1****************************************************************************** * * * Please note that these results DO NOT INCLUDE: * * * * * Course sections taught by a TA * * * Discussion, Laboratory, Independent Study, Practicum, or * * Residency course sections (results contain only LECTURES * * and SEMINARS) * * * Any course section with fewer than 5 evaluations returned * * * * Given for each item are the number responding (N), the percentage that * * strongly disagreed, the percentage that disagreed, the percentage that * * agreed, the percentage that strongly agreed, the mean, and the standard * * deviation (SD). * * * ****************************************************************************** 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 001L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 10.5 A 3 15.8 Sophomore 7 36.8 B 6 31.6 Junior 6 31.6 C 8 42.1 Senior 4 21.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 10.5 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 5.3 Studies Program 8 42.1 2 hours 6 31.6 Required by my major 10 52.6 3 hours 6 31.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.3 4 - 5 hours 5 26.3 6 - 7 hours 1 5.3 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 19 0.0 10.5 68.4 21.1 3.1 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 5.3 73.7 21.1 3.2 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 21.1 68.4 10.5 2.9 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 15.8 63.2 21.1 3.1 0.62 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 36.8 47.4 15.8 2.8 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 84.2 15.8 3.2 0.37 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 0.0 84.2 15.8 3.2 0.37 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 5.3 57.9 31.6 5.3 2.4 0.68 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 15.8 36.8 36.8 10.5 2.4 0.90 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 73.7 26.3 3.3 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 10.5 42.1 36.8 10.5 2.5 0.84 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 18.8 43.8 37.5 0.0 2.2 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.0 2.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 29.4 70.6 0.0 2.7 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 18.8 56.3 25.0 0.0 2.1 0.68 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 5.3 47.4 42.1 5.3 2.5 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 15.8 47.4 15.8 21.1 2.4 1.02 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 001L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 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 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 = 23 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 82.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 002L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 11.1 A 2 11.1 Sophomore 8 44.4 B 11 61.1 Junior 1 5.6 C 5 27.8 Senior 7 38.9 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 1 5.6 Studies Program 7 38.9 2 hours 8 44.4 Required by my major 9 50.0 3 hours 4 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 11.1 4 - 5 hours 4 22.2 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 0.0 16.7 72.2 11.1 2.9 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 5.6 0.0 83.3 11.1 3.0 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 27.8 61.1 11.1 2.8 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 38.9 50.0 11.1 2.7 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 16.7 72.2 11.1 2.9 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 5.6 72.2 22.2 3.2 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 5.6 16.7 72.2 5.6 2.8 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 22.2 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 16.7 55.6 27.8 3.1 0.68 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 11.8 35.3 41.2 11.8 2.5 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 26.7 60.0 13.3 2.9 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 15.4 23.1 53.8 7.7 2.5 0.88 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 14.3 35.7 42.9 7.1 2.4 0.85 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 6.3 43.8 43.8 6.3 2.5 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 5.9 23.5 52.9 17.6 2.8 0.81 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 002L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 37. Question 37 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . 38. Question 38 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 39. Question 39 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . 43. Question 43 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . 46. Question 46 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 47. Question 47 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 48. Question 48 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . 49. Question 49 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . Number of forms preslugged = 23 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 78.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 312 001L1 INTERMED FR CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 37.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 62.5 Junior 2 22.2 C 0 0.0 Senior 6 66.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 11.1 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 22.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 66.7 Required by my major 5 55.6 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 44.4 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 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 11.1 0.0 66.7 22.2 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 11.1 22.2 55.6 11.1 2.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 2.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 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 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 12.5 0.0 62.5 25.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 312 001L1 INTERMED FR CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 60.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 001L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 11 61.1 A 6 33.3 Sophomore 2 11.1 B 10 55.6 Junior 3 16.7 C 2 11.1 Senior 2 11.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 16.7 Studies Program 6 35.3 2 hours 5 27.8 Required by my major 6 35.3 3 hours 5 27.8 Other (e.g. elective) 5 29.4 4 - 5 hours 4 22.2 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 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 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 5.9 58.8 35.3 3.3 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 22.2 66.7 11.1 2.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 29.4 58.8 11.8 2.8 0.64 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 001L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 2.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 13 0.0 0.0 84.6 15.4 3.2 0.38 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 23 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 82.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 002L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 8 50.0 A 9 56.3 Sophomore 3 18.8 B 7 43.8 Junior 3 18.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 12.5 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 2 12.5 Studies Program 7 43.8 2 hours 4 25.0 Required by my major 5 31.3 3 hours 2 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 25.0 4 - 5 hours 8 50.0 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 19 5.3 0.0 31.6 63.2 3.5 0.77 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 5.3 5.3 36.8 52.6 3.4 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 5.3 0.0 36.8 57.9 3.5 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 5.3 0.0 31.6 63.2 3.5 0.77 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 5.3 0.0 26.3 68.4 3.6 0.77 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 5.3 0.0 31.6 63.2 3.5 0.77 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 5.3 0.0 21.1 73.7 3.6 0.76 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 5.3 0.0 47.4 47.4 3.4 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 5.3 0.0 26.3 68.4 3.6 0.77 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 5.3 0.0 21.1 73.7 3.6 0.76 11. Was available for consultation 17 5.9 0.0 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.79 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 5.3 5.3 36.8 52.6 3.4 0.83 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 15.8 15.8 42.1 26.3 2.8 1.03 14. Encouraged class participation 19 5.3 0.0 42.1 52.6 3.4 0.77 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 16.7 16.7 41.7 25.0 2.8 1.06 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 11.1 22.2 44.4 22.2 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 14.3 50.0 21.4 14.3 2.4 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 5.3 5.3 26.3 63.2 3.5 0.84 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 002L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 76.