Teaching quality KIMEP-wide

Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research Teaching quality KIMEP-wide Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 REPORT Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research KIMEP, 2011

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Regular FTES * 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 7 (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: 2, 4.44 and 4.43 correspondingly. These are the traditional points of students appreciation since 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 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 2007-2011 KIMEP-wide: Overall level of students satisfaction has risen from 4.27 in 2007 to 4.37 in 2011 with the period of stagnation from 2008 till 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 2011 Econ, Fin, MM and PA face changeable growth of teaching evaluations with peak results in 2008 or 2009; their 2011 grades are higher than 2007 ones OMIS, SGE and SL grades peaked in 2010 and have since remained at the same level or slowly declined Acc and Journ underwent several increases and decreases of student satisfaction; their 2011 grades are lower than 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, 2011 ABBREVIATIONS Acc AY BCB CISC CSS Econ Fin FTES Journ KSA LC LCD MM OMIS PA PS&IR QAIR SGE SL SQL VPAA Area of Accounting, Bang College of Business Academic year Bang College of Business Computer and Information Systems Center College of Social Sciences Department of Economics, College of Social Sciences Area of Finance, Bang College of Business Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey Department of International Journalism and Mass Communications, College of Social Sciences KIMEP Students Association Language Center Liquid Crystal Display Area of Management and Marketing, Bang College of Business Area of Operations Management and Information Systems, Bang College of Business Department of Public Administration, College of Social Sciences Department of Political Science and International Relations, College of Social Sciences Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research School of General Education School of Law Structured Query Language Vice President of Academic Affairs Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 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, 2007-2011 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 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 2

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 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 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, website 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 2010, Intranet reports include total quality indexes calculated as a product of the average faculty grade (quality index 1 ) 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 BCB CSS Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE SL KIMEP Data # 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) - 7 (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 (7-4.6), 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. Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 3

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 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 ( 2007). Following exceptions are presented by 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 source: table A, p.3 SGE 27.56% SL 2.89% BCB 47.11% Graph 2. CSS responses composition by department source: table A, p.3 PA 34.80% Econ 30.54% LC 8.14% CSS 14.30% PS&IR 21.32% IJMC 13.34% Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 4

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 3. Overall evaluation source: att. 2, table 1 5.0 3.5 7 4 4.43 4.32 4.35 4.37 BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP Graph 4. Distribution of ratings by units source: att. 2, table 2 100% 60.81 67.08 73.04 65.6 72.38 64.36 5 - strongly agree 4 - agree 3 - neutral 0% 20.72 18.84 17.24 18.93 15.91 14.83 BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP 2 - disagree 1 - strongly disagree Graph 5. Evaluation in sections Faculty, Class sessions and Course source: att. 2, table 1 BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP 5.0 3.5 4.29 7 4 7 8 4.6 4.43 4.46 4.36 4.41 4.36 4.43 4.49 4.34 4.36 4.41 4.37 4.39 Faculty Class sessions Course Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 5

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 6. Evaluation in individual questions, section Faculty source: att. 2, table 1 KIMEP 4.65 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 SL BCB Q5 Q6 Q7 0 SGE CSS LC 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 SL KIMEP 4.60 BCB Q8 Q9 Q10 SL KIMEP 4.63 BCB Q11 Q12 Q13 4.30 4.25 SGE CSS SGE CSS LC LC Graph 9. Evaluation in questions 14. I would recommend this course and 15. I would recommend this faculty member source: att. 2, table 1 BCB CSS LC SGE SL KIMEP 5.0 3.5 4.33 4.4 4 3 9 4.34 4.37 4.26 4.25 4.3 4.31 Recommend this course Recommend this faculty member Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 6

Graph 10. Overall evaluations of CSS departments source: att. 2, table 1 5.0 3.5 4.31 4.43 Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Econ Journ PS&IR PA Graph 11. Evaluation of CSS departments in individual questions source: att. 2, table 1 5.0 4.61 Econ Journ PS&IR PA 4.43 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Faculty Class sessions Course Summary questions Comparison of FTES results, 2007 2011 Purpose: to identify general tendencies in teaching quality dynamics since 2007 (last revision of questionnaire). Results KIMEP-wide overall satisfaction with teaching quality has increased from 4.27 in 2007 to 4.37 in 2011 with the period of stagnation ( 2008-2010), 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 2008 and, despite following increases, hasn t yet reached the level of 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 2011 grades reached the highest levels since 2007. Growth trajectories are relatively smooth with no significant decreases. - Changeable growth Econ, Fin, MM and PA: 2011 grades are higher than 2007 ones. The peak performance is demonstrated in 2008 or 2009. Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 7

