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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 631 001S1 PROSEM INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 46.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 53.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 15 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 7.1 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 7.1 3 hours 2 13.3 Other (e.g. elective) 12 85.7 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 6 - 7 hours 6 40.0 8 or more hours 6 40.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 13.3 66.7 20.0 3.1 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 13.3 33.3 53.3 3.4 0.74 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 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 13.3 26.7 60.0 3.5 0.74 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 13.3 33.3 53.3 3.4 0.74 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 21.4 71.4 3.6 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 21.4 71.4 3.6 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 631 001S1 PROSEM INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 14 7.1 7.1 71.4 14.3 2.9 0.73 29. Students free to express opinions 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 14 0.0 7.1 14.3 78.6 3.7 0.61 31. Developed abil to conduct research 11 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 3.1 0.30 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 88.2 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 619 001L1 GLOBAL COMM & INFO PERSP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Boyd, Douglas A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 50.0 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 1 20.0 Required by my major 1 20.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 80.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 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 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 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 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 619 001L1 GLOBAL COMM & INFO PERSP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Boyd, Douglas 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 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 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 765 401L1 COM RES DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Finn, Andrew SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 88.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 11.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 44.4 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 55.6 4 - 5 hours 3 30.0 6 - 7 hours 6 60.0 8 or more hours 1 10.0 % % 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 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 25.0 58.3 16.7 2.9 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.72 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 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 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 3.3 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 765 401L1 COM RES DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Finn, Andrew % % 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 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 28. Guided student report preparation 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 29. Students free to express opinions 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 31. Developed abil to conduct research 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 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 = at least 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 771 001S1 SEMINAR IN HEALTH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrington, Nancy Grant SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 91.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 8.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 100.0 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 8.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 8.3 Required by my major 3 33.3 3 hours 5 41.7 Other (e.g. elective) 6 66.7 4 - 5 hours 2 16.7 6 - 7 hours 3 25.0 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 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 16.7 25.0 58.3 3.4 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 16.7 25.0 58.3 3.4 0.79 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 18.2 9.1 72.7 3.5 0.82 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 18.2 9.1 72.7 3.5 0.82 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 0.87 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 0.80 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 771 001S1 SEMINAR IN HEALTH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrington, Nancy Grant % % 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 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 28. Guided student report preparation 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 29. Students free to express opinions 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 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 = 13 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 745 001S1 SEM IN MASS COM: PUBLIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Palmgreen, Philip C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 71.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 28.6 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 1 14.3 Required by my major 2 28.6 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 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 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 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 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 745 001S1 SEM IN MASS COM: PUBLIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Palmgreen, Philip 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 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 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 28. Guided student report preparation 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 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 = 7 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 780 002S1 SPEC TOPS COM: ENVRNMTAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rush, Ramona R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 22.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 88.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 11.1 Other 1 11.1 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 11.1 Required by my major 2 28.6 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 6 - 7 hours 1 11.1 8 or more hours 2 22.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . % % % % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 780 002S1 SPEC TOPS COM: ENVRNMTAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rush, Ramona R % % 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 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 90.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 601 401S1 PROSEM IN COMMUNICATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Van Tubergen, G Norman SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 77.