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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 506 001L1 PRODUCTIV/QUAL CONTROL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 78.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 21.1 Junior 1 5.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 18 94.7 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 8 42.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 26.3 Required by my major 19 100.0 3 hours 3 15.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 5.3 6 - 7 hours 1 5.3 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 17 5.9 17.6 64.7 11.8 2.8 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 6.3 0.0 81.3 12.5 3.0 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 0.0 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 5.3 0.0 63.2 31.6 3.2 0.71 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 5.3 0.0 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 0.0 73.7 26.3 3.3 0.45 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 506 001L1 PRODUCTIV/QUAL CONTROL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 67.9 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 600 401L1 PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 22 95.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 4.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 23 100.0 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 8.7 Studies Program 2 8.7 2 hours 5 21.7 Required by my major 21 91.3 3 hours 10 43.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 17.4 6 - 7 hours 1 4.3 8 or more hours 1 4.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 2.9 0.81 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1 2.6 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 4.5 9.1 77.3 9.1 2.9 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 17.4 8.7 69.6 4.3 2.6 0.84 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 26.1 60.9 13.0 2.9 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 8.7 8.7 69.6 13.0 2.9 0.76 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 69.6 30.4 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 21.7 47.8 21.7 8.7 2.2 0.89 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 26.1 21.7 47.8 4.3 2.3 0.93 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 81.3 12.5 3.1 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 8.7 34.8 47.8 8.7 2.6 0.79 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 21.7 34.8 30.4 13.0 2.3 0.98 14. Encouraged class participation 23 4.3 0.0 69.6 26.1 3.2 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 10.5 78.9 10.5 3.0 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 9.1 18.2 59.1 13.6 2.8 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 13.6 18.2 63.6 4.5 2.6 0.80 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 8.7 21.7 65.2 4.3 2.7 0.71 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 21.7 26.1 43.5 8.7 2.4 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 26.1 34.8 30.4 8.7 2.2 0.95 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 26.1 26.1 39.1 8.7 2.3 0.97 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 600 401L1 PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen 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 = 35 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 65.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 001L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 24 70.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 29.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 3.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 32 97.0 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 6 17.6 Studies Program 10 30.3 2 hours 11 32.4 Required by my major 22 66.7 3 hours 7 20.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.0 4 - 5 hours 6 17.6 6 - 7 hours 3 8.8 8 or more hours 1 2.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 37 2.7 0.0 70.3 27.0 3.2 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 36 8.3 22.2 52.8 16.7 2.8 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 37 0.0 5.4 70.3 24.3 3.2 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 37 0.0 21.6 48.6 29.7 3.1 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 37 0.0 8.1 64.9 27.0 3.2 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 37 0.0 5.4 73.0 21.6 3.2 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 37 0.0 0.0 59.5 40.5 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 35 2.9 25.7 54.3 17.1 2.9 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 37 10.8 16.2 45.9 27.0 2.9 0.94 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 37 0.0 0.0 29.7 70.3 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 35 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 37 13.5 16.2 48.6 21.6 2.8 0.95 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 36 11.1 19.4 50.0 19.4 2.8 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 37 0.0 0.0 73.0 27.0 3.3 0.45 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 34 2.9 14.7 58.8 23.5 3.0 0.72 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 37 0.0 13.5 54.1 32.4 3.2 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 37 0.0 10.8 62.2 27.0 3.2 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 37 2.7 8.1 62.2 27.0 3.1 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 36 13.9 33.3 44.4 8.3 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 37 0.0 21.6 48.6 29.7 3.1 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 37 5.4 18.9 37.8 37.8 3.1 0.89 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 001L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C % % 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 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 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 = 52 Number of forms scanned = 37 Number of forms with at least one student response = 37 Percent completed = 71.2 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 401L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 28 96.6 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 3.4 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 6.7 Studies Program 8 27.6 2 hours 5 16.7 Required by my major 20 69.0 3 hours 8 26.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.4 4 - 5 hours 8 26.7 6 - 7 hours 5 16.7 8 or more hours 2 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 33 0.0 3.0 57.6 39.4 3.4 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 32 6.3 6.3 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.76 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 33 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 33 0.0 3.0 72.7 24.2 3.2 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 33 0.0 0.0 75.8 24.2 3.2 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 33 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.45 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 33 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 33 0.0 18.2 72.7 9.1 2.9 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 32 0.0 12.5 71.9 15.6 3.0 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 33 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 3.0 9.1 66.7 21.2 3.1 0.66 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 32 3.1 28.1 46.9 21.9 2.9 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 33 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 0.0 84.2 15.8 3.2 0.37 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 33 0.0 6.1 66.7 27.3 3.2 0.55 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 33 0.0 3.0 66.7 30.3 3.3 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 32 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 31 6.5 48.4 35.5 9.7 2.5 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 33 0.0 12.1 63.6 24.2 3.1 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 33 0.0 9.1 51.5 39.4 3.3 0.64 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 401L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C % % 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 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 2 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 38 Number of forms scanned = 33 Number of forms with at least one student response = 33 Percent completed = 86.8 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 001L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gonsalves, Gerald SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 36.