic standards 0 0 0 43 57 3.57 0.50 3.51 3.51 3.48 3.46 3.33
2. Challenged to think 0 4 0 36 61 3.54 0.69 3.57 3.57 3.43 3.36 3.22
3. Instructor well-prepared 0 0 0 21 79 3.79 0.42 3.76 3.76 3.52 3.46 3.38
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging 0 4 0 29 68 3.61 0.69 3.65 3.65 3.57 3.56 3.41
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 0 0 0 7 93 3.93 0.26 3.90 3.90 3.69 3.61 3.47
6. Felt free to ask questions 4 0 4 14 79 3.64 0.87 3.69 3.69 3.37 3.06 3.25
7. Dealt effectively with questions 0 0 0 29 71 3.71 0.46 3.74 3.74 3.34 3.20 3.15
8. Available during office hours 0 0 9 32 59 3.50 0.67 3.63 3.63 3.56 3.25 3.35
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 4 11 85 3.81 0.48 3.89 3.89 3.54 3.28 3.17
Required Expected
Classif ication Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq(%) Major Freq(%)
-- -- --
Freshman 4 Yes 13 A+ 0 Accountancy 7
Sophomore 56 No 87 A 19 Decision Sciences 4
Junior 33 A- 19 Economics 29
Senior 7 B+ 7 Finance 7
Graduate 0 B 33 Human Resources 0
B- 7 M&O 54
Sex Freq(%) C+ 11 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 0
C 4 MIS 0
Female 39 C- O Marketing 0
Male 61 D+ 0 Supply Chain 0
D 0 Outside FSB 0
D- O
F 0

~
~aa 06
RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
Fall Semester 2006
Economics Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section
Class Size:26
07
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
----------
A. Made course a positive learning experience 0 0 19 42 38 3.19 0.75 3.24 3.24 3.11 3.06 3.09
B. Attended class 0 0 0 15 85 3.85 0.37 3.81 3.81 3.71 3.76 3.72
C. Prepared for class 0 0 4 69 27 3.23 0.51 3.13 3.13 3.01 3.00 3.05
D. Was actively engaged 0 0 15 38 46 3.31 0.74 3.22 3.22 2.91 2.97 2.96
E. Stayed up-to-date in course work 0 0 4 44 52 3.48 0.59 3.39 3.39 3.24 3.13 3.16
F. Sought help when needed 0 8 33 17 42 2.92 1.06 2.92 2.92 2.64 2.56 2.74
1. High academic standards 0 0 4 46 50 3.46 0.58 3.51 3.51 3.48 3.46 3.33
2. Challenged to think 0 0 0 35 65 3.65 0.49 3.57 3.57 3.43 3.36 3.22
3. Instructor well-prepared 0 0 0 12 88 3.88 0.33 3.76 3.76 3.52 3.46 3.38
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging 0 0 0 23 77 3.77 0.43 3.65 3.65 3.57 3.56 3.41
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 0 0 0 0 100 4.00 0.00 3.90 3.90 3.69 3.61 3.47
6. Felt free to ask questions 0 0 4 19 77 3.73 0.53 3.69 3.69 3.37 3.06 3.25
7. Dealt effectively with questions 0 0 0 12 88 3.88 0.33 3.74 3.74 3.34 3.20 3.15
8. Available during office hours 0 0 0 16 84 3.84 0.37 3.63 3.63 3.56 3.25 3.35
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 0 4 96 3.96 0.20 3.89 3.89 3.54 3.28 3.17
Required Expected
Classif ication Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq(%) Major Freq(%)
-- -- -- -
Freshman 4 Yes 22 A+ 0 Accountancy 27
Sophomore 60 No 78 A 19 Decision Sciences 0
Junior 36 A- 8 Economics 27
Senior 0 B+ 12 Finance 15
Graduate 0 B 54 Human Resources 0
B- 4 M&O 31
Sex Freq(%) C+ 4 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 0
C 0 MIS 0
Female 50 C- O Marketing 0
Male 50 0+ 0 Supply Chain 0
0 0 Outside FSB 0
D- O
