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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 331 001L1 TRANSPORTATION ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 25.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 14 45.2 Junior 16 51.6 C 8 25.8 Senior 15 48.4 D 1 3.2 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 7 22.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 12 38.7 Required by my major 31 100.0 3 hours 11 35.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 3.2 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 32 0.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 29.0 29.0 32.3 9.7 2.2 0.99 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 32 3.1 12.5 56.3 28.1 3.1 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 33 0.0 9.1 69.7 21.2 3.1 0.55 5. Grading was fair and consistent 33 6.1 9.1 75.8 9.1 2.9 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 33 0.0 6.1 72.7 21.2 3.2 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 33 0.0 6.1 75.8 18.2 3.1 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 33 3.0 42.4 45.5 9.1 2.6 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 33 6.1 27.3 60.6 6.1 2.7 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 33 0.0 3.0 69.7 27.3 3.2 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 32 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 3.0 18.2 57.6 21.2 3.0 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 33 21.2 27.3 48.5 3.0 2.3 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 33 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 12.5 20.8 62.5 4.2 2.6 0.78 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 32 6.3 21.9 65.6 6.3 2.7 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 32 6.3 28.1 53.1 12.5 2.7 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 32 3.1 15.6 62.5 18.8 3.0 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 32 34.4 37.5 25.0 3.1 2.0 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 33 9.1 33.3 51.5 6.1 2.5 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 32 12.5 18.8 59.4 9.4 2.7 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 331 001L1 TRANSPORTATION ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa 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 = 46 Number of forms scanned = 44 Number of forms with at least one student response = 33 Percent completed = 71.7 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 382 001L1 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 19.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 14 53.8 Junior 4 15.4 C 7 26.9 Senior 22 84.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 15.4 Required by my major 26 100.0 3 hours 12 46.2 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 7 26.9 6 - 7 hours 2 7.7 8 or more hours 1 3.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 26 0.0 3.8 57.7 38.5 3.3 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.54 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 0.0 57.7 42.3 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 0.0 57.7 42.3 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 19.2 46.2 34.6 3.2 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 7.7 26.9 50.0 15.4 2.7 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 19.2 61.5 19.2 3.0 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 11.5 65.4 23.1 3.1 0.59 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 19.2 61.5 19.2 3.0 0.63 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 3.8 53.8 42.3 3.4 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 25.0 56.3 18.8 2.9 0.68 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 4.2 66.7 29.2 3.3 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 4.2 66.7 29.2 3.3 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 0.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 2.9 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 3.3 0.74 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 0.0 19.2 50.0 30.8 3.1 0.71 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 382 001L1 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 33 Number of forms scanned = 33 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 78.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 351 001L1 INTRO ENVIRONMENTAL EGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 36.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 18 50.0 Junior 4 10.8 C 4 11.1 Senior 33 89.2 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 1 2.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 5.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 13 35.1 Required by my major 36 97.3 3 hours 9 24.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.7 4 - 5 hours 12 32.4 6 - 7 hours 1 2.7 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 39 0.0 0.0 56.4 43.6 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 39 0.0 10.3 61.5 28.2 3.2 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 39 0.0 0.0 56.4 43.6 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 38 2.6 5.3 44.7 47.4 3.4 0.71 5. Grading was fair and consistent 38 2.6 5.3 52.6 39.5 3.3 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 39 0.0 5.1 59.0 35.9 3.3 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 39 0.0 2.6 59.0 38.5 3.4 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 38 0.0 18.4 68.4 13.2 2.9 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 39 2.6 10.3 41.0 46.2 3.3 0.77 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 39 0.0 0.0 41.0 59.0 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 38 0.0 5.3 60.5 34.2 3.3 0.57 12. Satisfact answered class questions 38 0.0 0.0 60.5 39.5 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 38 5.3 18.4 57.9 18.4 2.9 0.76 14. Encouraged class participation 39 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 32 0.0 18.8 65.6 15.6 3.0 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 38 2.6 2.6 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 38 0.0 10.5 57.9 31.6 3.2 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 39 2.6 7.7 59.0 30.8 3.2 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 39 7.7 33.3 38.5 20.5 2.7 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 39 2.6 15.4 53.8 28.2 3.1 0.74 21. Overall quality of teaching 39 2.6 10.3 46.2 41.0 3.3 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 351 001L1 INTRO ENVIRONMENTAL EGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail % % 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 = 49 Number of forms scanned = 47 Number of forms with at least one student response = 39 Percent completed = 79.