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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L4 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderman, Eric M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 93.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 6.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 17 100.0 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 10 58.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 17 100.0 3 hours 6 35.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 5.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 0.0 17.6 76.5 5.9 2.9 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 17.6 11.8 70.6 0.0 2.5 0.80 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 5.9 23.5 58.8 11.8 2.8 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 82.4 17.6 3.2 0.39 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 15 6.7 0.0 66.7 26.7 3.1 0.74 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 17.6 52.9 29.4 3.1 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 5.9 5.9 82.4 5.9 2.9 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 6.3 81.3 6.3 2.9 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 94.1 5.9 3.1 0.24 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 6.3 37.5 50.0 6.3 2.6 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 0.0 76.5 23.5 3.2 0.44 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L4 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderman, Eric M. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 21 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 81.0 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L4 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderman, Eric M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 16.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 18 100.0 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 16.7 Studies Program 1 5.6 2 hours 5 27.8 Required by my major 17 94.4 3 hours 5 27.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 5 27.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.71 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 17.6 17.6 58.8 5.9 2.5 0.87 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 5.6 16.7 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.80 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.79 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 11.1 0.0 72.2 16.7 2.9 0.80 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 6.3 0.0 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.77 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 5.6 5.6 38.9 50.0 3.3 0.84 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 5.6 0.0 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 11.1 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 5.6 16.7 38.9 38.9 3.1 0.90 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3 3.2 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 0.76 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 5.6 16.7 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 5.6 5.6 38.9 50.0 3.3 0.84 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L4 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderman, Eric M. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 20 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 90.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L6 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Clinton SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 11.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 18 100.0 E/Fail 1 5.6 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 22.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 38.9 Required by my major 18 100.0 3 hours 4 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 5.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 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 18 5.6 22.2 61.1 11.1 2.8 0.73 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 21.4 14.3 57.1 7.1 2.5 0.94 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 5.6 11.1 77.8 5.6 2.8 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 14.3 0.0 71.4 14.3 2.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 5.6 0.0 83.3 11.1 3.0 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 5.6 5.6 72.2 16.7 3.0 0.69 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 5.9 5.9 70.6 17.6 3.0 0.71 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 5.6 0.0 66.7 27.8 3.2 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 11.1 22.2 61.1 5.6 2.6 0.78 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 5.9 70.6 23.5 3.2 0.53 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 5.6 22.2 50.0 22.2 2.9 0.83 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 11.1 33.3 44.4 11.1 2.6 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 5.6 61.1 33.3 3.3 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 5.6 0.0 66.7 27.8 3.2 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 5.6 27.8 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 25.0 50.0 18.8 2.8 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 5.6 11.1 55.6 27.8 3.1 0.80 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 11.1 38.9 38.9 11.1 2.5 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 5.6 22.2 61.1 11.1 2.8 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 11.1 27.8 38.9 22.2 2.7 0.96 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L6 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Clinton % % 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 85.7 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L6 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Clinton SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 92.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 7.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 17 100.0 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 9 52.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 29.4 Required by my major 17 100.0 3 hours 1 5.9 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 11.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 23.5 41.2 29.4 5.9 2.2 0.88 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 8.3 25.0 41.7 25.0 2.8 0.94 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 18.8 56.3 18.8 6.3 2.1 0.81 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 86.7 13.3 3.1 0.35 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 21.4 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 53.8 38.5 7.7 2.5 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 17.6 64.7 11.8 5.9 2.1 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 11.8 23.5 58.8 5.9 2.6 0.80 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 27.3 63.6 9.1 2.8 0.60 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 23.5 41.2 29.4 5.9 2.2 0.88 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 35.3 47.1 11.8 5.9 1.9 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 6.7 80.0 13.3 3.1 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 7.1 42.9 50.0 0.0 2.4 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 11.8 35.3 47.1 5.9 2.5 0.80 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 18.8 43.8 31.3 6.3 2.3 0.86 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 5.9 29.4 58.8 5.9 2.6 0.70 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 35.3 41.2 17.6 5.9 1.9 0.90 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 23.5 41.2 29.4 5.9 2.2 0.88 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 29.4 52.9 11.8 5.9 1.9 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L6 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Clinton % % 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 = 20 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 85.0 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = EDU 305 401L1 CONTEMP ISSUES FACING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Cecil SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 68.2 Sophomore 13 52.0 B 6 27.3 Junior 3 12.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 9 36.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.5 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 10 43.5 Studies Program 2 8.0 2 hours 9 39.1 Required by my major 6 24.0 3 hours 3 13.0 Other (e.g. elective) 17 68.0 4 - 5 hours 1 4.3 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 38 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 32 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.61 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 36 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 38 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 38 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 38 0.0 0.0 44.7 55.3 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 38 0.0 0.0 44.7 55.3 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 36 0.0 0.0 52.8 47.2 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 38 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 38 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 37 0.0 0.0 40.5 59.5 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 38 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 38 0.0 0.0 44.7 55.3 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 38 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 37 0.0 0.0 51.4 48.6 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 37 0.0 0.0 45.9 54.1 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 37 0.0 0.0 56.8 43.2 3.4 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 37 0.0 0.0 51.4 48.6 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 37 0.0 0.0 54.1 45.9 3.5 0.51 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 38 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 38 0.0 0.0 34.2 65.8 3.7 0.48 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = EDU 305 401L1 CONTEMP ISSUES FACING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Cecil % % 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 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS 49. Question 49 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . Number of forms preslugged = 47 Number of forms scanned = 38 Number of forms with at least one student response = 38 Percent completed = 80.9 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L3 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mazur, Joan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 16.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 18 100.0 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 5.6 Studies Program 1 5.6 2 hours 3 16.7 Required by my major 17 94.4 3 hours 6 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 5 27.8 6 - 7 hours 2 11.1 8 or more hours 1 5.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 5.6 11.1 72.2 11.1 2.9 0.68 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 29.4 17.6 52.9 0.0 2.2 0.90 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 16.7 11.1 61.1 11.1 2.7 0.91 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3 3.0 0.89 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 5.6 16.7 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.76 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 11.1 11.1 44.4 33.3 3.0 0.97 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3 3.2 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 5.9 23.5 58.8 11.8 2.8 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 5.6 0.0 50.0 44.4 3.3 0.77 11. Was available for consultation 18 5.6 5.6 50.0 38.9 3.2 0.81 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 5.9 5.9 70.6 17.6 3.0 0.71 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 27.8 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 17 5.9 5.9 70.6 17.6 3.0 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 5.9 17.6 58.8 17.6 2.9 0.78 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 5.9 11.8 64.7 17.6 2.9 0.75 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 5.9 5.9 76.5 11.8 2.9 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 5.6 5.6 50.0 38.9 3.2 0.81 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 31.3 50.0 18.8 2.9 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 0.0 22.2 50.0 27.8 3.1 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 11.8 64.7 23.5 3.1 0.60 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L3 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mazur, Joan % % 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 85.7 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L3 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mazur, Joan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 93.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 6.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 17 100.0 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 6 35.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 29.4 Required by my major 17 100.0 3 hours 2 11.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 11.8 6 - 7 hours 1 5.9 8 or more hours 1 5.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 5.9 29.4 52.9 11.8 2.7 0.77 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 41.2 29.4 29.4 0.0 1.9 0.86 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 37.5 62.5 0.0 2.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 14.3 7.1 71.4 7.1 2.7 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 18.8 81.3 0.0 2.8 0.40 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 0.36 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 7.1 21.4 64.3 7.1 2.7 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 17.6 29.4 47.1 5.9 2.4 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 35.3 35.3 29.4 2.9 0.83 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 17.6 64.7 17.6 3.0 0.61 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 11.8 23.5 52.9 11.8 2.6 0.86 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 17.6 23.5 52.9 5.9 2.5 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 11.8 70.6 17.6 3.1 0.56 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 8.3 33.3 58.3 0.0 2.5 0.67 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 5.9 17.6 70.6 5.9 2.8 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 6.7 26.7 66.7 0.0 2.6 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 6.3 31.3 56.3 6.3 2.6 0.72 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 17.6 41.2 35.3 5.9 2.3 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 17.6 23.5 52.9 5.9 2.5 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 5.9 41.2 52.9 0.0 2.5 0.62 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L3 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mazur, Joan % % 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 = 20 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 85.0 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L1 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Spalding, Mary Elizabeth SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 86.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 13.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 16 100.0 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 6.3 Required by my major 16 100.0 3 hours 3 18.