University of Minnesota
University Relations
http://www.umn.edu/urelate
612-624-6868
myU OneStop


OMS header image

User Guide

Using OMS Student Evaluation of Teaching Services


History

The Student Evaluation of Teaching Form was first introduced in Fall 1993 and continued being administered at the University of Minnesota through Fall Semester 2007. Starting in Fall 2003, departments were provided an option to administered the SET online. Since Spring 2008, the new Student Rating of Teaching (SRT) has been administered. For historical purposes, the following sections describe the various forms of the SET as well as other relevant information and statistics.

Questionnaire Forms

OMS offers four standard questionnaire forms that include the evaluation and student background items required by University policy for evaluation of at least one section of each course taught during a given year.

The five required evaluation items are:

  1. How would you rate the instructor's overall teaching ability?
  2. How would you rate the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter?
  3. How would you rate the instructor's respect and concern for students?
  4. How would you rate the physical environment in which you take this class, especially the classroom facilities, including your ability to see, hear, concentrate, and participate?
  5. How much would you say you learned in this course?

The student background items are:

  • Major
  • Grade-point average
  • Course in or not in major
  • Required/elective status
  • Year in school
  • Age
  • Gender
  • Ethnic background
  • Course delivery method

Student Release

  • The instructor provided a (Minimally/Moderately/Highly) structured learning environment.
  • The instructor emphasized:
    • Covering fewer course topics in depth
    • Balancing breadth and depth in course topics covered
    • Covering many course topics rather than a few
  • The course guide and course syllabus accurately described the learning activities that occurred during the term
  • Instructor stimulated me to think critically about the course material
  • Instructor set high expectations for student performance in the course
  • Instructor used a variety of teaching and learning strategies in the course
  • Instructor provided me with timely and helpful feedback about my performance
  • In-class learning activities contributed to my learning
  • I attended almost all the class sessions during the term
  • I would take another course with this instructor

FORM C is a brief form that contains the required evaluation and student background items, response spaces for six additional items to be specified by the instructor and space for written comments.

FORM D contains the same content as Form C plus 10 additional rated items and a 12-item checklist on aspects of the course to be used for course improvement.

Ten Rating Items on FORM D

  • Instructor's clarity in presenting or discussing course material
  • Instructor's rapport with you as a student
  • Instructor's use of technology to enhance your learning experience in the course
  • Instructor's success in getting you to think
  • Instructor's attention to what helps you learn
  • Instructor's respect for student's individual differences
  • Overall quality of text(s) and handouts
  • Helpfulness of feedback given toyou about your performance
  • Degree to which exams and quizzes (or other evaluation procedures)
  • Instructor's encouragement of students to express their views

FORM E has the same content as Form C, but it has 48, rather than 6, response spaces for additional items. This form is intended for use with a separate questionnaire (provided by the instructor or the department) that presents the additional items.

Top


Processing SET Questionnaires

OMS was responsible for scoring all questionnaires, whether administered on paper or online, that contain the required evaluation and student background items, either standard or custom forms, without charge.

Reports

CLASS SUMMARIES. Two reports of questionnaire results were routinely provided at no charge:

  • The class summary for the instructor which contained frequencies and percentages of responses to all items, and means, medians, and standard deviations for all evaluation ratings. Bar diagrams showed the results graphically.
  • The class summary for the department which contained the same information as the instructor's summary but only for the required evaluation and student background items. With instructor approval, the completed class summary could be provided to the department in place of the abbreviated summary.

SUB-GROUP REPORTS. A sub-group report presented the responses to each evaluation item tabulated for each subgroup defined by the responses to a given student background item. Seven sub-group reports were available for each of the student background items except "Major". Sub-group reports needed to be specifically requested. Individual sub-group reports for a single class cost $4.50 each.

COMPOSITE REPORTS. Composite reports combined results for more than one class. Four types of composite reports were available. Each report costs $7.50, with an additional $10.00 charge for data retrieval for department sub-group reports requested after initial processing and reporting is complete.

  1. Department summaries present, in the same format as the individual class summary, combined results for a specified group of classes, e.g., all the classes in one department for a given quarter.
  2. Department sub-group reports were similar to individual sub-group reports but included combined results for a group of classes.
  3. The department listing provided, for each of the four instructional evaluation items (Items 1, 2, 3, 5), a summary of results (mean, median, S.D., percentage distributions) for each of the instructors in a specified group.
  4. The instructor evaluation history provided for each of the four instructional evaluation items (Items 1, 2, 3, 5) a summary of results (mean, median, S.D., percentage distributions) over a specified period, for a given instructor.

Top