F 0

~
.:J4Ll tJib
RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
Fall Semester 2006
Economics Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section 09
Class Size: 18
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
----------
A. Made course a positive learning experience 0 0 6 41 53 3.47 0.62 3.24 3.24 3.11 3.06 3.09
B. Attended class 0 0 6 17 78 3.72 0.57 3.81 3.81 3.71 3.76 3.72
C. Prepared for class 0 0 28 39 33 3.06 0.80 3.13 3.13 3.01 3.00 3.05
D. Was actively engaged 0 0 0 56 44 3.44 0.51 3.22 3.22 2.91 2.97 2.96
E. Stayed up-to-date in course work 0 0 11 61 28 3.17 0.62 3.39 3.39 3.24 3.13 3.16
F. Sought help when needed 0 6 24 29 41 3.06 0.97 2.92 2.92 2.64 2.56 2.74
1. High academic standards 6 0 0 28 67 3.50 0.99 3.51 3.51 3.48 3.46 3.33
2. Challenged to think 6 0 0 28 67 3.50 0.99 3.57 3.57 3.43 3.36 3.22
3. Instructor well-prepared 6 0 0 22 72 3.56 0.98 3.76 3.76 3.52 3.46 3.38
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging 0 0 11 22 67 3.56 0.70 3.65 3.65 3.57 3.56 3.41
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 6 0 0 6 89 3.72 0.96 3.90 3.90 3.69 3.61 3.47
6. Felt free to ask questions 6 0 0 6 89 3.72 0.96 3.69 3.69 3.37 3.06 3.25
7. Dealt effectively with questions 6 0 6 11 78 3.56 1.04 3.74 3.74 3.34 3.20 3.15
8. Available during office hours 7 0 0 20 73 3.53 1.06 3.63 3.63 3.56 3.25 3.35
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 0 12 88 3.88 0.33 3.89 3.89 3.54 3.28 3.17
Required Expected
Classification Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq(%) Major Freq(%)
--
Freshman 6 Yes 0
--
A+ 0
--
Accountancy 6
Sophomore 50 No 100 A 25 Decision Sciences 6
Junior 33 A- 0 Economics 28
Senior 11 B+ 13 Finance 17
Graduate 0 B 31 Human Resources 0
B- 6 M&O 44
Sex Freq(%) C+ 0 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 0
-
Female 35
C
C-
19
6
MIS
Marketing
0
0
Male 65 D+ 0 Supply Chain 0
D 0 Outside FSB 0
D- O
F 0

~-. ~~ - ~oo7 Spring Semester 2007
RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
~ ~
Economlcs Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section 07
-----------------------------------------------------------,C~~i~z~e7:~36~----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1 (%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
--- --- --- --- ---
A. Made course a positive learning experience 0 6 18 35 41 3.12 0.91 3.18 3.18 3.16 3.13 3.15
B. Attended class 0 0 0 17 83 3.83 0.38 3.79 3.79 3.74 3.70 3.67
C. Prepared for class 3 0 14 58 25 3.03 0.81 3.04 3.04 3.02 3.02 3.03
D. Was actively engaged 0 0 14 58 28 3.14 0.64 3.15 3.15 2.97 3.01 3.01
E. Stayed up-to-date in course work 3 0 11 31 56 3.36 0.90 3.35 3.35 3.14 3.14 3.15
F. Sought help when needed 0 12 27 39 21 2.70 0.95 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.83
1. High academic standards 0 0 0 42 58 3.58 0.50 3.57 3.57 3.46 3.45 3.39
2. Challenged to think 0 0 0 25 75 3.75 0.44 3.69 3.69 3.46 3.46 3.32
3. Instructor well-prepared 0 0 0 14 86 3.86 0.35 3.80 3.80 3.55 3.59 3.48
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging 0 0 3 22 75 3.72 0.51 3.75 3.75 3.64 3.60 3.46