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 5 31.3 6 - 7 hours 3 18.8 8 or more hours 4 25.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 5.6 11.1 61.1 22.2 3.0 0.77 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 16.7 11.1 55.6 16.7 2.7 0.96 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 5.6 16.7 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.80 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 18 5.6 0.0 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.75 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 11.1 61.1 27.8 3.2 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 0.0 16.7 44.4 38.9 3.2 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 16.7 55.6 27.8 3.1 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 22.2 50.0 27.8 3.1 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 0.69 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 5.6 27.8 44.4 22.2 2.8 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 16.7 55.6 27.8 3.1 0.68 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 001L1 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Spalding, Mary Elizabeth % % 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 85.7 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L2 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, Angene H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 93.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 6.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 16 100.0 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 6.3 Required by my major 16 100.0 3 hours 1 6.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 6 37.5 6 - 7 hours 4 25.0 8 or more hours 4 25.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 0.0 84.6 15.4 3.2 0.38 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3 3.2 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 6.3 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 12.5 31.3 56.3 3.4 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 645 002L2 FOUNDATNS OF PEDAGOGICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, Angene H % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 20 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 85.0 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 520 401L1 PRINCIPLES OF REHAB COUN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crystal, Ralph M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 57.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 42.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 4.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 19 90.5 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 5 23.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 38.1 Required by my major 17 81.0 3 hours 2 9.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 19.0 4 - 5 hours 5 23.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 4.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2 3.5 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 8.7 21.7 43.5 26.1 2.9 0.92 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 4.5 9.1 54.5 31.8 3.1 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 4.5 0.0 59.1 36.4 3.3 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 4.5 9.1 45.5 40.9 3.2 0.81 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 4.3 4.3 56.5 34.8 3.2 0.74 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 4.3 8.7 56.5 30.4 3.1 0.76 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 4.5 0.0 59.1 36.4 3.3 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 4.3 8.7 43.5 43.5 3.3 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 4.5 31.8 63.6 3.6 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 22 4.5 4.5 45.5 45.5 3.3 0.78 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 4.5 4.5 36.4 54.5 3.4 0.80 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 18.2 40.9 40.9 3.2 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 4.8 28.6 66.7 3.6 0.59 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 9.5 4.8 38.1 47.6 3.2 0.94 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 9.5 0.0 57.1 33.3 3.1 0.85 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 10.0 0.0 55.0 35.0 3.2 0.88 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 9.1 0.0 45.5 45.5 3.3 0.88 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 4.8 9.5 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 8.7 4.3 43.5 43.5 3.2 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 9.1 0.0 36.4 54.5 3.4 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 520 401L1 PRINCIPLES OF REHAB COUN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crystal, Ralph M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 82.1 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 760 401L1 CONTEMP PRAC IN REHAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harley, Debra SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 14.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 42.9 Required by my major 7 100.0 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 14.3 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 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . % % % % 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 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 760 401L1 CONTEMP PRAC IN REHAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harley, Debra % % 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 = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 41.2 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 701 201L1 LEADERSHIP IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bjork, Lars G. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 100.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 2 40.0 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 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 701 201L1 LEADERSHIP IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bjork, Lars G. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 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 = 6 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 83.3 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 701 202L1 LEADERSHIP IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bjork, Lars G. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 50.0 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 0 0.0 Required by my major 6 100.0 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 4 66.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 701 202L1 LEADERSHIP IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bjork, Lars G. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 8 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 701 401L1 LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATNAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bjork, Lars G. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 40.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 60.0 4 - 5 hours 2 40.0 6 - 7 hours 1 20.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 701 401L1 LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATNAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bjork, Lars G. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 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 = 5 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 633 201L1 ADMIN & SUPERVISION OF INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cody, Caroline SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 27.8 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 13 72.2 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 5.6 2 hours 2 11.1 Required by my major 17 94.4 3 hours 12 66.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 16.7 6 - 7 hours 1 5.6 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 5.6 33.3 5.6 55.6 3.1 1.08 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 17.6 70.6 11.8 2.9 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 11.1 72.2 16.7 3.1 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 5.6 16.7 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.76 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 22.2 16.7 44.4 16.7 2.6 1.04 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 5.6 0.0 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.75 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 16.7 11.1 38.9 33.3 2.9 1.08 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 11.1 11.1 33.3 44.4 3.1 1.02 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 5.6 22.2 72.2 3.7 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 26.7 26.7 46.7 3.2 0.86 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 5.9 11.8 29.4 52.9 3.3 0.92 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 11.1 11.1 38.9 38.9 3.1 1.00 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 11.1 5.6 55.6 27.8 3.0 0.91 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 11.1 5.6 61.1 22.2 2.9 0.87 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 5.6 5.6 55.6 33.3 3.2 0.79 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 11.1 27.8 50.0 11.1 2.6 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 11.1 16.7 33.3 38.9 3.0 1.03 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 5.9 17.6 35.3 41.2 3.1 0.93 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 633 201L1 ADMIN & SUPERVISION OF INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cody, Caroline % % 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 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 0.0 100.0 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 = 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 633 401L1 ADMINISTRATN & SUPERVISN OF INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cody, Caroline SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 92.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 7.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 13 100.0 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 7.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 38.5 Required by my major 11 84.6 3 hours 4 30.8 Other (e.g. elective) 2 15.4 4 - 5 hours 1 7.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 15.4 % % 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 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 7.7 84.6 3.8 0.60 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 7.7 0.0 23.1 69.2 3.5 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 7.7 0.0 46.2 46.2 3.3 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 7.7 7.7 84.6 3.8 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 7.7 0.0 92.3 3.8 0.55 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 633 401L1 ADMINISTRATN & SUPERVISN OF INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cody, Caroline % % 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 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 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 = 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 401 001L1 PROFESSIONAL TEACHER: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harris, J John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 51.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 13 48.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 27 100.0 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 14 51.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 22.2 Required by my major 27 100.0 3 hours 5 18.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 7.4 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 27 0.0 7.4 77.8 14.8 3.1 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 7.4 11.1 59.3 22.2 3.0 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 27.3 59.1 13.6 2.9 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 27 0.0 29.6 55.6 14.8 2.9 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 7.4 66.7 25.9 3.2 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 4.8 71.4 23.8 3.2 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 0.0 0.0 48.1 51.9 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 38.1 47.6 14.3 2.8 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 0.0 29.6 51.9 18.5 2.9 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 48.1 51.9 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 0.0 18.5 63.0 18.5 3.0 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 27 0.0 29.6 40.7 29.6 3.0 0.78 14. Encouraged class participation 27 0.0 0.0 51.9 48.1 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 4.3 0.0 78.3 17.4 3.1 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 9.5 71.4 19.0 3.1 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 5.0 20.0 60.0 15.0 2.9 0.75 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 0.0 0.0 85.2 14.8 3.1 0.36 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 4.0 40.0 48.0 8.0 2.6 0.71 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 22.2 51.9 25.9 3.0 0.71 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 22.2 51.9 25.9 3.0 0.71 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 401 001L1 PROFESSIONAL TEACHER: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harris, J John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 401 002L1 PROFESSIONAL TEACHER: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harris, J John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 52.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 47.4 Junior 1 5.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 19 95.0 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 17 85.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 10.0 Required by my major 20 100.0 3 hours 1 5.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 65.2 34.8 3.3 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 9.1 13.6 54.5 22.7 2.9 0.87 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 8.7 52.2 39.1 3.3 0.63 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 68.2 31.8 3.3 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 5.6 0.0 77.8 16.7 3.1 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 82.6 17.4 3.2 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 18.2 68.2 13.6 3.0 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 8.7 65.2 26.1 3.2 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 65.0 35.0 3.4 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 4.3 0.0 65.2 30.4 3.2 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 4.3 13.0 56.5 26.1 3.0 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 65.2 34.8 3.3 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 4.5 77.3 18.2 3.1 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 4.5 72.7 22.7 3.2 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 0.0 76.2 23.8 3.2 0.44 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 4.3 65.2 30.4 3.3 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 0.0 13.6 63.6 22.7 3.1 0.61 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 4.3 8.7 60.9 26.1 3.1 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 13.0 60.9 26.1 3.1 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 401 002L1 PROFESSIONAL TEACHER: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harris, J John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 expectati