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 22.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 33.3 Studies Program 1 11.1 2 hours 1 11.1 Required by my major 7 77.8 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 11.1 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 2 22.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 22.2 33.3 44.4 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 601 401S1 PROSEM IN COMMUNICATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Van Tubergen, G Norman % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 66.7 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 287 401L1 PERSUASIVE SPEAKING:GSC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 9.1 A 5 45.5 Sophomore 10 90.9 B 6 54.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 11 100.0 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 7 63.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 9.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 9.1 18.2 45.5 27.3 2.9 0.94 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 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 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 9.1 81.8 3.7 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 3.6 0.70 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . % % % % 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 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 287 401L1 PERSUASIVE SPEAKING:GSC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James 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 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.71 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 28. Guided student report preparation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 73.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 252 202L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 14.3 Sophomore 4 19.0 B 14 66.7 Junior 13 61.9 C 4 19.0 Senior 3 14.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 4.8 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 28.6 Studies Program 12 57.1 2 hours 10 47.6 Required by my major 8 38.1 3 hours 5 23.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.8 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 23 13.0 26.1 52.2 8.7 2.6 0.84 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 17.4 8.7 47.8 26.1 2.8 1.03 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 40.9 31.8 27.3 0.0 1.9 0.83 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 54.5 31.8 9.1 4.5 1.6 0.85 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 26.1 47.8 21.7 4.3 2.0 0.82 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 22.7 22.7 50.0 4.5 2.4 0.90 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 8.7 0.0 65.2 26.1 3.1 0.79 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 61.1 38.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 47.8 43.5 8.7 0.0 1.6 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 17.4 26.1 39.1 17.4 2.6 0.99 11. Was available for consultation 19 15.8 15.8 52.6 15.8 2.7 0.95 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 17.4 47.8 34.8 0.0 2.2 0.72 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 40.9 45.5 13.6 0.0 1.7 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 23 13.0 26.1 52.2 8.7 2.6 0.84 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 21.1 42.1 31.6 5.3 2.2 0.85 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 30.0 35.0 30.0 5.0 2.1 0.91 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 30.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 2.1 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 23.8 28.6 42.9 4.8 2.3 0.90 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 38.1 47.6 14.3 0.0 1.8 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 38.1 38.1 23.8 0.0 1.9 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 52.4 33.3 9.5 4.8 1.7 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 252 202L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 5 0.0 80.0 20.0 0.0 2.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 6 16.7 33.3 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 16.7 50.0 33.3 0.0 2.2 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 . 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 24 Number of forms scanned = 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 351 001L1 INTRO COMMUNICATION THRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 9.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 17 77.3 Junior 7 31.8 C 3 13.6 Senior 15 68.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 9.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 27.3 Required by my major 20 90.9 3 hours 11 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 9.1 4 - 5 hours 2 9.1 6 - 7 hours 1 4.5 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 24 0.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 12.0 52.0 36.0 3.2 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 4.0 44.0 52.0 3.5 0.59 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 4.0 44.0 52.0 3.5 0.59 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 12.0 52.0 36.0 3.2 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 4.0 68.0 28.0 3.2 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 12.0 24.0 64.0 3.5 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 28.0 72.0 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 0.0 4.2 41.7 54.2 3.5 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 0.0 12.5 58.3 29.2 3.2 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 0.0 8.0 56.0 36.0 3.3 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 15.0 50.0 35.0 3.2 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 0.0 64.0 36.0 3.4 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 8.0 24.0 68.0 3.6 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 351 001L1 INTRO COMMUNICATION THRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 34 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 73.5 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 482 401L1 PERSUASION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 13.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 66.7 Junior 1 5.9 C 3 20.0 Senior 16 94.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 23.5 Studies Program 1 6.3 2 hours 10 58.8 Required by my major 10 62.5 3 hours 1 5.9 Other (e.g. elective) 5 31.3 4 - 5 hours 1 5.9 6 - 7 hours 1 5.9 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 21 0.0 9.5 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 4.8 14.3 57.1 23.8 3.0 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 19.0 57.1 23.8 3.0 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 5.3 21.1 52.6 21.1 2.9 0.81 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 4.8 23.8 47.6 23.8 2.9 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 4.8 61.9 33.3 3.3 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 9.5 47.6 42.9 3.3 0.66 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 4.8 28.6 47.6 19.0 2.8 0.81 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 14.3 33.3 28.6 23.8 2.6 1.02 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 61.9 38.1 3.4 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 9.5 28.6 47.6 14.3 2.7 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 9.5 71.4 19.0 3.1 0.54 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 10.0 5.0 65.0 20.0 3.0 0.83 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 15.0 15.0 45.0 25.0 2.8 1.01 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 9.5 9.5 61.9 19.0 2.9 0.83 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 15.0 20.0 50.0 15.0 2.7 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 19.0 19.0 47.6 14.3 2.6 0.98 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 9.5 19.0 52.4 19.0 2.8 0.87 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 482 401L1 PERSUASION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R % % 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 26 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 80.8 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 365 001L1 INTRO TO COMM RES METH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 61.