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 0 0 0 6 94 3.94 0.23 3.95 3.95 3.60 3.62 .3.52
6. Felt free to ask questions 0 3 6 28 64 3.53 0.74 3.61 3.61 3.07 3.15 3.35
7. Dealt effectively with questions 0 0 3 25 72 3.69 0.52 3.66 3.66 3.29 3.31 3.27
8. Available during office hours 0 0 0 33 67 3.67 0.48 3.69 3.69 3.31 3.36 3.44
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 0 12 88 3.88 0.33 3.84 3.84 3.39 3.41 3.30
10.Departmental/Instructor Question 3 3 0 35 59 3.44 0.89 3.56 3.56 3.44 3.43
11.Departmental/Instructor Question 3 3 24 32 38 3.00 1.02 3.24 3.24 3.20 3.20
12.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 6 14 54 26 3.00 0.80 3.02 3.02 2.94 2.94
13.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 17 37 40 6 2.34 0.84 2.39 2.39 2.49 2.49
14.Departmental/Instructor Question 3 9 18 56 15 2.71 0.94 2.90 2.90 2.72 2.72
15.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 6 24 44 26 2.91 0.87 3.09 3.09 2.98 2.97
Required Expected
Classification Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq (%) Major Freq (%)
--- -- --
Freshman 3 Yes 19 A+ 0 Accountancy 14
Sophomore 69 No 81 A 8 Decision Sciences 0
Junior 23 A- 14 Economics 19
Senior 3 B+ 31 Finance 11
Graduate 3 B 22 Human Resources 0
B- 11 M&O 3
Sex Freq (%) C+ 6 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 6
- C 6 MIS 3
Female 33 C- 3 Marketing 14
Male 67 0+ 0 Supply Chain 0
D 0 Outside FSB 31
D- O
F 0

RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
Spring Semester 2007
~ -

'J!!a;~ ~ ~()07
~...,.
RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
Spring Semester 2007
Economics Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section 14
Class Size:31
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
--- --- --- --- ---
A. Made course a positive learning experience 0 0 6 65 29 3.23 0.56 3.18 3.18 3.16 3.13 3.15
B. Attended class 0 0 3 16 81 3.77 0.50 3.79 3.79 3.74 3.70 3.67
C. Prepared for class 0 0 13 55 32 3.19 0.65 3.04 3.04 3.02 3.02 3.03
D. Was actively engaged 0 0 16 52 32 3.16 0.69 3.15 3.15 2.97 3.01 3.01
E. Stayed up·to-date in course work a a 3 55 42 3.39 0.56 3.35 3.35 3.14 3.14 3.15
F. Sought help when needed 0 15 50 19 15 2.35 0.94 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.83
1. High academic standards a 0 0 39 61 3.61 0.50 3.57 3.57 3.46 3.45 3.39
2. Challenged to think a a 0 26 74 3.74 0.44 3.69 3.69 3.46 3.46 3.32
3. Instructor well-prepared 0 0 0 19 81 3.81 0.40 3.80 3.80 3.55 3.59 3.48
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging a 0 0 19 81 3.81 0.40 3.75 3.75 3.64 3.60 3.46
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 0 0 0 3 97 3.97 0.18 3.95 3.95 3.60 3.62 3.52
6. Felt free to ask questions 0 0 10 19 71 3.61 0.67 3.61 3.61 3.07 3.15 3.35
7. Dealt effectively with questions a 0 0 23 77 3.77 0.43 3.66 3.66 3.29 3.31 3.27
8. Available during office hours 0 0 10 10 81 3.71 0.64 3.69 3.69 3.31 3.36 3.44
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 0 20 80 3.80 0.41 3.84 3.84 3.39 3.41 3.30
10.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 0 0 27 73 3.73 0.45 3.56 3.56 3.44 3.43
