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 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 104 002L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 49 60.5 A 18 22.8 Sophomore 15 18.5 B 41 51.9 Junior 13 16.0 C 17 21.5 Senior 4 4.9 D 3 3.8 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 14 17.7 Studies Program 23 29.5 2 hours 25 31.6 Required by my major 48 61.5 3 hours 19 24.1 Other (e.g. elective) 7 9.0 4 - 5 hours 19 24.1 6 - 7 hours 2 2.5 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 88 1.1 2.3 55.7 40.9 3.4 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 88 3.4 14.8 53.4 28.4 3.1 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 76 1.3 13.2 59.2 26.3 3.1 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 87 1.1 6.9 51.7 40.2 3.3 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 87 1.1 3.4 51.7 43.7 3.4 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 66 1.5 10.6 59.1 28.8 3.2 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 75 0.0 2.7 52.0 45.3 3.4 0.55 8. Graded assignments included comments 43 16.3 32.6 34.9 16.3 2.5 0.96 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 88 2.3 14.8 54.5 28.4 3.1 0.72 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 88 0.0 1.1 51.1 47.7 3.5 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 83 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 84 0.0 6.0 56.0 38.1 3.3 0.58 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 88 9.1 27.3 46.6 17.0 2.7 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 87 6.9 36.8 44.8 11.5 2.6 0.78 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 67 3.0 23.9 50.7 22.4 2.9 0.77 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 84 1.2 9.5 63.1 26.2 3.1 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 86 2.3 8.1 59.3 30.2 3.2 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 86 2.3 7.0 55.8 34.9 3.2 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 85 5.9 50.6 31.8 11.8 2.5 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 86 1.2 18.6 55.8 24.4 3.0 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 86 2.3 19.8 45.3 32.6 3.1 0.79 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 104 002L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet F % % 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 18 0.0 5.6 66.7 27.8 3.2 0.55 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 16 0.0 31.3 62.5 6.3 2.8 0.58 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 10 10.0 0.0 80.0 10.0 2.9 0.74 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 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 = 157 Number of forms scanned = 88 Number of forms with at least one student response = 88 Percent completed = 56.1 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 001L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 35.7 Sophomore 2 13.3 B 4 28.6 Junior 4 26.7 C 5 35.7 Senior 8 53.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 6.7 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 7.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 21.4 Required by my major 11 73.3 3 hours 3 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 4 26.7 4 - 5 hours 4 28.6 6 - 7 hours 2 14.3 8 or more hours 1 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 6.3 12.5 68.8 12.5 2.9 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 6.3 18.8 56.3 18.8 2.9 0.81 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 7.1 14.3 57.1 21.4 2.9 0.83 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 6.7 0.0 73.3 20.0 3.1 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 6.7 46.7 33.3 13.3 2.5 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 6.7 33.3 46.7 13.3 2.7 0.82 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 50.0 31.3 18.8 2.7 0.79 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 30.0 60.0 10.0 2.8 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 6.3 6.3 50.0 37.5 3.2 0.83 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 6.3 43.8 37.5 12.5 2.6 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 25.0 68.8 6.3 2.8 0.54 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 001L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G % % 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 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 5 60.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 2.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 44 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 36.4 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 104 001L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Butterfield, David A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 51 61.4 A 14 17.1 Sophomore 18 21.7 B 38 46.3 Junior 8 9.6 C 26 31.7 Senior 6 7.2 D 2 2.4 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 2.4 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 17 20.5 Studies Program 19 24.4 2 hours 19 22.9 Required by my major 38 48.7 3 hours 23 27.7 Other (e.g. elective) 21 26.9 4 - 5 hours 17 20.5 6 - 7 hours 7 8.4 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 86 0.0 0.0 41.9 58.1 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 95 0.0 6.3 51.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 86 2.3 9.3 47.7 40.7 3.3 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 95 0.0 4.2 44.2 51.6 3.5 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 96 0.0 2.1 47.9 50.0 3.5 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 81 2.5 2.5 56.8 38.3 3.3 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 87 1.1 0.0 41.4 57.5 3.6 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 50 10.0 38.0 26.0 26.0 2.7 0.98 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 95 0.0 2.1 37.9 60.0 3.6 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 95 0.0 0.0 18.9 81.1 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 92 0.0 2.2 34.8 63.0 3.6 0.53 12. Satisfact answered class questions 95 0.0 4.2 37.9 57.9 3.5 0.58 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 93 3.2 8.6 45.2 43.0 3.3 0.76 14. Encouraged class participation 95 1.1 1.1 16.8 81.1 3.8 