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 33.3 Junior 7 31.8 C 1 4.8 Senior 15 68.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 23.8 Studies Program 1 4.5 2 hours 8 38.1 Required by my major 21 95.5 3 hours 6 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 9.5 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 24 0.0 0.0 70.8 29.2 3.3 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 4.2 66.7 29.2 3.3 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 8.3 54.2 37.5 3.3 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 13.0 43.5 43.5 3.3 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 8.3 16.7 41.7 33.3 3.0 0.93 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 4.5 50.0 22.7 22.7 2.6 0.90 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 0.0 25.0 54.2 20.8 3.0 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 70.8 29.2 3.3 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 34.8 39.1 26.1 2.9 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 24 4.2 4.2 62.5 29.2 3.2 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 9.1 59.1 31.8 3.2 0.61 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 4.2 62.5 33.3 3.3 0.55 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 0.0 70.8 29.2 3.3 0.46 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 4.2 62.5 33.3 3.3 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 0.0 30.4 43.5 26.1 3.0 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 0.0 25.0 45.8 29.2 3.0 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 4.2 20.8 45.8 29.2 3.0 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 365 001L1 INTRO TO COMM RES METH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 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 = 30 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 581 001L1 STUDIES IN SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 63.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 27.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 9.1 Senior 11 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 45.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 9 81.8 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 4 - 5 hours 1 9.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 3.0 0.47 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 3.1 0.30 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 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 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 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 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 581 001L1 STUDIES IN SMALL GROUP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N % % 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 64.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 001L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 28 48.3 A 9 15.8 Sophomore 19 32.8 B 30 52.6 Junior 4 6.9 C 15 26.3 Senior 5 8.6 D 3 5.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 2 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 17 29.8 Studies Program 26 48.1 2 hours 24 42.1 Required by my major 9 16.7 3 hours 13 22.8 Other (e.g. elective) 19 35.2 4 - 5 hours 2 3.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 1.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 66 0.0 3.0 45.5 51.5 3.5 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 66 12.1 24.2 43.9 19.7 2.7 0.92 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 66 1.5 15.2 56.1 27.3 3.1 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 65 1.5 4.6 46.2 47.7 3.4 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 66 1.5 6.1 56.1 36.4 3.3 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 66 0.0 4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 64 7.8 18.8 50.0 23.4 2.9 0.86 8. Graded assignments included comments 60 18.3 40.0 23.3 18.3 2.4 1.00 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 66 1.5 1.5 24.2 72.7 3.7 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 66 0.0 1.5 18.2 80.3 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 56 1.8 5.4 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.68 12. Satisfact answered class questions 66 1.5 0.0 28.8 69.7 3.7 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 65 4.6 4.6 21.5 69.2 3.6 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 66 1.5 12.1 27.3 59.1 3.4 0.77 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 66 1.5 7.6 60.6 30.3 3.2 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 66 0.0 6.1 57.6 36.4 3.3 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 59 1.7 20.3 45.8 32.2 3.1 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 66 0.0 1.5 53.0 45.5 3.4 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 66 1.5 22.7 43.9 31.8 3.1 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 65 0.0 6.2 35.4 58.5 3.5 0.62 21. Overall quality of teaching 65 1.5 6.2 12.3 80.0 3.7 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 001L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 8 0.0 50.0 37.5 12.5 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 19 0.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 3.2 0.42 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 19 5.3 0.0 89.5 5.3 2.9 0.52 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 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 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 0.0 100.0 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 = 87 Number of forms scanned = 66 Number of forms with at least one student response = 66 Percent completed = 75.9 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 002L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 26 38.2 A 24 35.3 Sophomore 30 44.1 B 32 47.1 Junior 6 8.8 C 8 11.8 Senior 6 8.8 D 4 5.9 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 22 32.4 Studies Program 34 50.7 2 hours 16 23.5 Required by my major 20 29.9 3 hours 21 30.9 Other (e.g. elective) 13 19.4 4 - 5 hours 8 11.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 1.