11.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 0 12 58 31 3.19 0.63 3.24 3.24 3.20 3.20
12.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 4 19 50 27 3.00 0.80 3.02 3.02 2.94 2.94
13.Departmental/Instructor Question 4 4 50 27 15 2.46 0.95 2.39 2.39 2.4,9 2.49
14.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 4 19 46 31 3.04 0.82 2.90 2.90 2.72 2.72
15.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 0 19 50 31 3.12 0.71 3.09 3.09 2.98 2.97
Required Expected
Classification Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq(%) Major Freq(%)
--- --- --- -
Freshman 6 Yes 14 A+ 0 Accountancy 13
Sophomore 81 No 86 A 4 Decision Sciences a
Junior 13 A- 7 Economics 10
Senior 0 B+ 11 Finance 19
Graduate 0 B 43 Human Resources 0
B- 25 M&O 3
Sex Freq(%) C+ 4 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 3
- C 7 MIS a
Female 21 C- O Marketing 13
Male 79 D+ 0 Supply Chain 0
D 0 Outside FSB 39
D- O
F a

RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
Spring Semester 2007
~ &p ~07 Economics Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section 13
Class Size:34
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
----------
A. Made course a positive learning experience 0 3 6 41 50 3.38 0.74 3.18 3.18 3.16 3.13 3.15
B. Attended class 0 0 0 29 71 3.71 0.46 3.79 3.79 3.74 3.70 3.67
C. Prepared for class 0 3 29 38 29 2.94 0.85 3.04 3.04 3.02 3.02 3.03
D. Was actively engaged 0 0 12 47 41 3.29 0.68 3.15 3.15 2.97 3.01 3.01
E. Stayed up-to-date in course work 0 3 9 35 53 3.38 0.78 3.35 3.35 3.14 3.14 3.15
F. Sought help when needed 3 16 35 10 35 2.58 1.23 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.83
1. High academic standards 0 0 3 29 68 3.65 0.54 3.57 3.57 3.46 3.45 3.39
2. Challenged to think 0 0 0 24 76 3.76 0.43 3.69 3.69 3.46 3.46 3.32
3. Instructor well-prepared 0 0 0 15 85 3.85 0.36 3.80 3.80 3.55 3.59 3.48
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging 0 0 0 21 79 3.79 0.41 3.75 3.75 3.64 3.60 3.46
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 0 0 0 3 97 3.97 0.17 3.95 3.95 3.60 3.62 3.52
6. Felt free to ask questions 0 0 3 29 68 3.65 0.54 3.61 3.61 3.07 3.15 3.35
7. Dealt effectively with questions 0 0 3 24 74 3.71 0.52 3.66 3.66 3.29 3.31 3.27
8. Available during office hours 0 0 0 31 69 3.69 0.47 3.69 3.69 3.31 3.36 3.44
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 0 6 94 3.94 0.24 3.84 3.84 3.39 3.41 3.30
10.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 0 0 18 82 3.82 0.39 3.56 3.56 3.44 3.43
11 .Departmental/Instructor Question 0 3 3 36 58 3.48 0.71 3.24 3.24 3.20 3.20
12.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 0 21 36 42 3.21 0.78 3.02 3.02 2.94 2.94
13.Departmental/Instructor Question 3 3 21 55 18 2.82 0.88 2.39 2.39 2.49 2.49
14.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 3 18 36 42 3.18 0.85 2.90 2.90 2.72 2.72
15.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 0 3 48 48 3.45 0.56 3.09 3.09 2.98 2.97
Required Expected
Classification Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq(%) Major Freq (%)
- -- -- -
Freshman 0 Yes 23 A+ 0 Accountancy 26