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 001S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 23 92.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 8.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 24 96.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.0 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 15 60.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 32.0 Required by my major 23 100.0 3 hours 2 8.0 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 25 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 8.0 12.0 56.0 24.0 3.0 0.84 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 12.0 76.0 12.0 3.0 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 4.0 80.0 16.0 3.1 0.44 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 0.0 0.0 68.0 32.0 3.3 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 4.0 64.0 32.0 3.3 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 4.0 64.0 32.0 3.3 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 4.2 25.0 66.7 4.2 2.7 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 3.2 0.42 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 64.0 36.0 3.4 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 4.0 72.0 24.0 3.2 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 4.2 8.3 75.0 12.5 3.0 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 4.0 16.0 64.0 16.0 2.9 0.70 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 4.0 4.0 84.0 8.0 3.0 0.54 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.56 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 4.0 72.0 24.0 3.2 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 4.0 52.0 44.0 3.4 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 001S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, 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 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 29 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 86.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 002S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 23 95.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 4.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 24 100.0 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 16 66.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 16.7 Required by my major 24 100.0 3 hours 3 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 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 24 0.0 0.0 70.8 29.2 3.3 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 8.7 8.7 65.2 17.4 2.9 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 4.2 66.7 29.2 3.3 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 4.2 8.3 58.3 29.2 3.1 0.74 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 4.2 66.7 29.2 3.3 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 4.3 65.2 30.4 3.3 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 0.0 0.0 70.8 29.2 3.3 0.46 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 4.3 13.0 65.2 17.4 3.0 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 0.0 12.5 58.3 29.2 3.2 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 5.0 70.0 25.0 3.2 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 8.3 4.2 70.8 16.7 3.0 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 24 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 0.0 0.0 81.0 19.0 3.2 0.40 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 4.2 83.3 12.5 3.1 0.41 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 8.7 78.3 13.0 3.0 0.47 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 0.0 78.3 21.7 3.2 0.42 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 8.3 12.5 62.5 16.7 2.9 0.80 % % % % 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 56.5 30.4 3.1 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 8.7 47.8 43.5 3.3 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 002S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, 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 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 29. Students free to express opinions 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 31. Developed abil to conduct research 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 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 = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 331 002L1 TRANSPORTATION ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crabtree, Joseph D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 26 78.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 18.2 Junior 20 60.6 C 1 3.0 Senior 13 39.4 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 15.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 11 33.3 Required by my major 33 100.0 3 hours 12 36.4 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 5 15.2 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 34 0.0 0.0 38.2 61.8 3.6 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 25.0 32.1 32.1 10.7 2.3 0.98 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 34 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 34 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 34 0.0 2.9 64.7 32.4 3.3 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 34 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 34 2.9 2.9 73.5 20.6 3.1 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 32 3.1 25.0 62.5 9.4 2.8 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 34 2.9 2.9 29.4 64.7 3.6 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 34 0.0 0.0 38.2 61.8 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 33 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 0.0 3.0 48.5 48.5 3.5 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 33 0.0 12.1 57.6 30.3 3.2 0.64 14. Encouraged class participation 32 3.1 12.5 62.5 21.9 3.0 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 3.8 15.4 65.4 15.4 2.9 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 32 3.1 0.0 75.0 21.9 3.2 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 33 3.0 3.0 63.6 30.3 3.2 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 34 0.0 2.9 58.8 38.2 3.4 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 32 6.3 31.3 50.0 12.5 2.7 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 34 2.9 5.9 58.8 32.4 3.2 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 34 0.0 5.9 29.4 64.7 3.6 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 331 002L1 TRANSPORTATION ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crabtree, Joseph D % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 35 Number of forms scanned = 35 Number of forms with at least one student response = 34 Percent completed = 97.1 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 599 401L1 TOPS IN CE:GEOGRAPHICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fister, Ben SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 56.