Visual Arts Department

Course Evaluation Analysis

Fall 2025 • Yavapai College • Data Uploaded: March 4, 2026

Department Chair: Lindsay Masten

4.49/5.00
Department Average
35.5%
Response Rate
45
Courses Analyzed
21
Faculty Evaluated

Excellence Highlights

  • 2 faculty members achieved perfect 5.00 scoresFaculty Member 8, Faculty Member 4
  • Top performer with significant response volumeFaculty Member 13 (4.86, 19 responses, 4 courses)
  • 62% of faculty perform at or above department average

Areas of Concern

  • Q2 (Timely Grading) identified as weakest dimension4.38 avg vs 4.49 dept avg
  • 2 faculty members scoring below 3.50 — may benefit from additional supportFaculty Member 9 (3.38), Faculty Member 16 (2.69)
  • 4 faculty below department average — opportunities for development4 faculty members identified
  • 15 faculty with low response rates — data reliability may be limitedScores based on few responses may not fully represent teaching effectiveness

Faculty Performance Overview

All 21 instructors ranked by overall average score. Colors indicate performance tier. Dashed line shows department average (4.49).

Q-Dimension Performance Summary

Department averages across 7 evaluation dimensions. Q2 (Timely Grading) is the weakest dimension at 4.38, representing an area for continued growth.

Course Performance: Top 5 vs Bottom 5

Direct comparison of highest and lowest performing courses. Note the gap between top and bottom performers.

Top 5 Classes

Bottom 5 Classes

Strategic Recommendations

  1. 1Explore opportunities to strengthen timely grading
  2. 2Leverage top performer's teaching methods as department model
  3. 3Provide mentoring and professional development resources for faculty who would benefit
  4. 4Establish peer mentoring program pairing experienced and developing faculty
  5. 5Develop strategies to improve survey response rates for more reliable data
  6. 6Standardize course expectations and curriculum across sections