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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 777 001S3 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Burnett, R.E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 16.7 Studies Program 2 16.7 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 10 83.3 3 hours 5 41.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 1 8.3 % % 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 5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 13.3 60.0 26.7 3.1 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 5.3 10.5 68.4 15.8 2.9 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 5.0 25.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.81 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.72 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 5.0 5.0 75.0 15.0 3.0 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 11. Was available for consultation 20 5.0 15.0 45.0 35.0 3.1 0.85 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.55 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 3.4 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 21.1 52.6 26.3 3.1 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 15.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.64 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 5.0 25.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 5.3 15.8 47.4 31.6 3.1 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 777 001S3 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Burnett, R.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 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 22 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 90.9 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 780 401L1 INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Burnett, R.E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 75.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 25.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 100.0 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 37.5 3 hours 1 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 5 62.5 4 - 5 hours 3 37.5 6 - 7 hours 2 25.0 8 or more hours 2 25.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 780 401L1 INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Burnett, R.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 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 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 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 28. Guided student report preparation 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = at least 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 777 001S1 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Benton V 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 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 14 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 14.3 Studies Program 2 14.3 2 hours 4 28.6 Required by my major 12 85.7 3 hours 5 35.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 7.1 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 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 30.8 46.2 23.1 2.9 0.76 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 5.6 11.1 83.3 0.0 2.8 0.55 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 5.6 16.7 66.7 11.1 2.8 0.71 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 5.9 5.9 70.6 17.6 3.0 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 21.1 78.9 0.0 2.8 0.42 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 5.3 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 10.5 68.4 21.1 3.1 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 26.3 57.9 15.8 2.9 0.66 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 10.5 63.2 26.3 3.2 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 10.5 63.2 26.3 3.2 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 5.3 10.5 63.2 21.1 3.0 0.75 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 5.6 27.8 61.1 5.6 2.7 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 5.3 15.8 63.2 15.8 2.9 0.74 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 10.5 63.2 26.3 3.2 0.60 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 10.5 31.6 42.1 15.8 2.6 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 0.76 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 777 001S1 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Benton V % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 22 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 86.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 730 001L1 CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION & BARGAINING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stempel, John D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 37.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 62.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 16 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 6.3 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 8 50.0 3 hours 4 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 43.8 4 - 5 hours 9 56.3 6 - 7 hours 1 6.3 8 or more hours 2 12.5 % % 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 5.9 64.7 29.4 3.2 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 76.5 23.5 3.2 0.44 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 35.3 52.9 11.8 2.8 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 81.3 12.5 3.1 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 6.3 25.0 50.0 18.8 2.8 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 11.8 23.5 58.8 5.9 2.6 0.80 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 5.9 0.0 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.66 11. Was available for consultation 16 6.3 12.5 25.0 56.3 3.3 0.95 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 11.8 11.8 52.9 23.5 2.9 0.93 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 11.8 17.6 52.9 17.6 2.8 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 16 6.3 6.3 37.5 50.0 3.3 0.87 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 5.9 17.6 41.2 35.3 3.1 0.90 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 26.7 40.0 33.3 3.1 0.80 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 29.4 47.1 23.5 2.9 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 2.9 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 31.3 50.0 18.8 2.9 0.72 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 730 001L1 CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION & BARGAINING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stempel, John 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 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 28. Guided student report preparation 13 0.0 30.8 46.2 23.1 2.9 0.76 29. Students free to express opinions 13 0.0 15.4 23.1 61.5 3.5 0.78 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 31. Developed abil to conduct research 11 9.1 18.2 45.5 27.3 2.9 0.94 SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 777 001S2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stempel, John D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 78.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 21.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 15 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 13.3 Studies Program 2 13.3 2 hours 5 33.3 Required by my major 13 86.7 3 hours 5 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 1 6.7 % % 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 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 2.8 . 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 5 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 10.5 10.5 73.7 5.3 2.7 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 15.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.64 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 10.0 10.0 60.0 20.0 2.9 0.85 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 5.0 30.0 55.0 10.0 2.7 0.73 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.66 11. Was available for consultation 20 5.0 5.0 65.0 25.0 3.1 0.72 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 25.0 55.0 20.0 3.0 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 30.0 60.0 10.0 2.8 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 22.2 50.0 27.8 3.1 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 21.1 57.9 21.1 3.0 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 38.9 50.0 11.1 2.7 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 15.8 63.2 21.1 3.1 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 21.1 52.6 26.3 3.1 0.71 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 10.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 2.7 0.92 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 2.8 1.01 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 777 001S2 RESEARCH PROBLEMS IN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stempel, John 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 4 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 2.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 4 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 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 = 22 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 90.9 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = HA 601 401L1 OVERVIEW OF THE HEALTH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Motzer, Earl 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 1 6.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 75.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 2 12.5 I 0 0.0 Other 1 6.3 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 6.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 25.0 Required by my major 14 87.5 3 hours 4 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 12.5 4 - 5 hours 4 25.0 6 - 7 hours 2 12.5 8 or more hours 1 6.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 5.3 5.3 63.2 26.3 3.1 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 5.3 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 5.3 15.8 68.4 10.5 2.8 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 10.5 63.2 26.3 3.2 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 5.6 38.9 55.6 3.5 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 5.3 21.1 52.6 21.1 2.9 0.81 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 5.3 5.3 31.6 57.9 3.4 0.84 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 33.3 46.7 20.0 2.9 0.74 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 21.1 47.4 31.6 3.1 0.74 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 5.3 5.3 68.4 21.1 3.1 0.71 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 5.6 5.6 72.2 16.7 3.0 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 5.3 0.0 73.7 21.1 3.1 0.66 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 10.5 42.1 47.4 3.4 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 10.5 47.4 42.1 3.3 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = HA 601 401L1 OVERVIEW OF THE HEALTH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Motzer, Earl % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 21 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 90.5 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 795 002L1 SPEC TOPS PUBLIC ADMIN: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baldwin, W 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 4 57.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 100.0 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 2 25.0 2 hours 1 12.5 Required by my major 6 75.0 3 hours 1 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 50.0 6 - 7 hours 1 12.5 8 or more hours 1 12.5 % % 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 33.3 22.2 44.4 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 14.3 28.6 42.9 14.3 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 33.3 11.1 33.3 22.2 2.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 11.1 11.1 66.7 11.1 2.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 33.3 11.1 44.4 11.1 2.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 22.2 33.3 22.2 22.2 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 44.4 33.3 22.2 2.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 11.1 33.3 33.3 22.2 2.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 11.1 33.3 44.4 11.1 2.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 11.1 22.2 44.4 22.2 2.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 55.6 11.1 22.2 11.1 1.9 . % % % % 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 55.6 11.1 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 44.4 11.1 22.2 22.2 2.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 795 002L1 SPEC TOPS PUBLIC ADMIN: INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baldwin, W 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 50.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 621 401L1 QUANTITATIVE METHODS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Philip K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 41.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 8.3 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 16.7 Studies Program 2 16.7 2 hours 2 16.7 Required by my major 9 75.0 3 hours 4 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 8.3 4 - 5 hours 2 16.7 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 1 8.3 % % 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 40.0 53.3 6.7 2.7 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 6.7 13.3 60.0 20.0 2.9 0.80 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 26.7 33.3 40.0 3.1 0.83 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 6.7 0.0 46.7 46.7 3.3 0.82 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.77 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 26.7 46.7 26.7 3.0 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 6.7 0.0 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.80 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 20.0 66.7 13.3 2.9 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 15 6.7 0.0 46.7 46.7 3.3 0.82 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 10.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 3.1 0.88 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 6.7 0.0 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.80 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 6.7 0.0 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.80 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 14.3 28.6 42.9 14.3 2.6 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 6.7 0.0 46.7 46.7 3.3 0.82 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 621 401L1 QUANTITATIVE METHODS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Philip K % % 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 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 17 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 88.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 656 001L1 HLTH PROGRAM EVALUATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Philip K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 75.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 90.9 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 2 16.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 10 90.9 3 hours 6 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 9.1 4 - 5 hours 1 8.3 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 7.7 84.6 7.7 3.0 0.41 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 7.7 15.4 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 7.7 15.4 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 16.7 33.3 50.0 0.0 2.3 0.78 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 7.7 30.8 46.2 15.4 2.7 0.85 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 30.8 38.5 23.1 7.7 2.1 0.95 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 7.7 15.4 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 7.7 23.1 61.5 7.7 2.7 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 15.4 61.5 23.1 3.1 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 7.7 23.1 61.5 7.7 2.7 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 0.39 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 30.8 53.8 15.4 2.8 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 45.5 45.5 9.1 2.6 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 23.1 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 7.7 69.2 23.1 0.0 2.2 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 69.2 15.4 15.4 2.5 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 15.4 46.2 15.4 23.1 2.5 1.05 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 656 001L1 HLTH PROGRAM EVALUATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Philip K % % 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 92.9 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 680 001L1 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blomquist, Glenn C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 20.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 80.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 81.8 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 18.2 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 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 18.2 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 9 81.8 4 - 5 hours 6 54.5 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 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 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 16.7 25.0 58.3 3.4 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 3.3 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 680 001L1 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blomquist, Glenn 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 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = at least 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 631 001L1 PUBLIC FINANCIAL MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hackbart, Merl M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 42.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 57.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 17 89.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 5.3 I 0 0.0 Other 1 5.3 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 31.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 21.1 Required by my major 16 94.1 3 hours 4 21.1 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.9 4 - 5 hours 4 21.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 5.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 21 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 14.3 66.7 19.0 3.0 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 9.5 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 4.8 28.6 42.9 23.8 2.9 0.85 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 4.8 61.9 33.3 3.3 0.56 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 4.8 71.4 23.8 3.2 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9 0.30 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 4.8 61.9 33.3 3.3 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 4.8 28.6 66.7 3.6 0.59 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 14.3 47.6 38.1 3.2 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 3.2 0.42 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 4.8 28.6 33.3 33.3 3.0 0.92 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 15.0 85.0 3.9 0.37 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 631 001L1 PUBLIC FINANCIAL MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hackbart, Merl 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 = 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PA 637 401L1 HEALTH FINANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Heller, Len SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 63.