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 43.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 12 75.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 25.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 31.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 37.5 Required by my major 2 12.5 3 hours 3 18.8 Other (e.g. elective) 14 87.5 4 - 5 hours 2 12.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 12.5 12.5 56.3 18.8 2.8 0.91 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 40.0 26.7 26.7 6.7 2.0 1.00 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 12.5 18.8 62.5 6.3 2.6 0.81 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 12.5 31.3 50.0 6.3 2.5 0.82 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 6.3 31.3 56.3 6.3 2.6 0.72 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 6.3 81.3 12.5 3.1 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 43.8 50.0 6.3 2.6 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 12.5 37.5 43.8 6.3 2.4 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 18.8 62.5 18.8 3.0 0.63 11. Was available for consultation 10 10.0 30.0 60.0 0.0 2.5 0.71 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 6.3 37.5 43.8 12.5 2.6 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 9.1 27.3 63.6 0.0 2.5 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 6.3 43.8 37.5 12.5 2.6 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 37.5 43.8 12.5 2.6 0.81 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 6.3 12.5 68.8 12.5 2.9 0.72 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 6.3 31.3 56.3 6.3 2.6 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 18.8 37.5 43.8 0.0 2.3 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 25.0 25.0 43.8 6.3 2.3 0.95 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 599 401L1 TOPS IN CE:GEOGRAPHICAL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fister, Ben % % 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 = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 35.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 47.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 3 17.6 Senior 17 100.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 17.6 Required by my major 17 100.0 3 hours 3 17.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 9 52.9 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 0.0 0.0 76.5 23.5 3.2 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 29.4 41.2 29.4 3.0 0.79 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 11.8 41.2 47.1 3.4 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 5.9 35.3 47.1 11.8 2.6 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 17.6 58.8 23.5 3.1 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 17.6 47.1 35.3 3.2 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 23.5 52.9 23.5 3.0 0.71 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 17.6 64.7 17.6 3.0 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 11.8 41.2 47.1 3.4 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans % % 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 = 20 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 505 001L1 CONSTRUCT PROJ PLAN/MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 17 51.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 5 15.2 Senior 23 69.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 30.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 3.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 15.2 Required by my major 12 36.4 3 hours 11 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 21 63.6 4 - 5 hours 9 27.3 6 - 7 hours 6 18.2 8 or more hours 1 3.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 33 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 30 10.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 2.7 0.92 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 33 0.0 3.0 30.3 66.7 3.6 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 33 0.0 3.0 42.4 54.5 3.5 0.57 5. Grading was fair and consistent 33 3.0 6.1 51.5 39.4 3.3 0.72 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 33 0.0 3.0 54.5 42.4 3.4 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 33 3.0 9.1 51.5 36.4 3.2 0.74 8. Graded assignments included comments 32 6.3 28.1 37.5 28.1 2.9 0.91 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 33 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 33 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 33 0.0 0.0 24.2 75.8 3.8 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 0.0 0.0 24.2 75.8 3.8 0.44 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 32 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.9 3.7 0.46 14. Encouraged class participation 32 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 3.6 7.1 53.6 35.7 3.2 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 32 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 33 0.0 3.0 39.4 57.6 3.5 0.56 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 32 0.0 0.0 46.9 53.1 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 32 0.0 15.6 40.6 43.8 3.3 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 33 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 33 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 505 001L1 CONSTRUCT PROJ PLAN/MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 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 = 40 Number of forms scanned = 39 Number of forms with at least one student response = 33 Percent completed = 82.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G001L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 53.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 38.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 7.7 Senior 14 100.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 21.4 Required by my major 13 100.0 3 hours 5 35.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 28.6 6 - 7 hours 1 7.1 8 or more hours 1 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 13.3 73.3 13.3 3.0 0.53 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 7.7 76.9 15.4 3.1 0.49 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 13.3 73.3 13.3 3.0 0.53 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G001L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 24 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 66.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G002L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 47.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 52.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 17 89.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 10.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 5.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 5.3 Required by my major 18 94.7 3 hours 10 52.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.3 4 - 5 hours 7 36.8 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 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 0.0 40.0 30.0 30.0 2.9 0.85 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 5.3 31.6 63.2 3.6 0.61 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 5.3 31.6 63.2 3.6 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 15.0 85.0 3.9 0.37 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 5.0 35.0 60.0 3.6 0.60 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 15.8 26.3 57.9 3.4 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G002L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 23 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 87.0 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 671 001L1 ADVANCED SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 88.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 11.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 55.6 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 44.4 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 6 - 7 hours 4 44.4 8 or more hours 3 33.3 % % 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 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 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 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 671 001L1 ADVANCED SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 9 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 486G001L1 REINFORCED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 12.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 18 43.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 17 41.5 Senior 43 100.0 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 1 2.4 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 7.0 Required by my major 37 86.0 3 hours 15 34.9 Other (e.g. elective) 6 14.0 4 - 5 hours 19 44.2 6 - 7 hours 5 11.6 8 or more hours 1 2.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 44 4.5 15.9 72.7 6.8 2.8 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 43 4.7 37.2 51.2 7.0 2.6 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 44 0.0 13.6 81.8 4.5 2.9 0.42 4. Exams reflected what was taught 43 30.2 27.9 34.9 7.0 2.2 0.96 5. Grading was fair and consistent 44 18.2 52.3 25.0 4.5 2.2 0.78 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 44 0.0 4.5 86.4 9.1 3.0 0.37 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 44 13.6 36.4 47.7 2.3 2.4 0.75 8. Graded assignments included comments 42 23.8 40.5 28.6 7.1 2.2 0.89 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 44 6.8 34.1 50.0 9.1 2.6 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 44 0.0 0.0 47.7 52.3 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 42 4.8 11.9 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.70 12. Satisfact answered class questions 43 2.3 14.0 69.8 14.0 3.0 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 42 11.9 31.0 45.2 11.9 2.6 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 41 9.8 46.3 39.0 4.9 2.4 0.74 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 32 3.1 34.4 56.3 6.3 2.7 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 42 2.4 26.2 54.8 16.7 2.9 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 43 2.3 16.3 67.4 14.0 2.9 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 43 4.7 11.6 67.4 16.3 3.0 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 42 9.5 45.2 35.7 9.5 2.5 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 44 11.4 29.5 43.2 15.9 2.6 0.89 21. Overall quality of teaching 43 11.6 44.2 32.6 11.6 2.4 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 486G001L1 REINFORCED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 52 Number of forms scanned = 51 Number of forms with at least one student response = 44 Percent completed = 84.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 586 001L1 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 62.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 25.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 12.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 75.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 12.5 Pass or Audit 1 12.5 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 14.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 42.9 Required by my major 2 25.0 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 6 75.0 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 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 11.1 33.3 33.3 22.2 2.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 33.3 55.6 11.1 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 66.7 22.2 11.1 2.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 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 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 586 001L1 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 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 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 = 10 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 90.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 521 401L1 ENGINEERING ECONOMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = House, Barry SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 35.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 30.0 Junior 1 4.8 C 7 35.0 Senior 17 81.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 14.