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 - Stalled growth OMIS, SGE and SL: grades reached the peak by 2010 and since then have remained at the same level (SL) or slowly declined (OMIS, SGE). - Lowering evaluations Acc and Journ: by 2011 grades became lower than in 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). 2011 grades are higher than 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 s 2008-09 and the bottom ones - between 2009 2010. 2011 grades are close to 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. 2011 grades are close to 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 2007 to 0.32 points in 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 2007 to 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 2007 to 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. Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 8

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 - Summary questions : in 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. 2011 satisfaction with other aspects is close to the 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 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. Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 9

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 12. KIMEP-wide teaching quality: overall grade dynamics, F2007-S2011 source: att. 3, table 1 4.4 4.37 4.35 4.32 4.31 4.32 4.3 4.27 4.28 F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011 Graph 13. KIMEP-wide teaching quality: grade dynamics by questions, F2007-S2011 source: att. 3, table 1 4.6 Faculty section Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Class session section Q8 Q9 Q10 4.2 Course section Summary questions Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 4.2 4.2 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 10

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 14. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with steady growth source: att. 3, table 2 4.8 LC PS&IR Graph 15. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with changeable growth source: att. 3, table 2 4.8 Econ Fin MM PA Graph 16. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with stalled growth source: att. 3, table 2 4.8 OMIS SGE SL Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 11

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 17. Teaching quality F2007-S2011: units with lowering evaluations source: att. 3, table 2 4.8 Acc Journ Graph 18. Teaching quality dynamics by faculty ranks, 2007 2011 source: att. 3, table 3 4.6 4.14 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 0 4.45 1 2 4.25 4.40 '07 '08 '08 '09 '09 '10 '10 '11 '07 '08 '08 '09 '09 '10 '10 '11 '07 '08 '08 '09 '09 '10 '10 '11 Professors Lecturers Instructors Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 12

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 19. Professorial teaching quality dynamics, 2007 2011 source: att. 3, table 3 Faculty section Class session section Course section Summary questions 4.6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 3.8 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 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 13

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 20. Lecturers teaching quality dynamics, 2007 2011 source: att. 3, table 3 Faculty section Class session section Course section Summary questions 4.6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 4.1 4.1 4.1 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 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 14

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Graph 21. Instructors teaching quality dynamics, 2007 2011 source: att. 3, table 3 Faculty section Class session section Course section Summary questions 4.7 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 4.6 Q8 Q9 Q10 4.6 Q11 Q12 Q13 4.6 Q14 Q15 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 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 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 15

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Attachment 1 QUESIONNAIRE Dear Student, We kindly invite you to take part in regular Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey 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 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 Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree 5 4 3 2 1 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! Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 16

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Attachment 2 FTES RESULTS: TABLES Table 1. Assessment of KIMEP units Units BCB CSS Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE SL KIMEP Survey results Section Faculty AVG 4.47 7 4.49 4.49 4.75 7 4.67 2 4.65 2 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 6 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 5 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 3 2 4.45 4.66 4.30 7 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 0 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 1 4.39 3 4.30 2 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 9 4.38 4 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 7 4.34 4 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 5 4.40 5 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 9. Sessions relate materials to local environment AVG 4.34 4.43 4.30 4.47 4.61 4.40 7 4.39 7 4.39 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 0 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 AVG 4.36 4.46 4.34 4.46 4.63 4.45 7 4.41 8 4.41 Overall section grade StDev 0.99 0.96 1.04 1.04 0.70 0.98 0.79 1.02 0.78 0.98 Section Course 11. Course requirements are made clear at the AVG 4.39 4.45 4.33 4.43 4.61 4.47 9 4.43 2 4.43 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 5 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 8 4.34 0 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 AVG 4.36 4.43 4.29 4.40 4.60 4.46 4.60 4.37 4.49 4.39 Overall section grade 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 4.26 0 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 9 4.38 3 4.30 9 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 7 4.35 4 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 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 17

