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 = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 201 001L1 INTERMEDIATE LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Francis, James A. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 8.3 A 9 37.5 Sophomore 2 8.3 B 11 45.8 Junior 8 33.3 C 2 8.3 Senior 11 45.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.2 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 8.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 4.2 Studies Program 7 29.2 2 hours 4 16.7 Required by my major 16 66.7 3 hours 7 29.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.2 4 - 5 hours 9 37.5 6 - 7 hours 2 8.3 8 or more hours 1 4.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 4.0 24.0 72.0 3.7 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 4.0 56.0 40.0 3.4 0.57 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 0.0 4.0 32.0 64.0 3.6 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 4.0 44.0 52.0 3.5 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 4.2 8.3 45.8 41.7 3.3 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 12.0 24.0 64.0 3.5 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 6.7 6.7 53.3 33.3 3.1 0.83 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 4.2 8.3 37.5 50.0 3.3 0.82 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 5.6 11.1 44.4 38.9 3.2 0.86 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 4.2 4.2 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.75 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 4.2 45.8 25.0 25.0 2.7 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 4.0 0.0 52.0 44.0 3.4 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 201 001L1 INTERMEDIATE LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Francis, James 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 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 = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 101 004L1 ELEMENTARY LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Guindon, Lynn Della SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 18.2 A 8 72.7 Sophomore 6 54.5 B 1 9.1 Junior 2 18.2 C 1 9.1 Senior 1 9.1 D 1 9.1 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 3 30.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 6 60.0 3 hours 1 9.1 Other (e.g. elective) 1 10.0 4 - 5 hours 4 36.4 6 - 7 hours 4 36.4 8 or more hours 2 18.2 % % 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 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 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 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 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 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 9.1 0.0 18.2 72.7 3.5 0.93 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 101 004L1 ELEMENTARY LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Guindon, Lynn Della % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 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 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 390 401L1 ROMAN, JEW AND GREEK: BACKGROUNDS CHRISTIANITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holle, Bruce F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 40.0 Sophomore 1 6.3 B 6 40.0 Junior 3 18.8 C 1 6.7 Senior 9 56.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 3 18.8 Pass or Audit 2 13.3 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 6.3 Required by my major 3 18.8 3 hours 5 31.3 Other (e.g. elective) 13 81.3 4 - 5 hours 7 43.8 6 - 7 hours 2 12.5 8 or more hours 1 6.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 5.6 38.9 55.6 3.5 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 0.32 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 0.32 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 0.32 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 390 401L1 ROMAN, JEW AND GREEK: BACKGROUNDS CHRISTIANITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holle, Bruce 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 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 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 94.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 261 001L1 LIT MSTRPCS GREECE&ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rabel, Robert J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 63.6 Sophomore 5 45.5 B 3 27.3 Junior 4 36.4 C 1 9.1 Senior 2 18.2 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 6 54.5 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 6 54.5 Other (e.g. elective) 5 45.5 4 - 5 hours 2 18.2 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 14.3 35.7 50.0 3.4 0.74 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 7.1 0.0 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.84 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 7.1 21.4 71.4 3.6 0.63 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 9.1 0.0 36.4 54.5 3.4 0.92 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 3.3 0.82 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 11.1 11.1 33.3 44.4 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 % % % % 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 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 261 001L1 LIT MSTRPCS GREECE&ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rabel, Robert J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 73.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 210 001L1 THE ART OF GREECE & ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Scaife, A Ross SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 55.6 Sophomore 3 33.3 B 4 44.4 Junior 5 55.6 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 11.1 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 22.2 Studies Program 3 33.3 2 hours 2 22.2 Required by my major 2 22.2 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 44.4 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 11.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 10.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 2.6 0.97 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 10.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 2.4 0.70 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 % % % % 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 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 210 001L1 THE ART OF GREECE & ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Scaife, A Ross % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 71.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO".