For 1 semester

1. Introduction

Assessment of teaching quality through student feedback is a key tool within the university’s internal quality assurance system. The survey results enable not only the evaluation of satisfaction with the educational process but also identification of problematic areas requiring prompt response from faculties, departments, and university administration.
This report is based on aggregated data from student surveys conducted during the first semester of the 2025–2026 academic year. It presents participation rates, average scores by faculties and academic programs, distribution of teaching staff according to rating intervals, analysis of at-risk teachers, and detailed review of questions 12 and 14 concerning curriculum relevance and the quality of instructional materials.

2. Survey Methodology

The survey was conducted electronically via the university's survey system. Participation was anonymous and voluntary.
Students rated teachers on 14 criteria including clarity and accessibility of material delivery, organization of the teaching process, use of instructional resources, interaction with students, and overall teaching satisfaction.
A five-point scale was used for assessments. Data were aggregated and analyzed at the program, faculty, and university levels.

3. Overall University Results (Slide 1)

Information on Respondent Participation in the Survey

Total Student Population Across All Faculties: 20,522

Total Number of Survey Respondents: 12,252

Overall Response Rate: 59.7%

The survey was completed by 12,252 students, accounting for 59.7% of the University's total student body (20,522 students). The highest levels of participation were demonstrated by students from the Higher School of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology (90.8%), the Higher School of Natural Sciences and Pedagogy (88.3%), and the School of Mechanical Engineering and Petroleum Engineering (79.7%). In contrast, the lowest participation rates were recorded in the Higher School of Management and Business (21.3%), the Faculty of Sports and Tourism (35.1%), the Higher School of Textile and Food Engineering (35.5%), and the Faculty of Culture and Arts (37.0%).

Information on the Number of Respondents and Evaluated Faculty Members (slide2)

The evaluation covered 1,524 faculty members, accounting for 97.7% of the teaching staff who delivered classes during the semester. Such a high level of coverage ensures the representativeness, reliability, and validity of the obtained results, thereby supporting evidence-based decision-making in quality assurance processes.

Slide 3. Student Satisfaction Indicators by Faculty/School

Student Satisfaction Rate (%)

Average Student Satisfaction Score

The University-wide average satisfaction score was 4.7 on a five-point scale. Student satisfaction with the educational process reached 99.8%, demonstrating a consistently high level of satisfaction with the quality of teaching, learning, and educational services provided by the University.

4. Distribution of Teachers by Score Ranges (Slide 4)

Table 4. Distribution of Faculty Members by Average Evaluation Score

Summary of Results

Analysis shows consistently high teaching performance:

• 9% of teachers (1,248 individuals) received an average score from 4.6 to 5.0
• 4% (266 individuals) scored between 4.0 and 4.5
• 5% (8 individuals) rated between 3.6 and 3.9
• 2% (2 individuals) scored below 3.5

(Slide 5)
AUEZOV UNIVERSITY (Founded in 1943) List of Faculty Members with Average EP Evaluation Scores of 3.5 or Less

5. At-Risk Teachers (Slide 6)

Statistical Overview Table

Special attention must be given to the analysis of faculty members for whom 30% or more of surveyed students expressed an unwillingness to continue their studies under their instruction. In the current semester, the threshold criterion has been tightened from 50% to 30%, enabling a more precise and rigorous identification of critical risk zones.

A total of 23 faculty members have been identified within this specific risk category. On a university-wide scale, this group constitutes approximately 1.6% of the total number of evaluated academic staff.

The highest concentration of faculty members categorised as risk zone is observed in the Faculty of Culture and Art (2.9%), the Faculty of Architecture, Construction and Transport (2.3%), and the Higher School of Management and Business (2.1%). Consequently, these structural subdivisions require priority managerial oversight and targeted intervention. Conversely, within larger faculties (such as History and Pedagogy, Philology, and Agriculture), the proportion of such faculty members remains minimal (ranging from 0.7% to 1.1%), indicating a sustainable level of institutional staffing stability.

