COURSE SUMMARY REPORT University of North Texas

Numeric Responses College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences

Philosophy and Religion
Term: Fall 2019
PHIL 4200 001 Evaluation Delivery: Online
Science, Technology, and Society Evaluation Form: C
Course type: Face-to-Face Responses: 32/45 (71% very high)
Taught by: Fabio Valenti Possamai
Instructor Evaluated: Fabio Valenti Possamai-Instructor

Overall Summative Rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative Combined Adjusted
items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class's quality: Median Combined
Median

4.9 4.9
(0=lowest; 5=highest)

Challenge and Engagement Index (CEI) combines student responses to several IASystem items relating CEI: 4.9
to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were:
(1=lowest; 7=highest)

45315 45315
SUMMATIVE ITEMS
Very Very
Excellent Good Good Fair Poor Poor Adjusted
N (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (0) Median Median

The course as a whole was: 32 81% 6% 12% 4.9 4.9

The course content was: 32 81% 6% 12% 4.9 4.9
The instructor's contribution to the course was: 32 81% 12% 6% 4.9 4.9
The instructor's effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was: 32 81% 12% 6% 4.9 4.9

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Much Much
Higher Average Lower
Relative to other college courses you have taken: N (7) (6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) Median

Do you expect your grade in this course to be: 32 22% 25% 19% 28% 3% 3% 5.3
The intellectual challenge presented was: 32 28% 28% 28% 16% 5.7
The amount of effort you put into this course was: 32 22% 28% 19% 28% 3% 5.5
The amount of effort to succeed in this course was: 32 19% 22% 38% 22% 5.2
Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) 32 25% 31% 12% 22% 6% 3% 5.7
was:

On average, how many hours per week have you spent on this course, Class median: 4.7 Hours per credit: 1.6 (N=31)
including attending classes, doing readings, reviewing notes, writing
papers and any other course related work?
Under 2 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22 or more
3% 23% 42% 19% 3% 10%

From the total average hours above, how many do you consider were Class median: 3.8 Hours per credit: 1.3 (N=31)
valuable in advancing your education?
Under 2 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21 22 or more
3% 42% 29% 16% 3% 6%

What grade do you expect in this course? Class median: 3.7 (N=31)
A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D+ D D- E
(3.9-4.0) (3.5-3.8) (3.2-3.4) (2.9-3.1) (2.5-2.8) (2.2-2.4) (1.9-2.1) (1.5-1.8) (1.2-1.4) (0.9-1.1) (0.7-0.8) (0.0) Pass Credit No Credit
35% 35% 13% 6% 3% 3% 3%

In regard to your academic program, is this course best described as: (N=30)
A core/distribution
In your major requirement An elective In your minor A program requirement Other
57% 3% 23% 17%

© 2011–2018 IASystem, University of Washington Printed: 1/10/20

Survey no: 45315 Page 1 of 6
 COURSE SUMMARY REPORT University of North Texas
Numeric Responses College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Philosophy and Religion
Term: Fall 2019

STANDARD FORMATIVE ITEMS

Very Very
Excellent Good Good Fair Poor Poor Relative
N (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (0) Median Rank

Course organization was: 32 69% 22% 6% 3% 4.8 3

Instructor's preparation for class was: 32 78% 16% 6% 4.9 13
Instructor as a discussion leader was: 32 88% 6% 3% 3% 4.9 16
Instructor's contribution to discussion was: 31 84% 10% 6% 4.9 18
Conduciveness of class atmosphere to student learning was: 32 84% 9% 6% 4.9 12
Quality of questions or problems raised was: 32 75% 12% 9% 3% 4.8 14
Student confidence in instructor's knowledge was: 32 78% 16% 6% 4.9 17
Instructor's enthusiasm was: 32 97% 3% 5.0 5
Encouragement given students to express themselves was: 32 94% 3% 3% 5.0 10
Instructor's openness to student views was: 32 91% 6% 3% 4.9 15
Interest level of class sessions was: 31 68% 19% 10% 3% 4.8 1
Use of class time was: 32 72% 19% 9% 4.8 11
Instructor's interest in whether students learned was: 32 84% 6% 9% 4.9 8
Amount you learned in the course was: 32 75% 12% 9% 3% 4.8 2
Relevance and usefulness of course content were: 32 72% 12% 12% 3% 4.8 9
Evaluative and grading techniques (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were: 32 78% 16% 6% 4.9 6
Reasonableness of assigned work was: 32 75% 19% 3% 3% 4.8 7
Clarity of student responsibilities and requirements was: 32 84% 12% 3% 4.9 4