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 16 64.0 Junior 7 28.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 18 72.0 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 40.0 Studies Program 1 4.0 2 hours 4 16.0 Required by my major 23 92.0 3 hours 8 32.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.0 4 - 5 hours 3 12.0 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 25 0.0 0.0 72.0 28.0 3.3 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 16.0 68.0 16.0 3.0 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 0.0 26.1 65.2 8.7 2.8 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 8.0 52.0 40.0 3.3 0.63 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 0.0 0.0 64.0 36.0 3.4 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 0.0 16.7 70.8 12.5 3.0 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 0.0 68.0 32.0 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 0.0 20.8 66.7 12.5 2.9 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 24.0 68.0 8.0 2.8 0.55 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 64.0 36.0 3.4 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 8.0 68.0 24.0 3.2 0.55 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 0.0 41.7 54.2 4.2 2.6 0.58 14. Encouraged class participation 25 8.0 4.0 72.0 16.0 3.0 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 11.8 82.4 5.9 2.9 0.43 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 0.0 4.0 84.0 12.0 3.1 0.40 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 0.0 4.0 88.0 8.0 3.0 0.35 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 0.0 0.0 92.0 8.0 3.1 0.28 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 8.0 44.0 48.0 0.0 2.4 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 20.0 76.0 4.0 2.8 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 4.0 20.0 56.0 20.0 2.9 0.76 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 001L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gonsalves, Gerald % % 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 = 33 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 75.8 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 402S1 SP TOPS MGMT DEC SYS: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 44.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 55.6 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 2 22.2 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 55.6 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 22.2 4 - 5 hours 4 44.4 6 - 7 hours 2 22.2 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 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 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 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 11.1 11.1 77.8 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 33.3 11.1 55.6 3.2 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 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 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 402S1 SP TOPS MGMT DEC SYS: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde 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 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 0.0 100.0 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 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 001L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 19 82.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 17.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 24 100.0 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 3 12.5 Studies Program 7 29.2 2 hours 2 8.3 Required by my major 15 62.5 3 hours 10 41.7 Other (e.g. elective) 2 8.3 4 - 5 hours 7 29.2 6 - 7 hours 1 4.2 8 or more hours 1 4.2 % % 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 8.0 36.0 56.0 3.5 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 4.3 17.4 56.5 21.7 3.0 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 16.0 56.0 28.0 3.1 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 0.0 64.0 36.0 3.4 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 4.0 56.0 40.0 3.4 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 4.0 44.0 52.0 3.5 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 8.3 8.3 50.0 33.3 3.1 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 4.0 12.0 56.0 28.0 3.1 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 4.0 40.0 56.0 3.5 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 4.0 8.0 44.0 44.0 3.3 0.79 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 4.0 20.0 48.0 28.0 3.0 0.82 14. Encouraged class participation 25 4.0 0.0 40.0 56.0 3.5 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 30.4 52.2 17.4 2.9 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 20.8 75.0 4.2 2.8 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 0.0 24.0 68.0 8.0 2.8 0.55 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.61 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 12.5 25.0 41.7 20.8 2.7 0.95 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 4.0 16.0 52.0 28.0 3.0 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 4.0 12.0 48.0 36.0 3.2 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 001L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al % % 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 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 92.6 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 401L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 28 84.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 15.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 33 100.0 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 6.1 Studies Program 4 12.5 2 hours 10 30.3 Required by my major 28 87.5 3 hours 12 36.4 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 5 15.2 6 - 7 hours 2 6.1 8 or more hours 2 6.