Sophomore 88 No 77 A 3 Decision Sciences 0
Junior 6 A- 19 Economics 9
Senior 6 B+ 16 Finance 24
Graduate 0 B 53 Human Resources 0
B- 3 M&O 3
Sex Freq (%) C+ 6 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 0
C 0 MIS 3
Female 21 C- O Marketing 18
Male 79 D+ 0 Supply Chain 3
D 0 Outside FSB 15
D- O
F 0

~ -¥- ,;..01)1RICHARD
T. FARMER
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE
Spring Semester 2007
EVALUATION
Economics Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section 04
Class SHe: 30
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
----------
A. Made course a positive learning experience 0 0 29 49 23 2.94 0.73 3.18 3.18 3.16 3.13 3.15
B. Attended class 0 0 0 11 89 3.89 0.32 3.79 3.79 3.74 3.70 3.67
C. Prepared for class 0 3 29 46 23 2.89 0.80 3.04 3.04 3.02 3.02 3.03
D. Was actively engaged 0 0 26 46 29 3.03 0.75 3.15 3.15 2.97 3.01 3.01
E. Stayed up-to-date in course work 0 0 9 46 46 3.37 0.65 3.35 3.35 3.14 3.14 3.15
F. Sought help when needed 0 13 34 25 28 2.69 1.03 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.83
1. High academic standards 0 0 3 40 57 3.54 0.56 3.57 3.57 3.46 3.45 3.39
2. Challenged to think 0 0 3 37 60 3.57 0.56 3.69 3.69 3.46 3.46 3.32
3. Instructor well-prepared 0 0 3 31 66 3.63 0.55 3.80 3.80 3.55 3.59 3.48
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging 0 0 0 23 77 3.77 0.43 3.75 3.75 3.64 3.60 3.46
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 0 0 0 14 86 3.86 0.36 3.95 3.95 3.60 3.62 3.52
6. Felt free to ask questions 0 0 6 32 62 3.56 0.61 3.61 3.61 3.07 3.15 3.35
7. Dealt effectively with questions 0 0 3 40 57 3.54 0.56 3.66 3.66 3.29 3.31 3.27
8. Available during office hours 0 0 12 28 60 3.48 0.71 3.69 3.69 3.31 3.36 3.44
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 3 15 82 3.79 0.48 3.84 3.84 3.39 3.41 3.30
10.Departmental/Instructor Question 6 0 0 50 44 3.25 1.00 3.56 3.56 3.44 3.43
11.Departmental/Instructor Question 6 0 13 38 44 3.13 1.09 3.24 3.24 3.20 3.20
12.Departmental/Instructor Question 6 0 19 63 13 2.75 0.93 3.02 3.02 2.94 2.94
13.Departmental/Instructor Question 6 19 31 44 0 2.13 0.96 2.39 2.39 2.49 2.49
14.Departmental/Instructor Question 6 13 25 44 13 2.44 1.09 2.90 2.90 2.72 2.72
15.DepartmentalfInstructor Question 6 6 31 31 25 2.63 1.15 3.09 3.09 2.98 2.97
Required Expected
Classification Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq(%) Major Freq(%)
-- -- -- -
Freshman 14 Yes 19 A+ 0 Accountancy 6
Sophomore 77 No 81 A 6 Decision Sciences 0
Junior 9 A- 14 Economics 29
Senior 0 B+ 11 Finance 20
Graduate 0 B 20 Human Resources 0
B- 17 M&O 3
Sex Freq(%) C+ 11 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 0
C 11 MIS 0
Female 49 C- 6 Marketing 20
Male 51 D+ 3 Supply Chain 0
D 0 Outside FSB 23
D- O
F 0

~-~~0()7
RICHARD T. FARMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR/COURSE EVALUATION
Spring Semester 2007
Economics Department
Instructor 444
Course 202 Section 09
:lass Sue: 3
Scale: 4=Strongly Agree, ... , O=Strongly Disagree
Instructor Department/Division
--
Response Frequencies(%) Class Course Overall Course Dept. Div.