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 69 0.0 13.0 60.9 26.1 3.1 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 94 0.0 6.4 56.4 37.2 3.3 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 92 0.0 4.3 53.3 42.4 3.4 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 95 0.0 3.2 53.7 43.2 3.4 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 92 5.4 41.3 32.6 20.7 2.7 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 95 0.0 9.5 47.4 43.2 3.3 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 94 0.0 1.1 22.3 76.6 3.8 0.46 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 104 001L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Butterfield, David A % % 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 38 0.0 7.9 55.3 36.8 3.3 0.61 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 36 0.0 8.3 72.2 19.4 3.1 0.52 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 25 0.0 24.0 60.0 16.0 2.9 0.64 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 2.4 . 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 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 = 142 Number of forms scanned = 96 Number of forms with at least one student response = 96 Percent completed = 67.6 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cammers-Goodwin, Arthur SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 39.3 Sophomore 15 50.0 B 9 32.1 Junior 10 33.3 C 8 28.6 Senior 4 13.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 3.3 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 10.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 7.1 Required by my major 26 89.7 3 hours 9 32.1 Other (e.g. elective) 3 10.3 4 - 5 hours 9 32.1 6 - 7 hours 4 14.3 8 or more hours 1 3.6 % % 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 3.1 65.6 31.3 3.3 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 33 0.0 3.0 66.7 30.3 3.3 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 33 3.0 6.1 69.7 21.2 3.1 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 32 18.8 18.8 43.8 18.8 2.6 1.01 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 6.5 6.5 64.5 22.6 3.0 0.75 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 4.0 8.0 56.0 32.0 3.2 0.75 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 32 0.0 6.3 46.9 46.9 3.4 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 14.3 39.3 35.7 10.7 2.4 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 33 12.1 33.3 42.4 12.1 2.5 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 33 9.1 3.0 30.3 57.6 3.4 0.93 11. Was available for consultation 33 0.0 3.0 60.6 36.4 3.3 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 6.1 27.3 39.4 27.3 2.9 0.89 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 33 9.1 33.3 36.4 21.2 2.7 0.92 14. Encouraged class participation 31 6.5 16.1 67.7 9.7 2.8 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 4.8 19.0 57.1 19.0 2.9 0.77 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 31 3.2 6.5 67.7 22.6 3.1 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 30 3.3 6.7 66.7 23.3 3.1 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 3.2 12.9 58.1 25.8 3.1 0.73 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 32 15.6 37.5 34.4 12.5 2.4 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 32 9.4 31.3 40.6 18.8 2.7 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 31 16.1 25.8 35.5 22.6 2.6 1.02 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cammers-Goodwin, Arthur % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 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 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 = 84 Number of forms scanned = 35 Number of forms with at least one student response = 33 Percent completed = 39.3 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 547 001L1 PRIN OF PHYSICAL CHEM I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Clouthier, Dennis J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 66.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 6.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 14 93.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 6.7 Required by my major 14 93.3 3 hours 2 13.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.7 4 - 5 hours 6 40.0 6 - 7 hours 3 20.0 8 or more hours 3 20.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 6.3 18.8 75.0 3.7 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 18.8 25.0 56.3 3.4 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 6.7 13.3 80.0 3.7 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 6.7 20.0 73.3 3.7 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 20.0 26.7 53.3 3.3 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 547 001L1 PRIN OF PHYSICAL CHEM I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Clouthier, Dennis 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 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 68.0 % 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 002L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 25 89.3 A 16 57.1 Sophomore 1 3.6 B 7 25.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 4 14.3 Senior 2 7.1 D 1 3.6 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 2 7.1 Studies Program 2 7.1 2 hours 6 21.4 Required by my major 25 89.3 3 hours 8 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.6 4 - 5 hours 9 32.1 6 - 7 hours 2 7.1 8 or more hours 1 3.