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 33 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 33 0.0 6.1 72.7 21.2 3.2 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 33 0.0 3.0 57.6 39.4 3.4 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 33 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 33 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 33 0.0 0.0 51.5 48.5 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 33 0.0 0.0 39.4 60.6 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 33 0.0 3.0 69.7 27.3 3.2 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 33 0.0 3.0 48.5 48.5 3.5 0.56 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 33 0.0 0.0 21.2 78.8 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 31 0.0 3.2 38.7 58.1 3.5 0.57 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 0.0 0.0 57.6 42.4 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 33 0.0 3.0 57.6 39.4 3.4 0.55 14. Encouraged class participation 33 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 30 0.0 3.3 76.7 20.0 3.2 0.46 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 32 0.0 0.0 71.9 28.1 3.3 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 32 0.0 3.1 68.8 28.1 3.3 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 33 0.0 0.0 57.6 42.4 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 33 3.0 9.1 63.6 24.2 3.1 0.68 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 33 3.0 3.0 48.5 45.5 3.4 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 33 0.0 3.0 33.3 63.6 3.6 0.56 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 401L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al % % 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 = 38 Number of forms scanned = 33 Number of forms with at least one student response = 33 Percent completed = 86.8 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 402L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 24 77.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 22.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 31 100.0 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 6.7 Studies Program 10 33.3 2 hours 9 30.0 Required by my major 20 66.7 3 hours 11 36.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 8 26.7 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 32 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 16.1 29.0 45.2 9.7 2.5 0.89 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 32 3.1 15.6 65.6 15.6 2.9 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 32 0.0 28.1 62.5 9.4 2.8 0.59 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 0.0 3.2 80.6 16.1 3.1 0.43 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 32 3.1 9.4 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.69 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 31 3.2 19.4 54.8 22.6 3.0 0.75 8. Graded assignments included comments 30 3.3 26.7 53.3 16.7 2.8 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 32 6.3 6.3 65.6 21.9 3.0 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 32 0.0 3.1 50.0 46.9 3.4 0.56 11. Was available for consultation 29 0.0 10.3 51.7 37.9 3.3 0.65 12. Satisfact answered class questions 32 3.1 18.8 46.9 31.3 3.1 0.80 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 32 3.1 25.0 50.0 21.9 2.9 0.78 14. Encouraged class participation 31 0.0 0.0 54.8 45.2 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 3.8 11.5 61.5 23.1 3.0 0.72 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 30 6.7 20.0 63.3 10.0 2.8 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 30 6.7 26.7 60.0 6.7 2.7 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 3.2 9.7 77.4 9.7 2.9 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 16.7 20.0 53.3 10.0 2.6 0.90 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 32 12.5 18.8 50.0 18.8 2.8 0.92 21. Overall quality of teaching 32 6.3 18.8 46.9 28.1 3.0 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 402L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al % % 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 25.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 = 32 Number of forms scanned = 32 Number of forms with at least one student response = 32 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 77.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 22.2 Junior 3 16.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 15 83.3 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 44.4 Required by my major 9 50.0 3 hours 3 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 9 50.0 4 - 5 hours 6 33.3 6 - 7 hours 1 5.6 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 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 5.9 11.8 58.8 23.5 3.0 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 5.6 50.0 44.4 3.4 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 16.7 44.4 38.9 3.2 0.73 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 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 22.2 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 5.6 50.0 44.4 3.4 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 16.7 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 7.1 0.0 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 5.6 72.2 22.2 3.2 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 5.6 11.1 55.6 27.8 3.1 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 16.7 44.4 38.9 3.2 0.73 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita % % 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 72.0 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 611 001L1 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 14.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 100.0 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 0 0.0 2 hours 3 42.9 Required by my major 1 14.3 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 6 85.7 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 14.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 611 001L1 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita % % 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 = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 77.8 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 520 001L1 ADV BUS DATA PROCSS/INFO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 23.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 76.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 12 92.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 7.7 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 1 7.7 Studies Program 1 7.7 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 11 84.6 3 hours 7 53.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.7 4 - 5 hours 1 7.7 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 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 81.3 18.8 3.2 0.40 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 84.6 15.4 3.2 0.38 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 % % % % 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 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 520 001L1 ADV BUS DATA PROCSS/INFO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan % % 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 37. Question 37 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 60.0 13.3 3.9 0.64 38. Question 38 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 53.3 13.3 3.8 0.68 39. Question 39 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 73.3 13.3 4.0 0.53 40. Question 40 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 46.7 13.3 3.7 0.70 41. Question 41 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 60.0 13.3 3.9 0.64 42. Question 42 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 60.0 13.3 3.9 0.64 43. Question 43 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 53.3 13.3 3.8 0.68 44. Question 44 14 7.1 0.0 28.6 57.1 7.1 3.6 0.94 Number of forms preslugged = 19 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 84.2 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 401S1 SP TOPS MGMT DEC SYS: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 40.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 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 3 60.0 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 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 401S1 SP TOPS MGMT DEC SYS: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 37. Question 37 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . 38. Question 38 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 3.8 . 