Item 0(%) 1 (%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) Mean S.D. Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
----------
A. Made course a positive learning experience 3 0 6 64 27 3.12 0.78 3.18 3.18 3.16 3.13 3.15
B. Attended class 3 0 0 12 85 3.76 0.74 3.79 3.79 3.74 3.70 3.67
C. Prepared for class 3 0 15 65 18 2.94 0.78 3.04 3.04 3.02 3.02 3.03
D. Was actively engaged 3 0 24 38 35 3.03 0.94 3.15 3.15 2.97 3.01 3.01
E. Stayed up-to-date in course work 3 3 15 38 41 3.12 0.98 3.35 3.35 3.14 3.14 3.15
F. Sought help when needed 3 6 30 42 18 2.67 0.96 2.64 2.64 2.64 2.65 2.83
1. High academic standards 0 0 3 44 53 3.50 0.56 3.57 3.57 3.46 3.45 3.39
2. Challenged to think 0 0 0 32 68 3.68 0.47 3.69 3.69 3.46 3.46 3.32
3. Instructor well-prepared 0 0 0 15 85 3.85 0.36 3.80 3.80 3.55 3.59 3.48
4. Exams covered concepts and were challenging 0 0 0 32 68 3.68 0.47 3.75 3.75 3.64 3.60 3.46
5. Instructor showed enthusiasm 0 0 0 6 94 3.94 0.24 3.95 3.95 3.60 3.62 3.52
6. Felt free to ask questions 0 0 3 24 74 3.71 0.52 3.61 3.61 3.07 3.15 3.35·
7. Dealt effectively with questions 0 0 0 29 71 3.71 0.46 3.66 3.66 3.29 3.31 3.27
8. Available during office hours 0 0 0 17 83 3.83 0.38 3.69 3.69 3.31 3.36 3.44
9. Overall rating of instructor 0 0 0 6 94 3.94 0.25 3.84 3.84 3.39 3.41 3.30
-1-0-'-Depal'-tmen~al-/-I-nst-['u.c-toI'---Quest-iQl~3--Q------4------4-7-----4-f-----------3-.-@4-G.83------B.56--3.56---3.44--3.4B
11 .Departmental/Instructor Question 3 0 13 50 34 3.13 0.87 3.24 3.24 3.20 3.20
12.Departmental/lnstructor Question 0 3 19 50 28 3.03 0.78 3.02 3.02 2.94 2.94
13.Departmental/Instructor Question 3 19 38 31 9 2.25 0.98 2.39 2.39 2.49 2.49
14.Departmental/Instructor Question 0 3 13 69 16 2.97 0.65 2.90 2.90 2.72 2.72
15.Departmental/Instructor Question 3 0 16 56 25 3.00 0.84 3.09 3.09 2.98 2.97
Required Expected
Classification Freq(%) For Minor Freq(%) Grade Freq(%) Major Freq(%)
-- -- --
Freshman 0 Yes 10 A+ 0 Accountancy 9
Sophomore 91 No 90 A 6 Decision Sciences 0
Junior 9 A- 22 Economics 29
Senior 0 B+ 19 Finance 29
Graduate 0 B 28 Human Resources 0
B- 19 M&O 6
Sex Freq (%) C+ 0 Interdisc Bus. Mgt. 0
C 3 MIS 3
Female 33 C- 3 Marketing 9
Male 67 D+ 0 Supply Chain 3
D 0 Outside FSB 12
D- O
F 0

SEMESTER: FALL 2010
INSTRUCTOR INFORMATION
NAME: Barton,Jared P
COLLEGE: Humanities & Social Sciences
DEPT: Economics
COURSE: ECON 104
SECTION: 001
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Am't of effort put into the course: 1 very low 5=very high
Times abscent from cIs: 1=0-1 2=2-3 3=4-5 4=6-7 5=8 or more
Expected Grades: l=F 2=D 3=C 4=B 5=A
Class Level: l=Fresh 2=Soph 3=Jr 4=Sr 5=Grad
Ovr'll GPA: l=below 2.0 2=2-2.5 3=2.51-3.0 4=3.01-3.5 5=3.51-4
Course is: 5=required 4=elective 3=gen ed 2=Other
ITEMS
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY
STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL RATING SYSTEM REPORT
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THIS CLASS: 89 COMPLETED FORMS: 64
(1)
D
PERCENTAGES
(2) (3) (4) (5)
S
(6)
NA AREA
RESPONSE KEY
January 0, 2011
2043330
S. STRONGLY AGREE. · (
· (
· ( )
D.
NA
.STRONGLY DISAGREE.