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 36.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 17 89.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 2 10.5 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 26.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 36.8 Required by my major 13 68.4 3 hours 3 15.8 Other (e.g. elective) 6 31.6 4 - 5 hours 4 21.1 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 21 0.0 4.8 66.7 28.6 3.2 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 9.5 71.4 19.0 3.1 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 0.0 14.3 66.7 19.0 3.0 0.59 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 4.8 4.8 66.7 23.8 3.1 0.70 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 5.0 70.0 25.0 3.2 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 0.0 61.9 38.1 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 15.0 20.0 55.0 10.0 2.6 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 15.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9 0.30 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 7.1 78.6 14.3 3.1 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 4.8 57.1 38.1 3.3 0.58 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 15.0 35.0 50.0 3.4 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 5.6 72.2 22.2 3.2 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 9.5 61.9 28.6 3.2 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 5.0 10.0 65.0 20.0 3.0 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 9.5 61.9 28.6 3.2 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 15.0 40.0 45.0 3.3 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 5.0 10.0 45.0 40.0 3.2 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PA 637 401L1 HEALTH FINANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Heller, Len % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 21 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 651 001L1 THE POLICY PROCESS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jennings, Edward SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 13 86.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 6.7 I 0 0.0 Other 1 6.7 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 6.7 Required by my major 13 86.7 3 hours 7 46.7 Other (e.g. elective) 2 13.3 4 - 5 hours 5 33.3 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 1 6.7 % % 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 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 11.1 61.1 27.8 3.2 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 5.6 61.1 33.3 3.3 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 11.1 61.1 27.8 3.2 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 11.1 61.1 27.8 3.2 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 5.6 61.1 33.3 3.3 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 5.6 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 5.6 50.0 44.4 3.4 0.61 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 11.8 70.6 17.6 3.1 0.56 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 5.9 82.4 11.8 3.1 0.43 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 5.6 61.1 33.3 3.3 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.59 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 0.0 22.2 50.0 27.8 3.1 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 5.6 5.6 27.8 61.1 3.4 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 651 001L1 THE POLICY PROCESS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jennings, Edward % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 20 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 90.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 751 001L1 PUB POLICY FORM & IMPLE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jennings, Edward SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 20.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 80.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 83.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 16.7 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 6 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 3 50.0 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 3.0 . 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 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 16.7 0.0 33.3 50.0 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 751 001L1 PUB POLICY FORM & IMPLE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jennings, Edward % % 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 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 16.7 0.0 66.7 16.7 2.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 75.0 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 623 001L1 DECISION ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Murray, Sheila SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 57.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 42.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 85.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 14.3 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 14.3 Required by my major 7 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 8 or more hours 3 42.9 % % 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 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 28.6 14.3 57.1 0.0 2.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 14.3 14.3 28.6 42.9 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.0 2.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 2.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 28.6 0.0 71.4 0.0 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 14.3 0.0 42.9 42.9 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 2.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 28.6 14.3 57.1 0.0 2.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 28.6 28.6 42.9 0.0 2.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.3 2.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 623 001L1 DECISION ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Murray, Sheila % % 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 = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 63.6 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 623 002L1 DECISION ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Murray, Sheila SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 16.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 71.4 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 2 28.6 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 50.0 Required by my major 6 85.7 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 14.3 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 2 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 7 14.3 14.3 28.6 42.9 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 42.9 57.1 0.0 2.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 14.3 14.3 57.1 14.3 2.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 2.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 14.3 28.6 28.6 28.6 2.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 28.6 42.9 28.6 0.0 2.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 14.3 0.0 57.1 28.6 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 623 002L1 DECISION ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Murray, Sheila % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 642 001L1 PUBLIC ORGANIZATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rodgers, Robert C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 40.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 60.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 13 86.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 13.3 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 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 20.0 Required by my major 11 73.3 3 hours 2 13.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 26.7 4 - 5 hours 5 33.3 6 - 7 hours 2 13.3 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 15 6.7 0.0 20.0 73.3 3.6 0.83 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 12.5 6.3 31.3 50.0 3.2 1.05 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 6.3 0.0 37.5 56.3 3.4 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 6.3 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 6.3 6.3 18.8 68.8 3.5 0.89 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 642 001L1 PUBLIC ORGANIZATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rodgers, Robert 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 84.2 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 621 001L1 QUANTITATIVE METHODS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Talbert, Jeffrey SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 42.9 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 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 14.3 Required by my major 7 100.0 3 hours 3 42.9 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 42.9 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 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 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 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 14.3 0.0 28.6 57.1 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 2.5 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 621 001L1 QUANTITATIVE METHODS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Talbert, 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