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 29 3.4 0.0 58.6 37.9 3.3 0.66 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 29 0.0 13.8 72.4 13.8 3.0 0.53 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 29 6.9 10.3 69.0 13.8 2.9 0.72 4. Exams reflected what was taught 29 6.9 31.0 58.6 3.4 2.6 0.68 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 0.0 10.3 75.9 13.8 3.0 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 0.0 89.3 10.7 3.1 0.31 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 30.8 61.5 7.7 0.0 1.8 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 6.9 10.3 55.2 27.6 3.0 0.82 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 0.0 48.3 51.7 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 28 0.0 3.6 67.9 28.6 3.3 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 3.4 24.1 48.3 24.1 2.9 0.80 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 3.6 35.7 39.3 21.4 2.8 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 29 3.4 31.0 48.3 17.2 2.8 0.77 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 25.0 56.3 18.8 2.9 0.68 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 25.0 53.6 21.4 3.0 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 0.0 25.0 60.7 14.3 2.9 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 0.0 6.9 75.9 17.2 3.1 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 0.0 60.7 32.1 7.1 2.5 0.64 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 29 0.0 17.2 51.7 31.0 3.1 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 29 13.8 20.7 31.0 34.5 2.9 1.06 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 002L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul 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 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 43 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 29 Percent completed = 67.4 % 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 006L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 41 85.4 A 12 25.0 Sophomore 6 12.5 B 18 37.5 Junior 1 2.1 C 14 29.2 Senior 0 0.0 D 4 8.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 10.4 Studies Program 11 23.4 2 hours 8 16.7 Required by my major 33 70.2 3 hours 17 35.4 Other (e.g. elective) 3 6.4 4 - 5 hours 12 25.0 6 - 7 hours 5 10.4 8 or more hours 1 2.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 51 0.0 3.9 60.8 35.3 3.3 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 51 0.0 13.7 60.8 25.5 3.1 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 49 2.0 8.2 69.4 20.4 3.1 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 51 3.9 29.4 52.9 13.7 2.8 0.74 5. Grading was fair and consistent 50 4.0 12.0 60.0 24.0 3.0 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 49 2.0 8.2 67.3 22.4 3.1 0.62 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 43 0.0 2.3 69.8 27.9 3.3 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 47.4 31.6 10.5 10.5 1.8 1.01 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 51 2.0 25.5 54.9 17.6 2.9 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 51 0.0 2.0 45.1 52.9 3.5 0.54 11. Was available for consultation 46 0.0 8.7 65.2 26.1 3.2 0.57 12. Satisfact answered class questions 51 3.9 13.7 58.8 23.5 3.0 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 50 6.0 42.0 38.0 14.0 2.6 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 49 6.1 30.6 44.9 18.4 2.8 0.83 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 31 6.5 29.0 48.4 16.1 2.7 0.82 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 47 0.0 14.9 68.1 17.0 3.0 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 48 2.1 14.6 60.4 22.9 3.0 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 50 2.0 10.0 60.0 28.0 3.1 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 50 14.0 48.0 28.0 10.0 2.3 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 51 5.9 23.5 52.9 17.6 2.8 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 51 3.9 25.5 47.1 23.5 2.9 0.81 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 006L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul 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 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 0.52 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 16 0.0 31.3 50.0 18.8 2.9 0.72 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 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 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 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 = 155 Number of forms scanned = 52 Number of forms with at least one student response = 51 Percent completed = 32.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 001L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 40.0 Junior 2 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 8 80.0 D 1 10.0 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 10.0 Studies Program 1 10.0 2 hours 1 10.0 Required by my major 9 90.0 3 hours 2 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 10.0 6 - 7 hours 3 30.0 8 or more hours 2 20.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 8.3 0.0 33.3 58.3 3.4 0.90 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 45.5 27.3 27.3 2.8 0.87 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 3.0 0.82 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 45.5 9.1 45.5 3.0 1.00 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 001L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % 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 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 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 = 16 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 002L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 37.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 62.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 7 87.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 12.5 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 2 25.0 Required by my major 7 87.5 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 5 62.5 6 - 7 hours 1 12.5 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 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 25.0 12.5 62.5 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 12.5 0.0 25.0 62.5 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 002L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % 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 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 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 = 8 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 580 002L1 TOPICS IN CHEMISTRY: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grev, Roger SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 55.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 11.1 Senior 1 10.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 90.