© 2011–2018 IASystem, University of Washington Printed: 1/10/20

Survey no: 45315 Page 2 of 6
 COURSE SUMMARY REPORT University of North Texas
Student Comments College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences
Philosophy and Religion
Term: Fall 2019
PHIL 4200 001 Evaluation Delivery: Online
Science, Technology, and Society Evaluation Form: C
Course type: Face-to-Face Responses: 32/45 (71% very high)
Taught by: Fabio Valenti Possamai
Instructor Evaluated: Fabio Valenti Possamai-Instructor
45315 45315
STANDARD OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
Was this class intellectually stimulating? Did it stretch your thinking? Why or why not?
1. This class did stretch my thinking because it made me realize and think about topics that I don't normally think about. There were also topics
discussed in class that I didn't know much about, which was interesting and made me look more into those topics.
2. The class discussions were always stimulating, I always left class still thinking about how the topics affect my life.
3. I think some of the course work was intellectually stimulating, but not all of it. I think we read many different essays of science and technology, but
never explored any theories deep enough, which made our classes feel somewhat surface level.
4. Yes, the assigned reading topics were very interesting and the professor enhanced the topics with additional material.
5. Yes! I really appreciated how the perspective of the class was used to look at areas like the environment and gender equality.
6. I liked the style of lecture in which students were often used for discussion and to facilitate learning on both ends.
7. Yes great content
8. Yes, the class was fascinating. I was deeply intrigued by the subject matter as well as most of the readings assigned.
9. Yes, this class made me think about a lot of things I had never really thought about before.
10. Yes, the group discussion was good for grasping the material
11. Yes, a lot of analytical thinking.
12. yes, it made me think alot and i enjoyed that
13. yes it was
14. I loved this class, mainly because it did stretch my mind more than I thought it would. The readings and how Professor Possamai explained them
opened my mind way more.
15. Absolutely. I’ve never considered philosophy before and I was really dreading this class, but it turned out to be the class I learned the most in this
semester. I really felt like with the readings, responses, and discussions that I was able to understand something new and enjoy it while I was learning.
16. This class was intellectually stimulating, and Prof. Possamai did an excellent job of exposing us to a wide variety of philosophical views on the
subject matter. Class discussions were heavily encouraged by the instructor, creating an environment of critical thinking.
17. Yeah, it was great. We covered so much content. All relevant to my daily life. Maybe the best class I've taken in college. I would recommend to it to
anyone interest in philosophy or technology.
18. Definitely, it's the second philosophy class I've ever taken and my favorite of the entire semester, so much so I am now going to pursue a minor in
Philosophy.
19. It was very stimulating. Though I hardly participated in the class discussions, I thought the points raised by others were more than enough to get me
thinking further.
20. I thought this class was the most intellectually relevant class that I’ve taken this semester. I really enjoyed the material and felt like I really learned a
lot. In conjunction with another class that was somewhat related and taught by a different professor. I really feel like I was able to fully explore new
questions presented concerning technology, society, and the environment. I really felt like I got a lot out of this class.
21. Yes, it connected philosophical thinking with present day issues, making for some very interesting discussions.
22. Yes
23. Yes this class was very intellectually stimulating. Professor Possamai always attempted to get us to think abstractly as is needed with the type of
course content presented.
24. Very much so
25. yes,yes

What aspects of this class contributed most to your learning?