.NOT APPLICABLE
· (,)
· (,)
· ( )
MEAN
1
o
31
1
7
1
2
3
19
MEDIAN
2 3
1. Course requirements and 0.0 0.0 1.6 23.8 74.6 0.0 CLASS 4.73 5.0 0.48
expectations were clear 1.1 2.0 6.1 22.3 68.5 0.0 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.55 5.0 0.79
0.8 1.8 6.3 21.1 69.9 0.0 COL/SCHL/INST 4.57 5.0 0.76
1.3 2.4 7.4 22.2 66.7 0.0 UNIVERSITY 4.51 5.0 0.83
2. The course was well
organized
0.0
1.7
1.3
1.9
0.0
3.3
2.7
3.3
0.0
8.3
8.8
9.8
34.4
24.6
22.7
23.4
65.6
62.2
64.5
61. 6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
--------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
3. The instructor helped me to 0.0 1.6 3.1 21.9 73.4 0.0 CLASS 4.67 5.0 0.62
better understand the 2.2 4.5 11.1 23.5 58.5 0.1 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.32 5.0 0.99
course material 1.4 3.1 9.2 22.3 63.8 0.2 COL/SCHL/INST 4.44 5.0 0.88
1.8 3.6 10.1 23.1 61.1 0.3 UNIVERSITY 4.39 5.0 0.93
4. Feedback (comments and 0.0 1.6 9.4 29.7 59.4 0.0 CLASS 4.47 5.0 0.73
suggestions written on 3.5 5.6 14.2 24.2 47.7 4.7 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.12 5.0 1.10
papers, solutions provided, 1.8 3.9 10.8 22.0 58.6 2.9 COL/SCHL/INST 4.36 5.0 0.96
class disc, etc)was helpful 2.3 4.3 10.9 21. 8 55.4 5.2 UNIVERSITY 4.31 5.0 1. 00
---------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
5. The instructor showed 0.0 0.0 3.1 9.4 87.5 0.0 CLASS 4.84 5.0 0.44
respect for students 1.1 2.4 5.7 15.1 75.6 0.0 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.62 5.0 0.80
0.8 1.1 3.4 12.3 82.4 0.1 COL/SCHL/INST 4.74 5.0 0.65
0.9 1.3 3.9 13.3 80.5 0.1 UNIVERSITY 4.71 5.0 0.69
6. The instructor was accessible
in person or
electronically
7. The course grading policy
was clear
8. Graded work reflected what
was covered in the course
0.0
1.7
0.7
1.0
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.5
0.0
1.1
0.9
1.2
0.0
2.2
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.4
2.7
1.6
2.5
2.0
2.4
0.0
7.0
5.1
5.8
4.8
7.4
7.4
7.8
3.1
8.2
7.0
7.4
6.3
17.9
16.4
17.0
14.3
20.2
20.6
20.4
20.3
20.6
19.9
19.6
93.8
69.4
75.1
72.4
77.8
69.7
68.3
66.7
75.0
66.8
69.3
65.1
0.0
1.8
1.2
2.1
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.9
0.0
0.7
0.9
4.3
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
9. The assignments helped me
0.0 1.6 4.7 21.9 70.3 l.6 CLASS
4.63
5.0 0.66
64
learn the material
2.7 3.7 10.2 22.1 55.8 5.5 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.32
5.0 1. 01 2,076
1.5 3.4 10.2 23.0 59.7 2.2 COL/SCHL/INST 4.39
5.0 0.92 26,901
1.8 3.6 10.1 22.6 58.0 3.9 UNIVERSITY
4.37
5.0 0.95 58,923
---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- -------
10. The textbook and/or assigne 0.0 1.6 4.8 38.7 54.8 0.0 CLASS 4.47 5.0 0.67 62
readings helped me 2.9 4.8 13.2 23.0 53.2 2.9 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.22 5.0 l. 05 2,084
understand the material 2.4 4.3 11. 9 23.6 55.4 2.4 COL/SCHL/INST 4.28 5.0 l. 00 26,882
3,0 4.5 12.3 23.7 51. 7 4.8 UNIVERSITY 4.22 5.0 1. 05 58,969
4.66
4.42
4.46
4.40
4.94
4.54
4.66
4.61
4.65
4.56
4.53
4.50
4.69
4.51
4.56
4.51
5
35
4
1
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
15
7
19
20
10
1
S.D
0.47
0.90
0.86
0.93
0.25
0.85
0.71
0.76
0.78
0.78
0.82
0.86
0.62
0.84
0.78
0.84
4
29
6
25
2
24
59
5
17
1
14
o
23
o
#
Resp.