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 10.0 2 hours 1 10.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 9 90.0 4 - 5 hours 2 20.0 6 - 7 hours 2 20.0 8 or more hours 2 20.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 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 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 580 002L1 TOPICS IN CHEMISTRY: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grev, Roger % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 90.9 % 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 538 001L1 PRIN OF ORGANIC CHE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, Robert SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 9.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 13 59.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 6 27.3 Senior 3 12.5 D 1 4.5 Graduate 20 83.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 4.2 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 4.3 Studies Program 3 13.0 2 hours 3 13.0 Required by my major 18 78.3 3 hours 6 26.1 Other (e.g. elective) 2 8.7 4 - 5 hours 5 21.7 6 - 7 hours 3 13.0 8 or more hours 5 21.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 24 0.0 4.2 54.2 41.7 3.4 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 16.7 37.5 33.3 12.5 2.4 0.93 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 4.2 8.3 50.0 37.5 3.2 0.78 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 20.8 20.8 37.5 20.8 2.6 1.06 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 12.5 25.0 41.7 20.8 2.7 0.95 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 4.8 14.3 61.9 19.0 3.0 0.74 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 4.8 28.6 66.7 3.6 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 26.3 31.6 31.6 10.5 2.3 0.99 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 4.2 4.2 70.8 20.8 3.1 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 4.2 70.8 25.0 3.2 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 8.7 43.5 30.4 17.4 2.6 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 4.3 65.2 30.4 3.3 0.54 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 9.1 9.1 72.7 9.1 2.8 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 5.6 11.1 66.7 16.7 2.9 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 5.3 5.3 73.7 15.8 3.0 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 4.5 4.5 59.1 31.8 3.2 0.73 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 15.0 35.0 40.0 10.0 2.5 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 8.3 29.2 45.8 16.7 2.7 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 12.5 25.0 41.7 20.8 2.7 0.95 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 538 001L1 PRIN OF ORGANIC CHE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, Robert % % 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 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 = 37 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 67.6 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 001L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 63 87.5 A 17 23.9 Sophomore 5 6.9 B 28 39.4 Junior 4 5.6 C 23 32.4 Senior 0 0.0 D 2 2.8 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 1.4 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 6 8.7 2 hours 4 5.6 Required by my major 61 88.4 3 hours 23 31.9 Other (e.g. elective) 2 2.9 4 - 5 hours 27 37.5 6 - 7 hours 10 13.9 8 or more hours 8 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 78 0.0 0.0 44.9 55.1 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 78 1.3 7.7 44.9 46.2 3.4 0.68 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 78 1.3 5.1 43.6 50.0 3.4 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 77 6.5 24.7 55.8 13.0 2.8 0.76 5. Grading was fair and consistent 77 1.3 16.9 51.9 29.9 3.1 0.72 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 75 1.3 18.7 50.7 29.3 3.1 0.73 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 74 0.0 1.4 51.4 47.3 3.5 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 64 10.9 54.7 23.4 10.9 2.3 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 78 0.0 6.4 46.2 47.4 3.4 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 78 0.0 0.0 12.8 87.2 3.9 0.34 11. Was available for consultation 75 0.0 0.0 41.3 58.7 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 77 0.0 1.3 31.2 67.5 3.7 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 75 4.0 9.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 77 0.0 9.1 44.2 46.8 3.4 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 56 1.8 23.2 55.4 19.6 2.9 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 76 0.0 9.2 48.7 42.1 3.3 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 77 0.0 6.5 45.5 48.1 3.4 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 77 0.0 7.8 50.6 41.6 3.3 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 76 9.2 44.7 28.9 17.1 2.5 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 77 2.6 11.7 54.5 31.2 3.1 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 77 1.3 5.2 35.1 58.4 3.5 0.66 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 001L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert 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 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 17 0.0 23.5 64.7 11.8 2.9 0.60 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 12.5 12.5 75.0 0.0 2.6 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 153 Number of forms scanned = 79 Number of forms with at least one student response = 78 Percent completed = 51.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 003L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 30 68.2 A 8 18.2 Sophomore 7 15.9 B 16 36.4 Junior 2 4.5 C 13 29.5 Senior 3 6.8 D 6 13.6 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 4.5 Pass or Audit 1 2.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 9.1 Studies Program 5 11.6 2 hours 11 25.0 Required by my major 34 79.1 3 hours 13 29.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 9.3 4 - 5 hours 8 18.2 6 - 7 hours 6 13.6 8 or more hours 2 4.