1. The response papers helped most with my learning.
2. The aspect of the class that most contributed to my learning was the emphasis on discussion.
3. I think our instructor's engagement in the class was very helpful.
4. The discussions
5. The discussions were always well structured and very interesting.
6. Lectures!
7. The readings were very good

8.©The lectures, where Professor Valenti Possami analyzed and expanded on the readings assigned with insightful commentary.
2011–2018 IASystem, University of Washington Printed: 1/10/20
Survey no: 45315 Page 3 of 6
8. The lectures, where Professor Valenti Possami analyzed and expanded on the readings assigned with insightful commentary.
9. The readings and the videos we watched.
10. Group discussion
11. N/A
12. Class time and lecutres
13. the micro essays
14. The readings and summarizing them, as well as the professor.
15. I think getting a wide sampling of writing was really helpful, but also having to write response papers and assignments often. A lot of times professors
won’t give out so many writings because they don’t want to grade them, but I felt like on top of understand the texts better my writing skills have really
developed. I’ve always been a confident writer, but I’ve never been able to bang out a 4-5 pages in an hour before having to do it for this class.
16. Prof. Possamai's teaching style is very engaging and his selection of readings was thought-provoking.
17. Fabio was so passionate about the subject matter. It was great being in class with him. He had a clear command of challenging essays.
18. The class discussions.
19. The discussions about our readings, for sure.
20. I felt like the readings and class discussions were the main contributors to what I learned in the class.
21. The discussions led by the instructor were instrumental in connecting the dots between ideas of thought as they pertain to relevant rising real world
examples.
22. The professor, Fabio is an amazing professor and does so much for his students to make sure you're learning and understanding what's happening
in class and is honestly just an amazing professor in general.
23. The discussions and open dialogue helped tremendously in learning key concepts.
24. Everything we discussed in class.
25. All of them

What aspects of this class detracted from your learning?

1. Nothing detracted me from my learning.
2. Nothing, I really enjoyed it!
3. Sometimes students would go off on fairly unrelated tangents when they asked or responded to questions.
4. none
6. None
7. Sometimes the lectures were slow-paced.
8. Nothing comes to mind.
9. The chaotic progressions of the instructor's thoughts. It was never clear where he was going in discussions.
10. As group discussion goes, there's not always a chance to get a thought in
11. N/A
12. nothing really
13. nothing
14. Nothing did.
15. Sometimes discussions got really off topic. When other students seemed to just take over the lecture, I tended to zone out. Not that their ideas aren’t
valid, but I’m not trying to learn Random Jake’s random musings on philosophy.
16. Some students were ambivalent toward the topics at hand, making class discussions sometimes difficult or uneventful.
17. None
19. Some of the readings were less interesting than others, but that is nobody's fault.
20. I sometimes felt as though class discussion lacked on the part of the students. I don’t really think that this was an issue with the professor, but more
so was an issue with student engagement.
21. I have nothing to complain about; the class layout and instruction were fantastic. I'd even learn more about concepts I was already familiar with, and
it was a class made very approachable for old and new philosophy students
22. None
23. I felt the class was too lax but that was on my end rather than the professors. I wish I would have went to class more because the class was very
enjoyable.
24. N/A
25. none

What suggestions do you have for improving the class?

1. I don't have any suggestions.
2. Nothing, I really enjoyed it!
3. I think if the class explored less theories on science and technology, rather focusing on a few more deeply would be much more insightful.
4.©none
2011–2018 IASystem, University of Washington Printed: 1/10/20
Survey no: 45315 Page 4 of 6
4. none
6. Wonderful outline for class. Outstanding work,
7. Less assignments. Switch some articles with the science fiction readings.
8. Perhaps move the video assignments from in-class viewing to out of class viewing so as to save room for more lectures.
9. Have more structured lectures conducive to note-taking.
10. none
11. Less response papers due :)
13. none loved the class
14. Make the summaries for the readings at least half a page because a whole page takes too long, specially when it’s single spaced.
15. Probably to just try and be more assertive about getting discussions back on track when they get out of hand.
16. None.
17. It was great as is
19. N/A, so please keep it up, Professor Possamai!
20. Possibly experimenting with different pedagogical techniques to try to stimulate more student engagement in the class? I’m not really sure that the
lack of student engagement really took away from the course though, as I still felt like class lectures were very eye opening and were the most
interesting lectures I had of all my classes.
21. None
22. None, Fabio is fantastic!
23. I would suggest that the professor post announcements on canvas more, but the responsibility of knowing when assignments are due is on the
student not him I just think it'd help the more aloof student.
24. N/A
25. none