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 74 0.0 1.4 29.7 68.9 3.7 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 73 5.5 16.4 49.3 28.8 3.0 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 74 1.4 6.8 50.0 41.9 3.3 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 74 0.0 5.4 36.5 58.1 3.5 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 74 0.0 1.4 43.2 55.4 3.5 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 74 0.0 0.0 40.5 59.5 3.6 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 72 6.9 18.1 44.4 30.6 3.0 0.88 8. Graded assignments included comments 61 9.8 52.5 21.3 16.4 2.4 0.89 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 74 1.4 0.0 13.5 85.1 3.8 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 74 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 64 1.6 6.3 42.2 50.0 3.4 0.68 12. Satisfact answered class questions 74 1.4 1.4 25.7 71.6 3.7 0.58 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 74 2.7 1.4 18.9 77.0 3.7 0.64 14. Encouraged class participation 74 1.4 5.4 27.0 66.2 3.6 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 74 0.0 0.0 41.9 58.1 3.6 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 73 0.0 2.7 39.7 57.5 3.5 0.55 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 72 0.0 11.1 48.6 40.3 3.3 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 74 0.0 1.4 32.4 66.2 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 73 4.1 9.6 41.1 45.2 3.3 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 74 1.4 2.7 23.0 73.0 3.7 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 74 1.4 1.4 12.2 85.1 3.8 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 002L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 22 0.0 9.1 40.9 50.0 3.4 0.67 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 30 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.51 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 31 0.0 6.5 51.6 41.9 3.4 0.61 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 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 = 87 Number of forms scanned = 74 Number of forms with at least one student response = 74 Percent completed = 85.1 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 249 001L1 MASS MEDIA/MASS CULTURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 24.0 Sophomore 2 7.7 B 15 60.0 Junior 7 26.9 C 3 12.0 Senior 17 65.4 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 4.0 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 30.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 26.9 Required by my major 16 61.5 3 hours 9 34.6 Other (e.g. elective) 10 38.5 4 - 5 hours 1 3.8 6 - 7 hours 1 3.8 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 26 7.7 7.7 42.3 42.3 3.2 0.90 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 4.0 4.0 52.0 40.0 3.3 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 8.0 12.0 48.0 32.0 3.0 0.89 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 4.0 12.0 36.0 48.0 3.3 0.84 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 8.3 25.0 25.0 41.7 3.0 1.02 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 8.0 16.0 40.0 36.0 3.0 0.93 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 8.0 28.0 36.0 28.0 2.8 0.94 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 4.2 12.5 54.2 29.2 3.1 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 3.8 11.5 23.1 61.5 3.4 0.86 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 3.8 3.8 19.2 73.1 3.6 0.75 11. Was available for consultation 25 8.0 4.0 40.0 48.0 3.3 0.89 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 11.5 7.7 30.8 50.0 3.2 1.02 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 3.8 15.4 26.9 53.8 3.3 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 26 3.8 7.7 23.1 65.4 3.5 0.81 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 4.0 12.0 40.0 44.0 3.2 0.83 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 4.0 4.0 52.0 40.0 3.3 0.74 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 4.0 12.0 48.0 36.0 3.2 0.80 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 4.0 12.0 40.0 44.0 3.2 0.83 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 8.0 24.0 28.0 40.0 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 25 4.0 12.0 32.0 52.0 3.3 0.85 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 16.0 24.0 60.0 3.4 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 249 001L1 MASS MEDIA/MASS CULTURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 = 29 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 89.7 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 249 002L1 MASS MEDIA/MASS CULTURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 20.0 Sophomore 2 12.5 B 9 60.0 Junior 7 43.8 C 2 13.3 Senior 7 43.8 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 3 18.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 25.0 Required by my major 10 62.5 3 hours 8 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 37.5 4 - 5 hours 1 6.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 10.0 55.0 35.0 3.3 0.64 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 0.0 10.0 65.0 25.0 3.2 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 5.3 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 5.3 0.0 63.2 31.6 3.2 0.71 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 5.3 47.4 47.4 3.4 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 15.8 52.6 31.6 3.2 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 5.0 25.0 70.0 3.7 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 5.0 25.0 70.0 3.7 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 5.0 20.0 75.0 3.7 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 5.6 22.2 72.2 3.7 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.69 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 5.0 40.0 55.0 3.5 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 15.0 35.0 50.0 3.4 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 249 002L1 MASS MEDIA/MASS CULTURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 181 017L1 BASIC PUBLIC SPEAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 18 94.7 A 6 31.6 Sophomore 1 5.3 B 13 68.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 31.6 Studies Program 12 66.7 2 hours 8 42.1 Required by my major 5 27.8 3 hours 3 15.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.6 4 - 5 hours 2 10.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 0.0 65.0 35.0 3.4 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 2.4 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 30.0 60.0 10.0 2.8 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 25.0 55.0 20.0 3.0 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 5.0 80.0 15.0 3.1 0.45 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 5.0 5.0 65.0 25.0 3.1 0.72 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 15.0 40.0 45.0 3.3 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 5.0 75.0 20.0 3.2 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 5.3 21.1 63.2 10.5 2.8 0.71 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 5.0 60.0 35.0 3.3 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 5.3 10.5 68.4 15.8 2.9 0.71 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 0.77 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 16 12.5 56.3 25.0 6.3 2.3 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 10.0 65.0 25.0 3.2 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 181 017L1 BASIC PUBLIC SPEAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 12 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.74 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 .