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = FR 101 402L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Flowers, Mary L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 10.0 A 2 20.0 Sophomore 2 20.0 B 5 50.0 Junior 3 30.0 C 2 20.0 Senior 4 40.0 D 1 10.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 4 40.0 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 4 40.0 3 hours 3 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 20.0 4 - 5 hours 3 30.0 6 - 7 hours 1 10.0 8 or more hours 1 10.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 3.3 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = FR 101 402L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Flowers, Mary L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 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 2 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 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 55.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 003L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 11.1 A 5 27.8 Sophomore 4 22.2 B 9 50.0 Junior 3 16.7 C 2 11.1 Senior 7 38.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 11.1 Pass or Audit 2 11.1 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 11.1 Studies Program 3 16.7 2 hours 7 38.9 Required by my major 12 66.7 3 hours 7 38.9 Other (e.g. elective) 3 16.7 4 - 5 hours 2 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 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 11.1 11.1 55.6 22.2 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 9.1 0.0 72.7 18.2 3.0 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 10.0 10.0 60.0 20.0 2.9 0.88 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 7.1 7.1 50.0 35.7 3.1 0.86 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 14.3 14.3 57.1 14.3 2.7 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 5.6 11.1 44.4 38.9 3.2 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 003L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 005L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 26.7 A 4 26.7 Sophomore 2 13.3 B 9 60.0 Junior 4 26.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 26.7 D 1 6.7 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 6.7 Pass or Audit 1 6.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 26.7 Studies Program 7 46.7 2 hours 6 40.0 Required by my major 3 20.0 3 hours 3 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 33.3 4 - 5 hours 2 13.3 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 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 6.7 6.7 46.7 40.0 3.2 0.86 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 6.7 6.7 20.0 66.7 3.5 0.92 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 6.7 0.0 46.7 46.7 3.3 0.82 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 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 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 14.3 14.3 50.0 21.4 2.8 0.97 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 11.1 88.9 0.0 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 8.3 16.7 58.3 16.7 2.8 0.83 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 20.0 10.0 70.0 0.0 2.5 0.85 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 15.4 0.0 61.5 23.1 2.9 0.95 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 21.4 28.6 35.7 14.3 2.4 1.02 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 6.7 13.3 53.3 26.7 3.0 0.85 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 005L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 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 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 78.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 304 001L1 INTRO TO FRENCH LIT I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, Raymond C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 38.5 Sophomore 1 7.7 B 6 46.2 Junior 5 38.5 C 2 15.4 Senior 7 53.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 15.4 Studies Program 1 7.7 2 hours 1 7.7 Required by my major 9 69.2 3 hours 6 46.2 Other (e.g. elective) 3 23.1 4 - 5 hours 3 23.1 6 - 7 hours 1 7.7 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 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 20.0 46.7 33.3 3.1 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 6.7 20.0 73.3 3.7 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 6.7 13.3 80.0 3.7 0.59 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 304 001L1 INTRO TO FRENCH LIT I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, Raymond C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 306 001L1 INTERMED FR COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 27.3 Sophomore 2 18.2 B 8 72.7 Junior 3 27.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 45.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 9.1 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 9.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 36.4 Required by my major 7 63.6 3 hours 3 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 36.4 4 - 5 hours 3 27.3 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 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 15.4 30.8 53.8 3.4 0.77 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 7.7 7.7 38.5 46.2 3.2 0.93 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 16.7 58.3 25.0 3.1 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 23.1 46.2 30.8 3.1 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 7.7 23.1 69.2 3.6 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 30.8 30.8 38.5 3.1 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 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 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 3.3 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 3.3 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 7.7 7.7 38.5 46.2 3.2 0.93 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 306 001L1 INTERMED FR COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 81.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 504 001L1 TOPICS FR LIT/CULTURE: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 3 42.9 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 57.1 4 - 5 hours 3 42.9 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 8 or more hours 2 28.6 % % 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 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 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 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 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 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 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 28.6 71.4 3.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 504 001L1 TOPICS FR LIT/CULTURE: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 7 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 006L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ochanine, Shelly SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 10.0 A 2 10.0 Sophomore 4 20.0 B 9 45.0 Junior 5 25.0 C 8 40.0 Senior 8 40.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 5.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 5.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 25.0 Studies Program 3 15.0 2 hours 6 30.0 Required by my major 14 70.0 3 hours 6 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 15.0 4 - 5 hours 3 15.0 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 21 4.8 9.5 85.7 0.0 2.8 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 9.5 19.0 42.9 28.6 2.9 0.94 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 4.8 23.8 52.4 19.0 2.9 0.79 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 4.8 9.5 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.67 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 4.8 38.1 52.4 4.8 2.6 0.68 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 4.8 14.3 76.2 4.8 2.8 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 4.8 33.3 57.1 4.8 2.6 0.67 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 4.8 23.8 47.6 23.8 2.9 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 9.5 52.4 28.6 9.5 2.4 0.80 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 4.8 0.0 61.9 33.3 3.2 0.70 11. Was available for consultation 16 6.3 6.3 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.77 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 9.5 33.3 42.9 14.3 2.6 0.86 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 21.1 52.6 15.8 10.5 2.2 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 21 4.8 19.0 52.4 23.8 3.0 0.80 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 2.4 0.84 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 71.4 14.3 14.3 2.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 6.3 25.0 62.5 6.3 2.7 0.70 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 14.3 71.4 7.1 7.1 2.1 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 14.3 47.6 33.3 4.8 2.3 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 38.1 28.6 28.6 4.8 2.0 0.95 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 006L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ochanine, Shelly % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 84.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 001L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ochanine, Shelly SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 60.0 Sophomore 5 33.3 B 5 33.3 Junior 4 26.7 C 1 6.7 Senior 6 40.0 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 2 13.3 Studies Program 4 26.7 2 hours 6 40.0 Required by my major 11 73.3 3 hours 6 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 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 0.0 12.5 68.8 18.8 3.1 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 18.8 0.0 62.5 18.8 2.8 0.98 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 6.7 0.0 80.0 13.3 3.0 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 43.8 50.0 6.3 2.6 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 31.3 68.8 0.0 2.7 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 6.3 87.5 6.3 3.0 0.37 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 56.3 43.8 0.0 2.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 43.8 56.3 0.0 2.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 16 6.3 0.0 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.68 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 0.76 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 8.3 50.0 41.7 0.0 2.3 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 9.1 36.4 54.5 0.0 2.5 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 6.7 13.3 80.0 0.0 2.7 0.59 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 28.6 21.4 42.9 7.1 2.3 0.99 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 12.5 43.8 37.5 6.3 2.4 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 75.0 18.8 6.3 2.3 0.60 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 001L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ochanine, Shelly % % 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 = 16 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 004L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ochanine, Shelly SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 15.4 A 2 16.7 Sophomore 1 7.7 B 8 66.7 Junior 2 15.4 C 1 8.3 Senior 8 61.5 D 1 8.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 7.7 Studies Program 3 23.1 2 hours 5 38.5 Required by my major 9 69.2 3 hours 4 30.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.7 4 - 5 hours 2 15.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 7.7 % % 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 21.4 50.0 28.6 3.1 0.73 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.55 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 7.1 7.1 71.4 14.3 2.9 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 7.1 28.6 50.0 14.3 2.7 0.83 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 7.1 14.3 71.4 7.1 2.8 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 7.1 14.3 57.1 21.4 2.9 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 7.1 35.7 50.0 7.1 2.6 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 7.1 21.4 64.3 7.1 2.7 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 15.4 30.8 38.5 15.4 2.5 0.97 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 44.4 55.6 0.0 2.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 44.4 55.6 0.0 2.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 25.0 66.7 8.3 2.8 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 18.2 63.6 9.1 9.1 2.1 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 7.1 21.4 64.3 7.1 2.7 0.73 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 004L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ochanine, Shelly % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 93.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 412 001L1 ADV FRENCH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 36.4 Sophomore 1 9.1 B 4 36.4 Junior 1 9.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 6 54.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 9.1 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 18.2 Pass or Audit 3 27.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 27.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 6 54.5 3 hours 4 36.4 Other (e.g. elective) 5 45.5 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 9.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 8.3 0.0 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.87 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 412 001L1 ADV FRENCH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey % % 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 = 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 609 001L1 17TH CENT ST:WAYS OF KNOWNG IN WOMEN'S WRITNG INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 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 1 16.7 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 5 83.3 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 2 33.3 8 or more hours 3 50.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % % % % 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 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 609 001L1 17TH CENT ST:WAYS OF KNOWNG IN WOMEN'S WRITNG INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 406 001L1 ADV FRENCH GRAMMAR/COMP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pickens, Rupert T SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 40.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 10.0 Senior 9 90.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 10.0 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 2 20.0 Required by my major 8 80.0 3 hours 4 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 20.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 4 40.0 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 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 406 001L1 ADV FRENCH GRAMMAR/COMP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pickens, Rupert T % % 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 = 10 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 516 001L1 INTRO TO EARLY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pickens, Rupert T SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 28.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 14.3 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 14.3 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 3 42.9 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 57.1 4 - 5 hours 3 50.0 6 - 7 hours 3 50.0 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 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . % % % % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 516 001L1 INTRO TO EARLY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pickens, Rupert T % % 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.