63
2,099
27,175
59,642
64
2,094
27,083
59,452
64
2,092
27,117
59,536
64
2,089
27,083
59,364
64
2,087
27,054
59,381
64
2,100
27,020
59,240
63
2,105
27,117
59,511
64
2,088
26,976
59,133

SEMESTER: FALL 2010 GEORGE MASON IVERSITY
STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL ~TING SYSTEM REPORT
STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THIS CLASS: 89 COMPLETED FORMS: 64
INSTRUCTOR INFORMATION
RESPONSE KEY
January 20, 2011
72043330
;::~~--~~~~~l;~:;i-i::::;-::::::::------------------------------------------------------------;--:-:---';;;N;"~;;.;.;--:-:il!------
SECTION: 001 D. .STRONGLY DISAGREE. . (~)
NA .. NOT APPLICABLE. . (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- -------
ITEMS
(1)
D
PERCENTAGES
(2) (3) (4) (5)
S
(6)
NA AREA MEAN MEDIAN
11. Assignments and exams were 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.2 82.8 0.0 CLASS 4.83 5.0 0.38
returned in a reasonable 0.3 1.0 4.0 17.2 76.7 0.9 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.70 5.0 0.62
amount of time 1.2 2.0 6.7 20.3 68.5 1.3 COL/SCHL/INST 4.55 5.0 0.81
1.5 2.2 7.0 19.4 63.7 6.2 UNIVERSITY 4.51 5.0 0.86
12. The instructor covered the
important aspects of the
course
13. The instructor made the
class intellectually
stimulating
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.0
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.6
6.1
5.3
6.2
23.4
21. 0
18.7
20.2
75.0
71.1
74.0
70.6
0.0 0.0 4.7 14.1 81. 3
2.9 5.1 9.0 19.0 64.0
2.4 3.7 9.4 20.6 63.8
2.9 4.2 10.4 21.4 60.8
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
14. The insltr encouraged the 0.0 0.0 1.6 19.0 79.4 0.0 CLASS 4.78 5.0 0.46
students to be actively 3.2 4.6 12.2 21.6 56.8 1.6 DEPT/PROGRAM 4.26 5.0 1. 05
involved in material throug 1.3 2.5 7.8 19.1 69.0 0.4 COL/SCHL/INST 4.53 5.0 0.84
disc, assigl & other activ 1.7 3.0 ·8.7 19.7 66.5 0.4 UNIVERSITY 4.47 5.0 0.90
---------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
ITEMS
15. My overall rating of the
teaching
16. My overall rating of this
course
(1)
POOR
0.0
2.9
1.5
2.0
1.6
2.4
1.9
2.6
OVERALL RATING OF INS
PERCENTAGES
(2) (3) (4)
OK
RUCTION AND COURSE
(5)
EX'L
0.0 4.8 19.0 76.2
3.4 11.9 22.1 59.7
2.5 9.8 22.8 63.4
3.0 10.6 23.4 61. 0
1.6 9.5 46.0 41. 3
3.9 15.9 27.7 50.1
3.5 15.3 28.6 50.7
4.1 15.7 27.8 49.7
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
(6)
NA AREA
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
Median is the middlemost of the ranked scores. S.D (Standard De iation) is a measure of the dispersion of scores from the
mean. For example, if all students agree that Prof. X is excel1 ntly prepared, the mean would be 5, and the standard
deviation would be o. NA responses and non-respondents are repr sented in percentages, but not in other calculations.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
CLASS
DEPT/PROGRAM
COL/SCHL/INST
UNIVERSITY
4.73
4.61
4.65
4.58
4.77
4.36
4.40
4.33
MEAN
4.71
4.32
4.44
4.38
4.24
4.19
4.23
4.18
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
MEDIAN
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
S.D
0.47
0.69
0.69
0.76
0.52
1. 03
0.97
1. 02
S.D
0.55
1. 00
0.88
0.93
0.81
1. 00
0.96
1. 01
#
Resp.
64
2,088
26,902
58,958
64
2,096
27,108
59,474
64
2,091
27,040
59,356
63
2,079
26,992
59,234
#
Resp.
63
2,068
26,788
58,754
63
2,061
26,651
58,371
,