Q1-Q7 Dimensional Analysis

Deep Dive into Each Evaluation Dimension • Best Practices • Improvement Areas

Q-Dimension Overview

Q2 (Timely Grading) - Department's Weakest Dimension

Q2 scores 0.17 points below department average. 4 instructors (26.7%) have Q2 scores below 4.00. This is the most cited student complaint and directly impacts student learning.

Below 4.0 Threshold (Concern)
Above 4.0 Threshold
Q1

Clear Guidelines & Expectations

4.51
Rank #4

How well the instructor communicated course expectations, requirements, and grading criteria.

Top Performers

Benjamin Norton
Outstanding4.92
Kat Brint
Excellent4.86
Laura Bloomenstein
Excellent4.83

Needs Improvement

Maureen Costa
Critical2.52
Jodi Kolpakov
Critical3.33

Best Practices

Detailed syllabus with clear expectations
Consistent communication throughout semester
Transparent grading rubrics
Regular reminders of deadlines and requirements
Q2

Timely Grading

⚠️ Weakest
4.31
Rank #7

How promptly the instructor returned graded assignments with feedback.

Top Performers

Jill Brugler
Perfect5.00
Dana Cohn
Perfect5.00
Kat Brint
Perfect5.00

Needs Improvement

Maureen Costa
Crisis Level2.77
Lindsay Masten
High Concern3.64
Jodi Kolpakov
High Concern3.67
Matthias Petsche
Moderate Concern3.73

Best Practices

Maximum 7-day grading turnaround
Clear grading schedule in syllabus
Regular Canvas notifications on grade updates
Batch grading strategies

Student Feedback

"In no reality should an 8-week course have assignments not graded for several weeks."
"Work from October 19th to now that are still not graded."
"Two weeks would be the timeframe for grading, and she did stay on top of it for the first week. However it dragged on later."
Q3

Assessment Alignment

✅ Strongest
4.58
Rank #1

How well quizzes, projects, and exams aligned with course content and learning objectives.

Top Performers

Benjamin Norton
Near Perfect4.97
Dana Cohn
Perfect5.00
Jill Brugler
Perfect5.00

Needs Improvement

Jodi Kolpakov
Critical3.00
Maureen Costa
Critical2.80

Best Practices

Clear alignment between learning objectives and assessments
Projects that reinforce lecture/video content
Fair and relevant testing methods
Transparent grading criteria
Q4

Active Participation

4.53
Rank #2

How well the course encouraged student engagement and active participation.

Top Performers

Jill Brugler
Perfect5.00
Dana Cohn
Perfect5.00
Lindsay Masten
Outstanding4.84

Needs Improvement

Maureen Costa
Critical2.81
Jodi Kolpakov
Critical3.33

Best Practices

Interactive critiques and discussions
Studio/hands-on activities
Encouraging student voice
Group projects and peer feedback
Q5

Timely Responses

4.52
Rank #3

How promptly the instructor responded to student emails and questions.

Top Performers

Jill Brugler
Perfect5.00
Dana Cohn
Perfect5.00
Kat Brint
Perfect5.00
Laura Bloomenstein
Near Perfect4.88

Needs Improvement

Maureen Costa
Critical2.75

Best Practices

Clear communication policy in syllabus
Regular office hours
Prompt email responses (24-48 hours)
Multiple communication channels
Q6

Online Organization

4.46
Rank #5

How well the online course materials (Canvas) were organized and accessible.

Top Performers

Jill Brugler
Perfect5.00
Dana Cohn
Perfect5.00
Laura Bloomenstein
Near Perfect4.88

Needs Improvement

Maureen Costa
Below Standard3.17

Best Practices

Standardized Canvas template
Regular content updates
Clear navigation structure
Quality control for videos/materials
Q7

Teaching Methods

4.43
Rank #6

How effective the instructor's teaching methods were in facilitating learning.

Top Performers

Jill Brugler
Perfect5.00
Dana Cohn
Perfect5.00
Stephanie Lauderback
Perfect (one section)5.00

Needs Improvement

Maureen Costa
CRISIS LEVEL1.81
Jodi Kolpakov
Critical3.33

Best Practices

Live demonstrations
Step-by-step guidance
Guest artist workshops
Individual feedback during studio time
Group critiques
Encouraging natural student voice