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 54 0.0 1.9 63.0 35.2 3.3 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 54 3.7 5.6 59.3 31.5 3.2 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 53 5.7 13.2 54.7 26.4 3.0 0.80 4. Exams reflected what was taught 54 24.1 22.2 44.4 9.3 2.4 0.96 5. Grading was fair and consistent 54 3.7 22.2 57.4 16.7 2.9 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 49 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 43 0.0 0.0 48.8 51.2 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 29.4 52.9 11.8 5.9 1.9 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 54 1.9 9.3 57.4 31.5 3.2 0.68 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 54 0.0 0.0 20.4 79.6 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 48 0.0 4.2 62.5 33.3 3.3 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 54 0.0 5.6 51.9 42.6 3.4 0.59 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 54 7.4 31.5 42.6 18.5 2.7 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 50 0.0 16.0 48.0 36.0 3.2 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 30 3.3 30.0 56.7 10.0 2.7 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 52 3.8 17.3 65.4 13.5 2.9 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 53 3.8 9.4 73.6 13.2 3.0 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 54 0.0 9.3 72.2 18.5 3.1 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 54 24.1 42.6 25.9 7.4 2.2 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 54 3.7 31.5 55.6 9.3 2.7 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 54 3.7 14.8 40.7 40.7 3.2 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 003L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert 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 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 16.7 8.3 75.0 0.0 2.6 0.79 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 12.5 75.0 12.5 0.0 2.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 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 = 158 Number of forms scanned = 54 Number of forms with at least one student response = 54 Percent completed = 34.2 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 105 008L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Krause, Marge SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 33 78.6 A 11 26.2 Sophomore 4 9.5 B 23 54.8 Junior 1 2.4 C 6 14.3 Senior 3 7.1 D 1 2.4 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 2.4 Professional 1 2.4 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 6 14.3 Studies Program 3 7.1 2 hours 10 23.8 Required by my major 37 88.1 3 hours 7 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 2 4.8 4 - 5 hours 8 19.0 6 - 7 hours 7 16.7 8 or more hours 4 9.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 43 0.0 0.0 67.4 32.6 3.3 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 43 2.3 9.3 53.5 34.9 3.2 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 43 2.3 9.3 55.8 32.6 3.2 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 43 4.7 23.3 53.5 18.6 2.9 0.77 5. Grading was fair and consistent 43 2.3 9.3 60.5 27.9 3.1 0.68 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 42 0.0 2.4 64.3 33.3 3.3 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 35 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 30.8 30.8 30.8 7.7 2.2 0.99 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 43 2.3 11.6 60.5 25.6 3.1 0.68 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 43 0.0 0.0 46.5 53.5 3.5 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 41 0.0 0.0 65.9 34.1 3.3 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 43 2.3 9.3 60.5 27.9 3.1 0.68 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 42 11.9 23.8 42.9 21.4 2.7 0.94 14. Encouraged class participation 43 0.0 0.0 60.5 39.5 3.4 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 29 0.0 20.7 69.0 10.3 2.9 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 43 2.3 14.0 51.2 32.6 3.1 0.74 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 43 2.3 7.0 55.8 34.9 3.2 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 42 4.8 0.0 61.9 33.3 3.2 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 41 24.4 39.0 24.4 12.2 2.2 0.97 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 43 2.3 14.0 53.5 30.2 3.1 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 43 2.3 18.6 41.9 37.2 3.1 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 105 008L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Krause, Marge % % 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 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 11 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3 3.0 0.89 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 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 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 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 = 121 Number of forms scanned = 44 Number of forms with at least one student response = 43 Percent completed = 35.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 003L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meier, Mark S SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 4.1 A 20 28.2 Sophomore 40 54.8 B 26 36.6 Junior 24 32.9 C 20 28.2 Senior 6 8.2 D 4 5.6 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 1.4 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 5.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 12.7 Required by my major 64 88.9 3 hours 18 25.4 Other (e.g. elective) 8 11.1 4 - 5 hours 20 28.2 6 - 7 hours 10 14.1 8 or more hours 10 14.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 87 0.0 0.0 43.7 56.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 87 0.0 2.3 40.2 57.5 3.6 0.54 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 64 0.0 6.3 45.3 48.4 3.4 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 85 2.4 10.6 49.4 37.6 3.2 0.73 5. Grading was fair and consistent 87 1.1 9.2 54.0 35.6 3.2 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 55 0.0 1.8 50.9 47.3 3.5 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 82 0.0 0.0 18.3 81.7 3.8 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 68 1.5 26.5 47.1 25.0 3.0 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 87 0.0 1.1 17.2 81.6 3.8 0.43 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 87 0.0 0.0 11.5 88.5 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 84 0.0 1.2 28.6 70.2 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 86 0.0 0.0 27.9 72.1 3.7 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 87 1.1 9.2 33.3 56.3 3.4 0.71 14. Encouraged class participation 86 0.0 1.2 36.0 62.8 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 44 0.0 6.8 54.5 38.6 3.3 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 82 0.0 3.7 50.0 46.3 3.4 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 81 0.0 6.2 46.9 46.9 3.4 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 81 0.0 2.5 42.0 55.6 3.5 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 76 3.9 32.9 44.7 18.4 2.8 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 86 3.5 11.6 41.9 43.0 3.2 0.80 21. Overall quality of teaching 86 0.0 1.2 19.8 79.1 3.8 0.44 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 003L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meier, Mark S % % 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 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 14.3 0.0 71.4 14.3 2.9 . 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 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 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 146 Number of forms scanned = 87 Number of forms with at least one student response = 87 Percent completed = 59.6 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Robertson, John D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 78 83.9 A 27 29.3 Sophomore 11 11.8 B 32 34.8 Junior 3 3.2 C 26 28.3 Senior 1 1.1 D 7 7.6 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 2 2.2 Studies Program 17 18.7 2 hours 19 20.9 Required by my major 72 79.1 3 hours 32 35.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 2.2 4 - 5 hours 26 28.6 6 - 7 hours 7 7.7 8 or more hours 5 5.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 104 0.0 1.9 55.8 42.3 3.4 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 104 1.0 5.8 58.7 34.6 3.3 0.61 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 104 1.0 4.8 49.0 45.2 3.4 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 104 7.7 26.9 51.9 13.5 2.7 0.80 5. Grading was fair and consistent 104 1.0 8.7 64.4 26.0 3.2 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 102 0.0 1.0 71.6 27.5 3.3 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 96 1.0 1.0 57.3 40.6 3.4 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 49 22.4 42.9 26.5 8.2 2.2 0.89 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 103 0.0 1.9 44.7 53.4 3.5 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 104 0.0 0.0 21.2 78.8 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 92 0.0 2.2 55.4 42.4 3.4 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 104 1.0 1.0 41.3 56.7 3.5 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 102 1.0 10.8 50.0 38.2 3.3 0.68 14. Encouraged class participation 103 0.0 3.9 64.1 32.0 3.3 0.53 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 74 0.0 24.3 64.9 10.8 2.9 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 103 1.0 3.9 72.8 22.3 3.2 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 104 1.0 7.7 64.4 26.9 3.2 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 104 0.0 7.7 62.5 29.8 3.2 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 100 3.0 52.0 33.0 12.0 2.5 0.74 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 104 1.0 20.2 51.0 27.9 3.1 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 104 0.0 1.9 26.9 71.2 3.7 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Robertson, John 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 37 2.7 10.8 48.6 37.8 3.2 0.75 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 36 2.8 11.1 55.6 30.6 3.1 0.72 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 18 0.0 16.7 44.4 38.9 3.2 0.73 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 8 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 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 = 170 Number of forms scanned = 106 Number of forms with at least one student response = 104 Percent completed = 61.2 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 440G001L1 PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Sands, Donald E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 22 57.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 28.9 Junior 11 28.9 C 4 10.5 Senior 18 47.4 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 23.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 2.6 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 5.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 7.9 Required by my major 35 92.1 3 hours 13 34.2 Other (e.g. elective) 3 7.9 4 - 5 hours 14 36.8 6 - 7 hours 4 10.5 8 or more hours 2 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 41 0.0 0.0 22.0 78.0 3.8 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 41 2.4 26.8 46.3 24.4 2.9 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 41 2.4 7.3 39.0 51.2 3.4 0.74 4. Exams reflected what was taught 41 0.0 2.4 24.4 73.2 3.7 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 41 0.0 2.4 17.1 80.5 3.8 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 41 0.0 0.0 26.8 73.2 3.7 0.45 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 41 0.0 0.0 14.6 85.4 3.9 0.36 8. Graded assignments included comments 39 2.6 17.9 46.2 33.3 3.1 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 41 0.0 0.0 24.4 75.6 3.8 0.43 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 41 0.0 0.0 14.6 85.4 3.9 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 40 0.0 0.0 27.5 72.5 3.7 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 41 0.0 0.0 17.1 82.9 3.8 0.38 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 39 0.0 10.3 48.7 41.0 3.3 0.66 14. Encouraged class participation 39 0.0 20.5 41.0 38.5 3.2 0.76 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect differ