1****************************************************************************** * * * Please note that these results DO NOT INCLUDE: * * * * * Course sections taught by a TA * * * Discussion, Laboratory, Independent Study, Practicum, or * * Residency course sections (results contain only LECTURES * * and SEMINARS) * * * Any course section with fewer than 5 evaluations returned * * * * Given for each item are the number responding (N), the percentage that * * strongly disagreed, the percentage that disagreed, the percentage that * * agreed, the percentage that strongly agreed, the mean, and the standard * * deviation (SD). * * * ****************************************************************************** 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 309 001L1 INTNL AG/WRLD FOOD NEEDS & US TRADE IN AG PRODUC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brannon, Russell H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 50.0 Sophomore 2 11.1 B 7 38.9 Junior 7 38.9 C 2 11.1 Senior 9 50.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 22.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 50.0 Required by my major 11 61.1 3 hours 3 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 7 38.9 4 - 5 hours 2 11.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 31.6 57.9 10.5 2.8 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 5.3 73.7 21.1 3.2 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 5.3 10.5 57.9 26.3 3.1 0.78 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 21.1 52.6 26.3 3.1 0.71 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 5.6 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 31.6 52.6 15.8 2.8 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 5.3 78.9 15.8 3.1 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 5.3 26.3 57.9 10.5 2.7 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 15.8 57.9 26.3 3.1 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 22.2 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 5.3 84.2 10.5 3.1 0.40 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 5.3 31.6 52.6 10.5 2.7 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 36.8 57.9 5.3 2.7 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 10.5 10.5 63.2 15.8 2.8 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 309 001L1 INTNL AG/WRLD FOOD NEEDS & US TRADE IN AG PRODUC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brannon, Russell H % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 26 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 73.1 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 620 001L1 ADV PRODUCTION ECO I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 11.1 2 hours 1 11.1 Required by my major 6 66.7 3 hours 1 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 2 22.2 4 - 5 hours 5 55.6 6 - 7 hours 1 11.1 8 or more hours 1 11.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 620 001L1 ADV PRODUCTION ECO I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 9 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 304 001L1 MACROECONOMIC CONCEPTS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 19 42.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 26 57.8 Junior 17 37.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 28 62.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 19 42.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 12 26.7 Required by my major 43 95.6 3 hours 9 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 4.4 4 - 5 hours 4 8.9 6 - 7 hours 1 2.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 46 0.0 10.9 60.9 28.3 3.2 0.61 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 11.1 22.2 44.4 22.2 2.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 46 2.2 10.9 58.7 28.3 3.1 0.69 4. Exams reflected what was taught 46 2.2 4.3 56.5 37.0 3.3 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 46 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 46 0.0 2.2 52.2 45.7 3.4 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 46 0.0 0.0 54.3 45.7 3.5 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 46 0.0 17.4 65.2 17.4 3.0 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 46 8.7 13.0 63.0 15.2 2.8 0.79 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 46 2.2 8.7 60.9 28.3 3.2 0.67 11. Was available for consultation 43 0.0 0.0 60.5 39.5 3.4 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 45 2.2 20.0 60.0 17.8 2.9 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 46 13.0 19.6 52.2 15.2 2.7 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 46 0.0 2.2 80.4 17.4 3.2 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 36 0.0 11.1 80.6 8.3 3.0 0.45 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 46 6.5 8.7 69.6 15.2 2.9 0.71 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 46 6.5 10.9 60.9 21.7 3.0 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 46 4.3 6.5 69.6 19.6 3.0 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 46 4.3 30.4 50.0 15.2 2.8 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 46 6.5 21.7 56.5 15.2 2.8 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 46 0.0 19.6 63.0 17.4 3.0 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 304 001L1 MACROECONOMIC CONCEPTS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 55 Number of forms scanned = 46 Number of forms with at least one student response = 46 Percent completed = 83.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 001L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 16 66.7 Junior 5 20.8 C 2 8.3 Senior 19 79.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 20.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 29.2 Required by my major 16 66.7 3 hours 11 45.8 Other (e.g. elective) 8 33.3 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 4.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 4.0 40.0 56.0 3.5 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 4.0 44.0 52.0 3.5 0.59 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 4.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 4.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.56 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 8.0 52.0 40.0 3.3 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 28.0 72.0 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 4.0 28.0 68.0 3.6 0.57 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 4.0 12.0 84.0 3.8 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 0.0 16.0 84.0 3.8 0.37 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 001L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 26 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 96.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 002L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 54.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 45.8 Junior 11 45.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 13 54.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 16.7 Studies Program 1 4.2 2 hours 14 58.3 Required by my major 20 83.3 3 hours 4 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 3 12.5 4 - 5 hours 2 8.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 26 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.27 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 33.3 16.7 16.7 33.3 2.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.43 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.37 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.27 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.27 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 16.0 84.0 3.8 0.37 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 0.0 11.5 88.5 3.9 0.33 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 0.0 19.2 80.8 3.8 0.40 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 0.0 19.2 80.8 3.8 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 0.0 3.8 38.5 57.7 3.5 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.51 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.37 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 0.0 0.0 3.8 96.2 4.0 0.20 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 002L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 92.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 410 001L1 INTERNATL TRADE & AG MKT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Marchant, SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 9 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 44.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 33.3 Required by my major 7 77.8 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 22.2 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 37.5 0.0 37.5 25.0 2.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 11.1 22.2 33.3 33.3 2.9 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 11.1 11.1 44.4 33.3 3.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 22.2 22.2 22.2 33.3 2.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 410 001L1 INTERNATL TRADE & AG MKT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Marchant, % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 81.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 624 001L1 ADV QUANT METHS IN AEC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Marchant, SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 70.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 30.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 10.0 Studies Program 1 10.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 9 90.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 6 60.0 6 - 7 hours 2 20.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 10.0 20.0 60.0 10.0 2.7 0.82 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 2.7 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 3.0 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 2.8 0.92 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 10.0 20.0 40.0 30.0 2.9 0.99 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 624 001L1 ADV QUANT METHS IN AEC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Marchant, % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 002L1 TOPS AEC:SENIOR SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 16 76.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 19.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 20 95.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 4.8 Professional 1 4.8 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 23.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 10 47.6 Required by my major 21 100.0 3 hours 1 4.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 14.3 6 - 7 hours 1 4.8 8 or more hours 1 4.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 21 0.0 9.5 71.4 19.0 3.1 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 50.0 37.5 12.5 0.0 1.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 5.9 17.6 47.1 29.4 3.0 0.87 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 4.8 4.8 61.9 28.6 3.1 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 15.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 20.0 55.0 15.0 10.0 2.2 0.88 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 9.5 66.7 23.8 3.1 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 6.7 0.0 73.3 20.0 3.1 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 4.8 57.1 38.1 3.3 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 9.5 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 5.9 23.5 41.2 29.4 2.9 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 5.0 70.0 25.0 3.2 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 15.8 52.6 31.6 3.2 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 5.0 20.0 45.0 30.0 3.0 0.86 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 14.3 9.5 47.6 28.6 2.9 1.00 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 4.8 9.5 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 002L1 TOPS AEC:SENIOR SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 28. Guided student report preparation 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 29. Students free to express opinions 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 31. Developed abil to conduct research 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 22 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 95.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 16.7 Sophomore 3 10.0 B 18 60.0 Junior 17 56.7 C 5 16.7 Senior 10 33.3 D 1 3.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 3.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 23.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 30.0 Required by my major 23 76.7 3 hours 7 23.3 Other (e.g. elective) 7 23.3 4 - 5 hours 4 13.3 6 - 7 hours 3 10.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 32 3.1 0.0 46.9 50.0 3.4 0.67 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 32 3.1 25.0 56.3 15.6 2.8 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 32 3.1 12.5 56.3 28.1 3.1 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 32 6.3 12.5 53.1 28.1 3.0 0.82 5. Grading was fair and consistent 32 3.1 15.6 50.0 31.3 3.1 0.78 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 32 6.3 21.9 53.1 18.8 2.8 0.81 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 32 9.4 31.3 43.8 15.6 2.7 0.87 8. Graded assignments included comments 31 3.2 22.6 61.3 12.9 2.8 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 32 3.1 18.8 53.1 25.0 3.0 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 32 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 32 0.0 0.0 53.1 46.9 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 32 0.0 3.1 53.1 43.8 3.4 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 31 6.5 22.6 48.4 22.6 2.9 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 32 0.0 9.4 56.3 34.4 3.3 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 14.3 60.7 25.0 3.1 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 32 0.0 15.6 43.8 40.6 3.3 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 32 0.0 18.8 43.8 37.5 3.2 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 32 0.0 15.6 43.8 40.6 3.3 0.72 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 31 6.5 41.9 35.5 16.1 2.6 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 32 3.1 31.3 37.5 28.1 2.9 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 32 0.0 25.0 31.3 43.8 3.2 0.82 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 40 Number of forms scanned = 32 Number of forms with at least one student response = 32 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 311 001L1 LIVESTOCK/MEAT MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meyer, Alphonse L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 35.0 Junior 4 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 16 80.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 5.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 40.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 11 55.0 Required by my major 7 35.0 3 hours 1 5.0 Other (e.g. elective) 13 65.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 15.8 68.4 15.8 3.0 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 0.0 65.0 35.0 3.4 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 20.0 25.0 55.0 3.4 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 5.6 61.1 33.3 3.3 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 5.3 31.6 26.3 36.8 2.9 0.97 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 21.1 57.9 21.1 3.0 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 311 001L1 LIVESTOCK/MEAT MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meyer, Alphonse L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 20 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 645 001L1 NATURAL RESOURCE ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pagoulatos, Angelos SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 20.0 Required by my major 5 100.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 20.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 645 001L1 NATURAL RESOURCE ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pagoulatos, Angelos % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 83.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 313 001L1 TOBACCO MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Snell, Will SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 81.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 18.8 Junior 5 31.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 10 62.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 6.3 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 10 62.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 37.5 Required by my major 4 25.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 12 75.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 6.3 93.8 3.9 0.25 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 313 001L1 TOBACCO MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Snell, Will % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 18 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 88.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 531 001L1 AG PRICE ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Snell, Will SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 66.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 33.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 16.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 33.3 Required by my major 4 66.7 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 2 33.3 4 - 5 hours 2 33.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 531 001L1 AG PRICE ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Snell, Will % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 201 001L1 INTRO TO FARM & NATURAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 23.5 Sophomore 3 17.6 B 8 47.1 Junior 10 58.8 C 5 29.4 Senior 4 23.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 29.4 Required by my major 16 94.1 3 hours 10 58.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.9 4 - 5 hours 2 11.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 0.43 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 16.7 55.6 27.8 3.1 0.68 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 5.6 66.7 27.8 3.2 0.55 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 0.69 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 0.43 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 11.1 61.1 27.8 3.2 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 5.6 61.1 33.3 3.3 0.57 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 23.5 47.1 29.4 3.1 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 0.43 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 11.1 50.0 33.3 5.6 2.3 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 0.0 27.8 38.9 33.3 3.1 0.80 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 201 001L1 INTRO TO FARM & NATURAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 21 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 85.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 001L1 TOPS AEC:HORTICULTURAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 75.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 12.5 Junior 5 55.6 C 1 12.5 Senior 4 44.4 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 11.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 44.4 Required by my major 1 11.1 3 hours 4 44.4 Other (e.g. elective) 8 88.9 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 45.5 27.3 27.3 2.8 0.87 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 001L1 TOPS AEC:HORTICULTURAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 580 001L1 METHODS OF TEACHING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Byers, Charles W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 12 80.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 20.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 28.6 Studies Program 1 7.1 2 hours 4 28.6 Required by my major 13 92.9 3 hours 3 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 14.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 580 001L1 METHODS OF TEACHING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Byers, Charles W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 18 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 83.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 671 001L1 YOUTH ORGANZTNS VOC ED INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Byers, Charles W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 17 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 17 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 11.8 Studies Program 1 5.9 2 hours 6 35.3 Required by my major 11 64.7 3 hours 7 41.2 Other (e.g. elective) 5 29.4 4 - 5 hours 2 11.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 3.9 0.33 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 3.9 0.33 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 3.9 0.33 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 3.9 0.33 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 3.9 0.33 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 5.9 17.6 76.5 3.7 0.59 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 0.0 5.9 94.1 3.9 0.24 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 671 001L1 YOUTH ORGANZTNS VOC ED INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Byers, Charles W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 17 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 535 001L1 PRIN & PHIL OF VOC EDU INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Tulloch, Rodney W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 78.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 21.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 14.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 85.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 35.7 Studies Program 1 7.1 2 hours 5 35.7 Required by my major 11 78.6 3 hours 3 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 2 14.3 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 16.7 16.7 66.7 0.0 2.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 15.4 0.0 69.2 15.4 2.8 0.90 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 57.1 28.6 14.3 0.0 1.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 80.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 1.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 7.1 21.4 57.1 14.3 2.8 0.80 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 14.3 64.3 21.4 3.1 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 78.6 21.4 3.2 0.43 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 21.4 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 7.7 30.8 46.2 15.4 2.7 0.85 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 21.4 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 7.1 14.3 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 7.1 21.4 50.0 21.4 2.9 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 535 001L1 PRIN & PHIL OF VOC EDU INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Tulloch, Rodney W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 2.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions wer