6. Analysis of Student Satisfaction in the Context of Educational Programs

"An evaluative analysis was conducted across 13 faculties/higher schools, encompassing a total of 162 educational programs. The recorded student satisfaction rates span a range from 24.2% to 100%.

The share of educational programs with a satisfaction rate of more than 90% constitutes approximately 70%; within the 70–89% range, it is approximately 21%; programs with a satisfaction rate of < 70% account for 26 programs (16%); and programs with a satisfaction rate of < 50% account for 9 programs (5.6%).

6.1. Programs with Critically Low Satisfaction Rates (< 50%) (Slide 7)

Note: The educational program "Professional Education" (code 6B01450), which recorded a satisfaction index of 0.0%, has been excluded from the aggregate analysis as a statistical anomaly and requires independent administrative inquiry.

6.2. Programs in the High-Risk Zone (50%  <satisfaction 70\%)

Note: Programs marked with an asterisk (*) exceed the 70% threshold but are borderline values that require continued administrative attention.

6.3. Top-Performing Faculties / Faculties with Outstanding Indicators

• Mechanics and Oil & Gas Engineering: All 13 educational programs scored above 79%, with the majority exceeding 95%.
• Architecture, Construction, and Transport: All 12 educational programs scored above 86%.
• Faculty of Law: 7 out of 8 educational programs scored above 91% (with the exception of Political Science at 63.6%).

7. Analysis of Survey Responses for Questions 12 and 14

For each faculty/higher school, an average score was calculated on a 5-point scale based on two specific questionnaire items. The calculation was executed as the arithmetic mean of the evaluations of all faculty members within the respective department for whom completed student survey forms were available.

7.1 Question 12 – Relevance and Practical Significance of Course Content (Slide 8)

Survey Wording: The course content is relevant, supported by practical examples, and the information obtained is significant for personal growth, professional activity, and/or further education.

Conclusion: Students evaluate the relevance and practical significance of the course content highly (with a university-wide average score of 4.74). The highest indicators are recorded in the Higher School of Textile and Food Engineering (4.86).

7.2 Question 14 – Quality of Instructional Materials (Slide 9)

Survey Wording : Evaluate the teaching and learning materials (relevance, usefulness, and presentation in a clear, comprehensible, and accessible format

Conclusion : The average score for Question 14 (4.62) is the lowest among all 14 evaluation criteria in the survey. This indicates systemic deficiencies regarding the quality of teaching and learning materials. The highest values are observed in the Higher School of Textile and Food Engineering (4.80), whereas the lowest values are reported by the Faculty of Architecture, Construction and Transport (4.54) and the Higher School of Computer Engineering and Energy (4.55).

8. Conclusion

The survey confirms a positive trend in teaching quality for the first semester of 2025–2026: high average scores (4.7), satisfaction growth to 99.8%, and maintained leadership of most faculties.
However, significant challenges remain, including critically low satisfaction in some programs, presence of low-rated teachers, and systemic issues with instructional materials quality. These call for targeted management actions from cause analysis to corrective plans.

9. Proposed Action Plan
10. To the Director of the Strategic Development Department:

• Organize verification of classes by teachers scoring 3.5 or less in the survey (deadline: 11.05.2026).
• Verify educational programs with satisfaction below 50% for compliance with regulatory standards (deadline: 15.05.2026).

1. To Deans of Schools and Faculties:

• Review survey results at academic quality committee meetings and include in annual reports.
• Conduct detailed examination of programs with satisfaction between 50% and 70% at committee meetings.
• Review verification outcomes of low-rated teachers and those with ≥30% student unwillingness rates (deadline: 15.05.2026).

     Reviewed at the Dean’s Hour meeting dated March 18, 2026, Minutes No. 12.

 
     Announcement

    Results of execution of decisions of the dean's hour