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 4.8 2 hours 2 9.5 Required by my major 4 19.0 3 hours 6 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 16 76.2 4 - 5 hours 11 52.4 6 - 7 hours 2 9.5 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 4.5 0.0 68.2 27.3 3.2 0.66 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 31.8 31.8 31.8 4.5 2.1 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 13.6 9.1 63.6 13.6 2.8 0.87 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 4.5 18.2 63.6 13.6 2.9 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 9.1 4.5 63.6 22.7 3.0 0.82 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 4.5 9.1 59.1 27.3 3.1 0.75 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 9.1 27.3 59.1 4.5 2.6 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 4.5 9.1 72.7 13.6 3.0 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 4.5 0.0 40.9 54.5 3.5 0.74 11. Was available for consultation 22 9.1 9.1 59.1 22.7 3.0 0.84 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 4.5 0.0 77.3 18.2 3.1 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1 2.6 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 22 4.5 40.9 54.5 0.0 2.5 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 11.1 22.2 66.7 0.0 2.6 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 4.8 9.5 61.9 23.8 3.0 0.74 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 4.8 9.5 66.7 19.0 3.0 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 4.8 9.5 76.2 9.5 2.9 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 2.4 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 5.0 10.0 70.0 15.0 3.0 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 15.0 15.0 60.0 10.0 2.7 0.88 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 521 401L1 ENGINEERING ECONOMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = House, Barry % % 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 = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 78.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 341 001L1 FLUID MECHANICS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Huffsey, Ralph R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 30.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 33 55.0 Junior 22 35.5 C 9 15.0 Senior 40 64.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 4.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 12.9 Required by my major 62 100.0 3 hours 24 38.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 19 30.6 6 - 7 hours 6 9.7 8 or more hours 2 3.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 63 0.0 4.8 77.8 17.5 3.1 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 63 34.9 30.2 30.2 4.8 2.0 0.92 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 63 0.0 1.6 58.7 39.7 3.4 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 63 0.0 0.0 58.7 41.3 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 63 9.5 23.8 52.4 14.3 2.7 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 63 0.0 3.2 68.3 28.6 3.3 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 63 0.0 3.2 63.5 33.3 3.3 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 62 11.3 40.3 43.5 4.8 2.4 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 63 3.2 11.1 66.7 19.0 3.0 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 63 0.0 3.2 57.1 39.7 3.4 0.55 11. Was available for consultation 61 1.6 8.2 70.5 19.7 3.1 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 62 9.7 17.7 59.7 12.9 2.8 0.80 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 63 9.5 14.3 65.1 11.1 2.8 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 61 11.5 47.5 32.8 8.2 2.4 0.80 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 41 2.4 34.1 56.1 7.3 2.7 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 62 0.0 8.1 69.4 22.6 3.1 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 63 0.0 6.3 74.6 19.0 3.1 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 62 0.0 3.2 71.0 25.8 3.2 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 59 8.5 37.3 50.8 3.4 2.5 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 62 1.6 16.1 59.7 22.6 3.0 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 62 4.8 22.6 50.0 22.6 2.9 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 341 001L1 FLUID MECHANICS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Huffsey, Ralph R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 71 Number of forms scanned = 71 Number of forms with at least one student response = 63 Percent completed = 88.7 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 531 001L1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hunsucker, David Q SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 77.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 22.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 7 77.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 22.2 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 44.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 22.2 Required by my major 4 44.4 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 5 55.6 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 11.1 33.3 33.3 22.2 2.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 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 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 531 001L1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hunsucker, David Q % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 81.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 549 001L1 ENGINEERING HYDRAULICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lingireddy, Srinivasa SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 71.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 28.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 8 57.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 42.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 7.1 2 hours 2 14.3 Required by my major 6 42.9 3 hours 6 42.9 Other (e.g. elective) 7 50.0 4 - 5 hours 4 28.6 6 - 7 hours 2 14.3 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 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 21.4 42.9 35.7 3.1 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 21.4 57.1 21.4 3.0 0.68 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 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 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 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 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 16.7 0.0 66.7 16.7 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 549 001L1 ENGINEERING HYDRAULICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lingireddy, Srinivasa % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms