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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 301 001L1 MINI-COLLEGE IIIB: MSC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 6.9 A 11 37.9 Sophomore 27 93.1 B 16 55.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 6.9 Senior 0 0.0 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 13.8 Studies Program 27 96.4 2 hours 11 37.9 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 10 34.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.6 4 - 5 hours 4 13.8 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 29 0.0 6.9 44.8 48.3 3.4 0.63 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 3.7 7.4 74.1 14.8 3.0 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 29 3.4 6.9 72.4 17.2 3.0 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 29 0.0 0.0 65.5 34.5 3.3 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 11.1 40.7 48.1 3.4 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 29 6.9 6.9 55.2 31.0 3.1 0.82 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 0.0 3.4 58.6 37.9 3.3 0.55 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 0.0 14.3 60.7 25.0 3.1 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 0.0 6.9 44.8 48.3 3.4 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 0.0 31.0 69.0 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 29 0.0 0.0 48.3 51.7 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 0.0 0.0 41.4 58.6 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 29 3.4 13.8 44.8 37.9 3.2 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 29 0.0 20.7 44.8 34.5 3.1 0.74 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 29 0.0 3.4 55.2 41.4 3.4 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 17.9 46.4 35.7 3.2 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 0.0 14.3 50.0 35.7 3.2 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 0.0 3.4 55.2 41.4 3.4 0.56 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 29 0.0 34.5 34.5 31.0 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 29 0.0 13.8 55.2 31.0 3.2 0.66 21. Overall quality of teaching 29 0.0 3.4 48.3 48.3 3.4 0.57 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 301 001L1 MINI-COLLEGE IIIB: MSC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles 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 16 6.3 6.3 50.0 37.5 3.2 0.83 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 21 4.8 4.8 38.1 52.4 3.4 0.80 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 22 0.0 4.5 31.8 63.6 3.6 0.59 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 39 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 29 Percent completed = 74.4 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 300 001L1 SPECIAL COURSE: INTRO JAPANS SOCIETY & CULTURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Karan, P P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 35.3 Sophomore 8 44.4 B 8 47.1 Junior 3 16.7 C 2 11.8 Senior 7 38.9 D 1 5.9 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 3 17.6 Studies Program 8 50.0 2 hours 12 70.6 Required by my major 2 12.5 3 hours 1 5.9 Other (e.g. elective) 6 37.5 4 - 5 hours 1 5.9 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 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 5.6 22.2 72.2 0.0 2.7 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 5.3 10.5 63.2 21.1 3.0 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 5.0 0.0 60.0 35.0 3.3 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 5.0 0.0 65.0 30.0 3.2 0.70 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 5.6 72.2 22.2 3.2 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 5.3 10.5 63.2 21.1 3.0 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 5.0 10.0 70.0 15.0 3.0 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 73.7 26.3 3.3 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 5.3 31.6 42.1 21.1 2.8 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 20 5.0 20.0 60.0 15.0 2.9 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 22.2 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 23.5 58.8 17.6 2.9 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 37.5 43.8 12.5 2.6 0.81 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 5.0 15.0 55.0 25.0 3.0 0.79 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 5.0 25.0 40.0 30.0 3.0 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 5.0 25.0 55.0 15.0 2.8 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 30.0 55.0 15.0 2.9 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 300 001L1 SPECIAL COURSE: INTRO JAPANS SOCIETY & CULTURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Karan, P P % % 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 7 0.0 42.9 57.1 0.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 33.3 55.6 11.1 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 36 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 55.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 301 002L1 MINI-COLLEGE IIIB: MSC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Karan, P P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 10.7 A 11 40.7 Sophomore 25 89.3 B 15 55.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 3.7 Senior 0 0.0 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 3 10.7 Studies Program 22 78.6 2 hours 15 53.6 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 7 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 21.4 4 - 5 hours 2 7.1 6 - 7 hours 1 3.6 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 31 0.0 6.5 80.6 12.9 3.1 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 12.9 38.7 41.9 6.5 2.4 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 30 10.0 26.7 60.0 3.3 2.6 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 30 0.0 6.7 70.0 23.3 3.2 0.53 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 6.5 9.7 77.4 6.5 2.8 0.64 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 30 6.7 16.7 76.7 0.0 2.7 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 31 6.5 22.6 67.7 3.2 2.7 0.65 8. Graded assignments included comments 29 13.8 24.1 58.6 3.4 2.5 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 30 3.3 26.7 66.7 3.3 2.7 0.60 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 30 0.0 3.3 43.3 53.3 3.5 0.57 11. Was available for consultation 26 3.8 15.4 61.5 19.2 3.0 0.72 12. Satisfact answered class questions 30 3.3 30.0 56.7 10.0 2.7 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 30 23.3 36.7 30.0 10.0 2.3 0.94 14. Encouraged class participation 30 26.7 36.7 33.3 3.3 2.1 0.86 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 0.0 11.5 76.9 11.5 3.0 0.49 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 31 3.2 19.4 67.7 9.7 2.8 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 30 3.3 36.7 53.3 6.7 2.6 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 30 3.3 0.0 83.3 13.3 3.1 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 29 20.7 34.5 37.9 6.9 2.3 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 31 6.5 29.0 48.4 16.1 2.7 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 31 9.7 35.5 41.9 12.9 2.6 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 301 002L1 MINI-COLLEGE IIIB: MSC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Karan, P P % % 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 25 4.0 28.0 64.0 4.0 2.7 0.63 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 28 3.6 14.3 75.0 7.1 2.9 0.59 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 28 10.7 14.3 64.3 10.7 2.8 0.80 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 28 3.6 3.6 82.1 10.7 3.0 0.54 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 25 4.0 8.0 80.0 8.0 2.9 0.57 SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 2.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 30 3.3 3.3 56.7 36.7 3.3 0.69 33. Amount of work appropriate 30 3.3 6.7 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.64 34. Instructor explained expectations 30 3.3 3.3 60.0 33.3 3.2 0.68 35. Instructor helped with my problems 30 3.3 3.3 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.70 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 13 7.7 7.7 38.5 46.2 3.2 0.93 % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 45 Number of forms scanned = 31 Number of forms with at least one student response = 31 Percent completed = 68.9 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 001L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 20 100.0 A 11 57.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 31.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 10.5 Senior 0 0.0 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 10 50.0 Studies Program 15 83.3 2 hours 9 45.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 1 5.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 16.7 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 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 4.8 42.9 52.4 3.5 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 4.8 71.4 23.8 3.2 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 4.8 33.3 61.9 3.6 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.2 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 25.0 43.8 31.3 3.1 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 5.3 52.6 26.3 15.8 2.5 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 0.0 4.8 61.9 33.3 3.3 0.56 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 001L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward % % 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 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 were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 75.0 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 002L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 25 100.0 A 20 76.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 19.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 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 3.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 19.2 Studies Program 26 100.0 2 hours 13 50.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 7 26.9 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 3.8 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 28 0.0 3.6 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 0.0 3.7 18.5 77.8 3.7 0.53 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 10.7 28.6 60.7 3.5 0.69 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 3.7 14.8 22.2 59.3 3.4 0.88 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 3.6 28.6 67.9 3.6 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 7.1 25.0 57.1 10.7 2.7 0.76 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 0.0 7.4 37.0 55.6 3.5 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 3.7 25.9 70.4 3.7 0.55 11. Was available for consultation 26 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 0.0 39.3 60.7 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 3.6 14.3 32.1 50.0 3.3 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 3.6 21.4 75.0 3.7 0.53 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 27 3.7 0.0 25.9 70.4 3.6 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 3.7 29.6 66.7 3.6 0.56 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 17.4 47.8 34.8 3.2 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 8.7 26.1 65.2 3.6 0.66 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 7.7 19.2 46.2 26.9 2.9 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 14.8 37.0 48.1 3.3 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 002L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward % % 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 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 11 0.0 27.3 18.2 54.5 3.3 0.90 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 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 = 30 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 93.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 003L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 20 100.0 A 15 78.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 21.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 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 5 25.0 Studies Program 18 90.0 2 hours 7 35.0 Required by my major 1 5.0 3 hours 7 35.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.0 4 - 5 hours 1 5.0 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 22 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 0.0 59.1 40.9 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 18.2 50.0 31.8 3.1 0.71 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 9.1 40.9 50.0 3.4 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 14.3 33.3 52.4 3.4 0.74 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 15.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.64 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 0.0 65.0 35.0 3.4 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 0.0 28.6 52.4 19.0 2.9 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 9.1 50.0 40.9 3.3 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 003L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward % % 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 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 0.0 100.0 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 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 were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 27 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 81.5 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 004L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 25 100.0 A 16 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 29.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 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 4.2 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 24.0 Studies Program 20 80.0 2 hours 16 64.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 8.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 20.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 4.0 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 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 4.2 0.0 33.3 62.5 3.5 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 3.7 0.0 37.0 59.3 3.5 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 4.0 0.0 36.0 60.0 3.5 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 27 3.7 0.0 25.9 70.4 3.6 0.69 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 3.7 0.0 48.1 48.1 3.4 0.69 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 3.7 0.0 25.9 70.4 3.6 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 3.7 0.0 48.1 48.1 3.4 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 3.7 0.0 44.4 51.9 3.4 0.70 11. Was available for consultation 26 3.8 0.0 61.5 34.6 3.3 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 3.7 0.0 55.6 40.7 3.3 0.68 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 27 3.7 3.7 48.1 44.4 3.3 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 27 3.7 0.0 33.3 63.0 3.6 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 27 3.7 0.0 33.3 63.0 3.6 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 3.7 0.0 51.9 44.4 3.4 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 4.0 4.0 64.0 28.0 3.2 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 4.2 29.2 37.5 29.2 2.9 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 3.7 37.0 59.3 3.6 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 11.1 25.9 63.0 3.5 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 004L1 SP INTRO CRSE:GSC III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, Edward % % 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 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 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 = 32 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 84.4 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 018L1 SP INTRO CRSE:CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, Joseph W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 20 95.2 A 3 15.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 1 4.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 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 17 85.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 30.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 20.0 Required by my major 8 38.1 3 hours 3 15.0 Other (e.g. elective) 13 61.9 4 - 5 hours 5 25.0 6 - 7 hours 1 5.0 8 or more hours 1 5.0 % % 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 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 5.3 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 9.5 42.9 47.6 3.4 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 16.7 72.2 11.1 2.9 0.54 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 8.3 25.0 25.0 41.7 3.0 1.04 14. Encouraged class participation 9 11.1 0.0 22.2 66.7 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 6.7 0.0 80.0 13.3 3.0 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 4.5 68.2 27.3 3.2 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 4.5 59.1 36.4 3.3 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 15.0 20.0 55.0 10.0 2.6 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 19.0 38.1 42.9 3.2 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = A&S 100 018L1 SP INTRO CRSE:CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, Joseph 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 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 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 = 24 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 95.8 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AAS 400 001L1 SPEC TOPS AFRICAN-AMER: ED AF-AM MULTICULT SOCTY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harris, J John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 11.1 A 5 62.5 Sophomore 1 11.1 B 3 37.5 Junior 4 44.4 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 33.3 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 3 33.3 Required by my major 1 12.5 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 7 87.5 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 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 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . % % % % 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 11.1 77.8 3.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AAS 400 001L1 SPEC TOPS AFRICAN-AMER: ED AF-AM MULTICULT SOCTY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harris, J John % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 90.0 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = APP 200 001L1 INTRO-APPALACH STUDIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Black, Katherine J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 13.3 A 10 66.7 Sophomore 4 26.7 B 2 13.3 Junior 4 26.7 C 3 20.0 Senior 3 20.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 13.3 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 26.7 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 5 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 15 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 1 6.7 % % 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 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 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 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 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 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 3.3 0.82 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 % % % % 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = APP 200 001L1 INTRO-APPALACH STUDIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Black, Katherine J % % 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 1 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 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 = 24 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 62.5 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ENS 200 001L2 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Howell, Paul D. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 19.2 A 7 26.9 Sophomore 7 26.9 B 11 42.3 Junior 6 23.1 C 5 19.2 Senior 8 30.8 D 2 7.7 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 3.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 24.0 Studies Program 1 3.8 2 hours 10 40.0 Required by my major 5 19.2 3 hours 8 32.0 Other (e.g. elective) 20 76.9 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 4.0 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 28 0.0 3.6 64.3 32.1 3.3 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 14.3 75.0 10.7 3.0 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 3.6 7.1 78.6 10.7 3.0 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 10.7 71.4 17.9 3.1 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 18.5 51.9 29.6 0.0 2.1 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 3.6 14.3 75.0 7.1 2.9 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 10.7 60.7 28.6 3.2 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 39.3 60.7 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 27 0.0 0.0 63.0 37.0 3.4 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 0.0 60.7 39.3 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 0.0 14.3 46.4 39.3 3.3 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 0.0 3.8 61.5 34.6 3.3 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 7.4 63.0 29.6 3.2 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 3.7 0.0 59.3 37.0 3.3 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 0.0 19.2 46.2 34.6 3.2 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 7.4 44.4 48.1 3.4 0.64 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 7.4 63.0 29.6 3.2 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ENS 200 001L2 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Howell, Paul D. % % 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 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 = 41 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 68.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ENS 200 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Schein, Richard H. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 19.2 A 8 30.8 Sophomore 8 30.8 B 11 42.3 Junior 6 23.1 C 4 15.4 Senior 7 26.9 D 2 7.7 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 3.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 28.0 Studies Program 1 3.8 2 hours 10 40.0 Required by my major 6 23.1 3 hours 7 28.0 Other (e.g. elective) 19 73.1 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 4.0 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 28 0.0 3.6 53.6 42.9 3.4 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 14.3 64.3 21.4 3.1 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 3.6 67.9 28.6 3.3 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 3.6 64.3 32.1 3.3 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 7.1 35.7 50.0 7.1 2.6 0.74 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 0.0 10.7 71.4 17.9 3.1 0.54 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 3.6 60.7 35.7 3.3 0.55 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 28 0.0 3.6 57.1 39.3 3.4 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 0.0 3.6 53.6 42.9 3.4 0.57 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 27 0.0 0.0 59.3 40.7 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 10.7 53.6 35.7 3.3 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 0.0 3.7 59.3 37.0 3.3 0.55 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 0.0 3.6 60.7 35.7 3.3 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 27 0.0 11.1 51.9 37.0 3.3 0.66 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.62 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ENS 200 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Schein, Richard 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 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 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 = 41 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 68.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = LAS 201 001L1 INTRO TO LATIN AMERICA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Torres, Lourdes SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 7 17.9 A 10 27.0 Sophomore 17 43.6 B 17 45.9 Junior 9 23.1 C 10 27.0 Senior 5 12.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 2.6 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 6 16.2 Studies Program 30 81.1 2 hours 15 40.5 Required by my major 3 8.1 3 hours 10 27.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 10.8 4 - 5 hours 5 13.5 6 - 7 hours 1 2.7 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 44 0.0 2.3 77.3 20.5 3.2 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 43 4.7 7.0 55.8 32.6 3.2 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 44 2.3 13.6 61.4 22.7 3.0 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 44 2.3 18.2 56.8 22.7 3.0 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 44 2.3 22.7 63.6 11.4 2.8 0.64 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 43 4.7 11.6 69.8 14.0 2.9 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 43 4.7 27.9 58.1 9.3 2.7 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 44 6.8 34.1 54.5 4.5 2.6 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 44 13.6 20.5 54.5 11.4 2.6 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 44 2.3 0.0 68.2 29.5 3.3 0.58 11. Was available for consultation 37 0.0 13.5 78.4 8.1 2.9 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 43 11.6 14.0 60.5 14.0 2.8 0.84 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 43 16.3 30.2 41.9 11.6 2.5 0.91 14. Encouraged class participation 44 2.3 2.3 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 43 2.3 14.0 53.5 30.2 3.1 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 42 2.4 38.1 42.9 16.7 2.7 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 36 8.3 61.1 25.0 5.6 2.3 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 41 4.9 9.8 68.3 17.1 3.0 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 44 15.9 36.4 34.1 13.6 2.5 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 43 20.9 27.9 41.9 9.3 2.4 0.93 21. Overall quality of teaching 43 23.3 23.3 37.2 16.3 2.5 1.03 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = LAS 201 001L1 INTRO TO LATIN AMERICA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Torres, Lourdes % % 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 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 16 6.3 37.5 56.3 0.0 2.5 0.63 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 21 14.3 9.5 66.7 9.5 2.7 0.85 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 26 7.7 11.5 50.0 30.8 3.0 0.87 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 2.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 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 were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 53 Number of forms scanned = 44 Number of forms with at least one student response = 44 Percent completed = 83.0 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 105 004L1 MINI-COLLEGE I: MSC: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allison, Jonathan M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 17 100.0 A 11 68.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 25.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 6.3 Senior 0 0.0 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 1 6.3 Studies Program 13 81.3 2 hours 2 12.5 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 3 18.8 4 - 5 hours 5 31.3 6 - 7 hours 5 31.3 8 or more hours 1 6.3 % % 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 5.6 16.7 33.3 44.4 3.2 0.92 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 11.1 16.7 55.6 16.7 2.8 0.88 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 11.1 38.9 50.0 3.4 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 11.1 38.9 50.0 3.4 0.70 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 27.8 16.7 50.0 3.1 1.02 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 5.6 0.0 50.0 44.4 3.3 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 18.8 43.8 31.3 3.0 0.89 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 11.8 29.4 29.4 29.4 2.8 1.03 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 16.7 27.8 55.6 3.4 0.78 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 105 004L1 MINI-COLLEGE I: MSC: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allison, Jonathan M % % 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 8 12.5 25.0 25.0 37.5 2.9 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 25.0 41.7 33.3 3.1 0.79 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 2.8 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 90.0 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 107 001L1 NATURAL SCIENCE I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bhavsar, Suketu P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 22 100.0 A 5 22.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 31.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 7 31.8 Senior 0 0.0 D 2 9.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 4.5 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 3 14.3 Studies Program 17 85.0 2 hours 8 38.1 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 1 4.8 Other (e.g. elective) 3 15.0 4 - 5 hours 6 28.6 6 - 7 hours 2 9.5 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 24 8.3 8.3 66.7 16.7 2.9 0.78 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 29.2 12.5 41.7 16.7 2.5 1.10 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 33.3 4.2 54.2 8.3 2.4 1.06 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 37.5 16.7 37.5 8.3 2.2 1.05 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 20.8 29.2 41.7 8.3 2.4 0.92 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 16.7 33.3 37.5 12.5 2.5 0.93 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 16.7 37.5 37.5 8.3 2.4 0.88 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 12.5 29.2 54.2 4.2 2.5 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 8.3 4.2 58.3 29.2 3.1 0.83 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 4.2 58.3 37.5 3.3 0.56 11. Was available for consultation 23 4.3 0.0 69.6 26.1 3.2 0.65 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 4.2 8.3 54.2 33.3 3.2 0.76 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 8.3 33.3 25.0 33.3 2.8 1.01 14. Encouraged class participation 24 4.2 4.2 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.68 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 8.3 8.3 75.0 8.3 2.8 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 16.7 33.3 41.7 8.3 2.4 0.88 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 12.5 50.0 33.3 4.2 2.3 0.75 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 12.5 25.0 58.3 4.2 2.5 0.78 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 25.0 54.2 12.5 8.3 2.0 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 29.2 20.8 50.0 0.0 2.2 0.88 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 4.2 25.0 50.0 20.8 2.9 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 107 001L1 NATURAL SCIENCE I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bhavsar, Suketu P % % 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 23 21.7 21.7 56.5 0.0 2.3 0.83 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 23 13.0 30.4 52.2 4.3 2.5 0.79 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 23 30.4 26.1 39.1 4.3 2.2 0.94 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 9 22.2 66.7 11.1 0.0 1.9 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 11 18.2 27.3 54.5 0.0 2.4 0.81 SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 5 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 5 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 2.6 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 5 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 5 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 2.6 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 5 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 2.6 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 30 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 107 003L1 NATURAL SCIENCE I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bhavsar, Suketu P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 13 100.0 A 1 7.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 61.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 4 30.8 Senior 0 0.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 13 100.0 2 hours 5 38.5 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 23.1 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 30.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 7.7 % % 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 6.3 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 12.5 43.8 31.3 12.5 2.4 0.89 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 6.3 50.0 31.3 12.5 2.5 0.82 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 2.5 0.89 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 12.5 25.0 50.0 12.5 2.6 0.89 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 12.5 37.5 43.8 6.3 2.4 0.81 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 12.5 62.5 25.0 0.0 2.1 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 6.3 31.3 43.8 18.8 2.8 0.86 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 13.3 6.7 40.0 40.0 3.1 1.03 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 18.8 25.0 43.8 12.5 2.5 0.97 14. Encouraged class participation 16 6.3 0.0 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.77 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 6.3 6.3 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.77 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 13.3 33.3 40.0 13.3 2.5 0.92 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 6.7 40.0 40.0 13.3 2.6 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 18.8 25.0 50.0 6.3 2.4 0.89 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 21.4 64.3 7.1 7.1 2.0 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 18.8 37.5 37.5 6.3 2.3 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 37.5 31.3 31.3 2.9 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 107 003L1 NATURAL SCIENCE I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bhavsar, Suketu P % % 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 16 6.3 25.0 62.5 6.3 2.7 0.70 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 16 6.3 25.0 56.3 12.5 2.8 0.77 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 16 25.0 31.3 31.3 12.5 2.3 1.01 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 11 9.1 45.5 45.5 0.0 2.4 0.67 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 12 8.3 33.3 41.7 16.7 2.7 0.89 SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 5 0.0 80.0 20.0 0.0 2.2 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 6 16.7 83.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 6 16.7 16.7 66.7 0.0 2.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 64.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 107 004L1 NATURAL SCIENCE I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bhavsar, Suketu P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 6 100.0 A 2 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 16.7 Senior 0 0.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 4 66.7 2 hours 1 16.7 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 2 33.3 4 - 5 hours 2 33.3 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 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 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 11.1 66.7 22.2 0.0 2.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 22.2 66.7 11.1 0.0 1.9 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 55.6 11.1 33.3 0.0 1.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 11.1 44.4 44.4 0.0 2.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 55.6 22.2 11.1 11.1 1.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 11.1 22.2 44.4 22.2 2.8 . 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 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 22.2 33.3 22.2 22.2 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 11.1 11.1 55.6 22.2 2.9 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 12.5 62.5 25.0 0.0 2.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 33.3 22.2 33.3 11.1 2.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 55.6 22.2 11.1 11.1 1.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 33.3 44.4 22.2 0.0 1.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 33.3 22.2 22.2 22.2 2.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 107 004L1 NATURAL SCIENCE I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bhavsar, Suketu P % % 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 9 11.1 22.2 66.7 0.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 44.4 55.6 0.0 2.6 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 44.4 33.3 22.2 0.0 1.8 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 205 003L1 MINI-COLLEGE IIIA: MSC: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blackwell, Lois J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 5.3 A 7 36.8 Sophomore 18 94.7 B 12 63.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 19 100.0 2 hours 5 26.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 6 31.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 7 36.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 5.3 % % 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 73.7 26.3 3.3 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 10.5 73.7 15.8 3.1 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 15.8 68.4 15.8 3.0 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 15.8 68.4 15.8 3.0 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 36.8 52.6 10.5 2.7 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 36.8 47.4 15.8 2.8 0.71 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 26.3 68.4 5.3 2.8 0.54 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 5.3 21.1 57.9 15.8 2.8 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 15.8 63.2 21.1 3.1 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 5.3 52.6 31.6 10.5 2.5 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 19 5.3 21.1 63.2 10.5 2.8 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 15.8 63.2 15.8 2.9 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 42.1 42.1 15.8 2.7 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 36.8 42.1 21.1 2.8 0.76 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 10.5 73.7 15.8 3.1 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 5.3 52.6 26.3 15.8 2.5 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 26.3 73.7 0.0 2.7 0.45 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 36.8 57.9 5.3 2.7 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MSC 205 003L1 MINI-COLLEGE IIIA: MSC: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blackwell, Lois J % % 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 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 16.7 58.3 25.0 3.1 0.67 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 12 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.60 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 26. Cross-Disc