39. Question 39 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 3.6 . 40. Question 40 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 3.6 . 41. Question 41 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . 42. Question 42 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 3.6 . 43. Question 43 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . 44. Question 44 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 3.4 . 46. Question 46 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.0 . 47. Question 47 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . 49. Question 49 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = B&E 300 001L1 CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blanchard, Kem SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 86.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 6.7 Junior 4 26.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 11 73.3 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 1 6.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 53.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 20.0 Required by my major 2 13.3 3 hours 4 26.7 Other (e.g. elective) 13 86.7 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 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 5.3 0.0 52.6 42.1 3.3 0.75 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 5.6 0.0 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 11.8 58.8 29.4 3.2 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = B&E 300 001L1 CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blanchard, Kem % % 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 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 0.0 100.0 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 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 = 22 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 86.4 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = B&E 309 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Curtis E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 18.2 Sophomore 1 3.0 B 16 48.5 Junior 16 48.5 C 2 6.1 Senior 16 48.5 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 9 27.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 12 36.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 27.3 Required by my major 5 15.2 3 hours 11 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 28 84.8 4 - 5 hours 1 3.0 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 35 0.0 0.0 74.3 25.7 3.3 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 35 0.0 8.6 68.6 22.9 3.1 0.55 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 35 0.0 8.6 71.4 20.0 3.1 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 35 2.9 5.7 62.9 28.6 3.2 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 35 2.9 5.7 71.4 20.0 3.1 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 33 0.0 15.2 60.6 24.2 3.1 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 35 0.0 0.0 62.9 37.1 3.4 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 34 5.9 35.3 50.0 8.8 2.6 0.74 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 35 0.0 11.4 77.1 11.4 3.0 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 35 0.0 2.9 42.9 54.3 3.5 0.56 11. Was available for consultation 31 0.0 0.0 80.6 19.4 3.2 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 35 0.0 8.6 68.6 22.9 3.1 0.55 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 35 0.0 14.3 65.7 20.0 3.1 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 35 2.9 11.4 68.6 17.1 3.0 0.64 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 30 0.0 6.7 73.3 20.0 3.1 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 32 0.0 6.3 81.3 12.5 3.1 0.44 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 31 0.0 25.8 64.5 9.7 2.8 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 35 0.0 2.9 74.3 22.9 3.2 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 35 0.0 37.1 45.7 17.1 2.8 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 35 0.0 14.3 62.9 22.9 3.1 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 35 2.9 17.1 54.3 25.7 3.0 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = B&E 309 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Curtis E % % 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 0.0 100.0 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 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 = 49 Number of forms scanned = 35 Number of forms with at least one student response = 35 Percent completed = 71.4 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 626 001L1 TIME SERIES ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 72.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 27.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 11 100.0 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 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 36.4 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 63.6 4 - 5 hours 3 27.3 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 8 or more hours 7 63.6 % % 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 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 22.2 22.2 55.6 3.3 . 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 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 9.1 27.3 54.5 3.3 1.01 % % % % 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 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 626 001L1 TIME SERIES ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar 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 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 = 12 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 91.7 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 662 001L1 RES MTHDS&PROCEDURE ECON INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 35.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 42.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 14.3 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 14 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 7.1 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 7.1 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 11 78.6 3 hours 2 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 2 14.3 4 - 5 hours 5 35.7 6 - 7 hours 3 21.4 8 or more hours 4 28.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 7.1 21.4 42.9 28.6 2.9 0.92 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 0.76 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 7.1 14.3 78.6 3.7 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 14.3 21.4 64.3 3.5 0.76 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 21.4 35.7 42.9 3.2 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 14.3 78.6 3.7 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 662 001L1 RES MTHDS&PROCEDURE ECON INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar 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 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 = 16 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 87.5 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 676 001L1 LABOR ECONOMICS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Mark C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 66.7 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 25.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 80.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 20.0 4 - 5 hours 1 25.0 6 - 7 hours 2 50.0 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 676 001L1 LABOR ECONOMICS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Mark C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree