Paper presented at the 52nd CFCS Annual Meeting, Guadeloupe, July 10-16, 2016
Figure 1: Satisfaction with Instructional Effectiveness Instructors were graded out of 3 in 10 categories, with 1 being the lowest (below expectation) and 3 being the highest (exceeded expectation) and based on this rating scale, the instructors that provided service to FS&T unit exceeded expectations in all ten categories according to the medians and percentages gathered from the raw data.
Table 1: Comparison between UTT FS&T Instructor Rating, UTT Non-FS&T Instructor Rating and External/Part Time (PT) Instructor Rating Internal FS&T instructors received higher ratings than instructors from other units and external instructors. Also when instructors were compared based on gender, female instructors received higher ratings in all 10 categories than their male counterparts.
Conclusion Based on the overall analysis of the data collected, the SET evaluation has provided enough information on student satisfaction and the effectiveness of instructors and services provided by the FS&T unit to at the very least identify areas for improvement within the faculty as it relates to the students’ perspective and the quality of services provided to them through classes, practical sessions via the labs and the efficacy and the efficiency of student administration. However, student ratings are only one source of data and must be used in combination with multiple sources of information if a conclusion can be made about all of the components of university teaching. The SET instrument can be improved by including a section to aid in determining if the instructor makes a difference in student learning in courses that are taught by multiple persons. Analysis of the results from 2015 to 2016 evaluations can assist in determining if the departmental changes and decisions were effective in improving the unit and the services offered. This information would comment directly on the effectiveness of the instructors and their methods of disseminating the course content as well as the student satisfaction within the unit as a whole, and thus serves to be an effective instrument in assessing the quality of service output by the Food Science and Technology Unit of the University of Trinidad and Tobago.
247