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Table 2. Distribution of rating by units Units BCB CSS Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE SL KIMEP Rating 5 Strongly Agree 4 Agree 3 Neutral 2 Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree Total # 21844 7441 4092 1271 1272 35920 % 60.81 20.72 11.39 3.54 3.54 100 # 7315 2055 833 317 385 10905 % 67.08 18.84 7.64 2.91 3.53 100 # 2063 674 304 139 150 3330 % 61.95 20.24 9.13 4.17 100 # 999 271 67 42 76 1455 % 68.66 18.63 4.6 2.89 5.22 100 # 1714 386 158 56 11 2325 % 73.72 16.6 6.8 2.41 0.47 100 # 2539 724 304 80 148 3795 % 66.9 19.08 8.01 2.11 3.9 100 # 4536 988 461 154 71 6210 % 73.04 15.91 7.42 2.48 1.14 100 # 13786 3624 1829 797 979 21015 % 65.6 17.24 8.7 3.79 4.66 100 # 1596 327 197 47 38 2205 % 72.38 14.83 8.93 2.13 1.72 100 # 49077 14435 7412 2586 2745 76255 % 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 7 4.44 4.45 4.49 4.47 4.48 3 2 1. Is prepared for each class StDev 0.76 0.93 0.94 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.88 0.89 2. Explains concepts and ideas AVG 4.25 4.26 4.29 4.26 4.26 4.27 4.32 4.33 clearly StDev 1.01 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.11 1.11 1.07 1.06 3. Stimulates my interest in the AVG 2 4.15 4.2 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.19 4.22 subject StDev 1.13 1.16 1.15 1.19 1.2 1.2 1.19 1.16 4. Encourages questions and class AVG 4.22 4.26 4.31 4.31 4.28 4.32 4.34 4.36 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 6. Provides helpful feedback on AVG 4.13 4.23 4.26 4.24 4.23 4.25 4.28 4.30 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 8. Session objectives are made AVG 4.36 4.34 4.36 4.36 4.34 4.35 4.39 4.40 clear at the start StDev 0.89 1.00 1.02 1 1.02 1.03 1.00 0.99 9. Sessions relate materials to local AVG 4.23 4.30 4.34 4.33 4.33 4.34 4.37 4.39 environment where appropriate StDev 0.93 1.01 1.02 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.00 0.98 10. Class time is spent on relevant AVG 4.40 4.35 4.38 4.39 4.38 4.39 4.41 4.44 issues StDev 0.86 1.00 1 0.99 1 1 0.99 0.96 Section Course 11. Course requirements are made AVG 4.37 4.35 4.37 4.38 4.36 4.37 4.41 4.43 clear at the start of the course StDev 0.88 1.00 1 0.99 1.02 1.02 0.98 0.97 12. Texts and other course AVG 4.22 4.26 4.31 4.29 4.3 4.32 4.35 4.37 materials are helpful StDev 1.01 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 18

Report on KIMEP Faculty Teaching Evaluation Survey, 2011 Semesters Survey results F2007 S2008 F2008 S2009 F2009 S2010 F2010 S2011 13. Assignments contribute to my AVG 4.23 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.31 4.32 4.36 4.38 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 15. I would recommend this AVG 4.26 4.22 4.27 4.26 4.23 4.25 4.29 4.31 faculty member StDev 1.12 1.16 1.14 1.17 1.18 1.18 1.16 1.14 Overall weighed average grade AVG 4.27 4.28 4.32 4.31 4.30 4.32 4.35 4.37 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 Acc Fin MM OMIS SL Econ Journ PS&IR PA LC SGE KIMEP Semester 2007 4.41 3 4.32 9 4.16 6 4.29 4.24 4.36 4.27 2008 4.31 4.18 4.20 4.28 4.20 4.45 4.36 4.34 4.34 4.28 2008 4.28 4.18 4.26 7 4.44 4.40 4.24 4.31 4.48 4.47 4.11 4.32 2009 4.31 4.28 4.31 9 4.14 4.34 4.45 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.13 4.31 2009 5 4.23 4.14 4.27 5 4.23 4.19 4.43 4.35 4.49 4.38 4.30 2010 4.18 4.17 4.20 4.36 5 4.25 4.19 4.46 4.32 4.48 4.40 4.32 2010 4.24 4.23 4.32 4.34 5 4.26 4 7 4.25 1 4.39 4.35 2011 4.26 4.24 4.47 4.23 4 4.31 4.43 4.61 4.43 7 4.35 4.37 Table 3. Teaching quality assessment by faculty academic ranks, F2007-S2011 Question Semester Professors Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Total 2007 1 3 3.82 6 4.20 3.96 4.13 4.25 9 4.31 4.28 8 4.12 4.17 8 4.14 2008 4.32 7 3.96 9 4.14 4 4.14 4.19 4.13 4.21 4.22 4.12 4.15 4.16 2 4.13 2008 4.36 4.12 3 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 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 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 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 2010 4 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 2011 9 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 2007 7 4.31 3 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 2008 1 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 2008 0 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 2009 6 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 2009 4.43 4.19 6 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 2010 4.43 4.21 8 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 2010 2 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 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 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 2008 3 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 2008 9 4.49 4.42 3 0 4.47 4.49 2 2 4 2 4.48 4.49 4.47 4.49 0 2009 4.60 4.44 4.32 0 4.43 4.41 0 4.49 0 4.47 4.49 4.41 4.42 4.37 4.40 4.45 2009 4.64 0 4.42 3 1 4.48 4 1 2 5 1 4.48 1 4.46 4.48 1 2010 4.62 3 4.43 5 0 2 5 3 4 7 4 4.49 1 4.46 1 2 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 2011 3 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 Department of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research 19