© 2011–2018 IASystem, University of Washington Printed: 1/10/20

Survey no: 45315 Page 5 of 6
 Interpreting IASystem Course Summary Reports

IASystem Course Summary Reports summarize student ratings of a particular course or combination of courses. They provide a rich
perspective on student views by reporting responses in three ways: as frequency distributions, average ratings, and either
comparative or adjusted ratings. Remember in interpreting results that it is important to keep in mind the number of students who
evaluated the course relative to the total course enrollment as shown on the upper right-hand corner of the report.

Frequency distributions. The percentage of students who selected each response choice is displayed for each item. Percentages
are based on the number of students who answered the respective item rather than the number of students who evaluated the course
because individual item response is optional.

Median ratings. IASystem reports average ratings in the form of item medians. Although means are a more familiar type of average
than medians, they are less accurate in summarizing student ratings. This is because ratings distributions tend to be strongly skewed.
That is, most of the ratings are at the high end of the scale and trail off to the low end.

The median indicates the point on the rating scale at which half of the students selected higher ratings, and half selected lower.
Medians are computed to one decimal place by interpolation.1 In general, higher medians reflect more favorable ratings. To interpret
median ratings, compare the value of each median to the respective response scale: Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good,
Excellent (0-5); Never/None/Much Lower, About Half/Average, Always/Great/Much Higher (1-7); Slight, Moderate, Considerable,
Extensive (1-4).

Comparative ratings. IASystem provides a normative comparison for each item by reporting the decile rank of the item median.
Decile ranks compare the median rating of a particular item to ratings of the same item over the previous two academic years in all
classes at the institution and within the college, school, or division. Decile ranks are shown only for items with sufficient normative
data.

Decile ranks range from 0 (lowest) to 9 (highest). For all items, higher medians yield higher decile ranks. The 0 decile rank indicates
an item median in the lowest 10% of all scores. A decile rank of 1 indicates a median above the bottom 10% and below the top 80%.
A decile rank of 9 indicates a median in the top 10% of all scores. Because average ratings tend to be high, a rating of "good" or
"average" may have a low decile rank.

Adjusted ratings. Research has shown that student ratings may be somewhat influenced by factors such as class size, expected
grade, and reason for enrollment. To correct for this, IASystem reports adjusted medians for summative items (items #1-4 and their
combined global rating) based on regression analyses of ratings over the previous two academic years in all classes at the
respective institution. If large classes at the institution tend to be rated lower than small classes, for example, the adjusted medians for
large classes will be slightly higher than their unadjusted medians.

When adjusted ratings are displayed for summative items, relative rank is displayed for the more specific (formative) items. Rankings
serve as a guide in directing instructional improvement efforts. The top ranked items (1, 2, 3, etc.) represent areas that are going well
from a student perspective; whereas the bottom ranked items (18, 17, 16, etc.) represent areas in which the instructor may want to
make changes. Relative ranks are computed by first standardizing each item (subtracting the overall institutional average from the
item rating for the particular course, then dividing by the standard deviation of the ratings across all courses) and then ranking those
standardized scores.

Challenge and Engagement Index (CEI). Several IASystem items ask students how academically challenging they found the course
to be. IASystem calculates the average of these items and reports them as a single index. The Challenge and Engagement Index
(CEI) correlates only modestly with the global rating (median of items 1-4).

Optional Items. Student responses to instructor-supplied items are summarized at the end of the evaluation report. Median
responses should be interpreted in light of the specific item text and response scale used (response values 1-6 on paper evaluation
forms).

1For the specific method, see, for example, Guilford, J.P. (1965). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, pp. 49-53.

© 2011–2018 IASystem, University of Washington Printed: 1/10/20

Survey no: 45315 Page 6 of 6