Major Patterns & Insights

Data-Driven Analysis • Excellence Patterns • Concern Patterns • Structural Insights

Excellence Patterns

Ceramics Program Excellence

Ceramics courses dominate top performance rankings

Evidence

  • 4 of top 10 individual classes are ceramics
  • Laura Bloomenstein (Ceramics) ranks #3 overall
  • Jill Brugler (Ceramics) ranks #1 overall
  • Average ceramics course score: 4.73 (vs. 4.48 dept avg)

Contributing Factors

  • • Strong faculty expertise (Bloomenstein, Brugler)
  • • Hands-on, engaging course nature
  • • Clear progression path (Ceramics I → II → Advanced)
  • • Well-equipped studio facilities

Recommendation

Designate as model program; leverage for department recruitment

Consistency Drives Excellence

Top performers maintain excellence across multiple courses

Evidence

  • Benjamin Norton: 4 courses, all above 4.67
  • Laura Bloomenstein: 4 courses, all above 4.67
  • Dana Cohn: 2 courses, both perfect 5.00

Contributing Factors

  • • Systematic teaching approaches
  • • Strong course design
  • • Effective time management

Recommendation

Study and replicate systems/practices of consistent performers

Perfect Q2 Predicts Excellence

Faculty with perfect/near-perfect Q2 (Timely Grading) tend to excel overall

Evidence

  • All top 3 performers have Q2 ≥ 4.84
  • Q2 serves as predictor of overall organizational excellence
  • Grading timeliness reflects instructor commitment and organization

Contributing Factors

  • • Organizational skills
  • • Commitment to students
  • • Effective workflow management

Recommendation

Use Q2 as early indicator for instructor success

Concern Patterns

Q2 as Leading Indicator of Struggle

Poor grading timeliness correlates with other performance issues

Evidence

  • Maureen Costa: Q2 = 2.77, Overall = 2.69
  • Jodi Kolpakov: Q2 = 3.67, Overall = 3.38
  • Lindsay Masten: Q2 = 3.64, multiple other concerns
  • Matthias Petsche: Q2 = 3.73, below average overall

Implication: Q2 is a "canary in the coal mine" for instructor problems

Recommendation

Flag instructors with Q2 < 4.00 for early intervention

Drawing I Inconsistency

Drawing I course shows widest performance variance in department

Evidence

  • 4 sections, 4 different instructors
  • Score range: 2.72 to 4.81 (2.09 point spread)
  • 3 of 4 sections below 4.50
  • Only 1 section (Richard Derman) performing well

Possible Causes

  • • Lack of standardized curriculum
  • • No shared assessments or rubrics
  • • Varying instructor expertise in foundational drawing
  • • Different expectations across sections

Recommendation

Implement standardized Drawing I curriculum and assessment

Presence = Performance

Instructor presence/absence directly impacts all dimensions

Evidence

  • Lindsay Masten: "Disappeared after first two weeks"
  • Strong Q4-Q7 when present, weak Q2 and overall presence
  • Maureen Costa: Using videos to avoid teaching
  • Benjamin Norton: High presence = high performance across 4 courses

Implication: Physical/virtual presence is non-negotiable for quality instruction

Recommendation

Implement presence monitoring and accountability systems

Structural Insights

Advanced Courses Excel

Advanced-level courses generally outperform introductory courses

Evidence

  • • Advanced Ceramics average: 4.73
  • • Drawing II average: 4.73
  • • Drawing I average: 3.84

Explanations

  • • Self-selected, motivated students
  • • Faculty teaching passion/expertise
  • • Smaller class sizes
  • • More hands-on, individual attention
  • • Students have foundation from prerequisites

Delivery Method Less Important Than Instructor

Top performers excel regardless of delivery method

Evidence

  • • Laura Bloomenstein: Excellent in both online (Color 4.96) and in-person (Ceramics)
  • • Kat Brint: Online Adobe Photoshop at 4.81
  • • Jill Brugler: In-person Ceramics at 5.00

Key Implication: Focus on instructor quality, not delivery method debates

Low Response Rates May Hide Problems

Some instructors with few responses may have hidden issues

Evidence

  • • Jonah Fleeger: 1 response (score 4.00) - insufficient data
  • • Multiple sections with 0 responses
  • • Current department rate: 40.5% (below 50% ideal)

Recommendations

  • • Investigate courses with <30% response rate
  • • Implement mid-semester check-ins
  • • Require minimum response thresholds

Volume Amplifies Impact

High-volume instructors' issues affect more students

Evidence

  • • Sarah Lange: 29 responses, 4 courses, all slightly below average
  • • Benjamin Norton: 29 responses, 4 courses, all above average
  • • Impact scope: 29+ students per semester per instructor

Key Implication: High-volume + high-quality = major positive impact (Norton, Bloomenstein). High-volume + low-quality = major negative impact.

Student Voice is Valuable

Student feedback provides specific, actionable insights

Evidence

  • • Direct quotes identify specific grading timeline issues
  • • Teaching method problems clearly articulated
  • • Communication gaps documented
  • • Assessment clarity issues highlighted

Recommendations

  • • Increase emphasis on open-ended responses
  • • Share anonymized feedback with instructors
  • • Use feedback for targeted professional development