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 = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 301 001L1 LEADERSHP & MANAGEMNT I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dutton, Brian SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 9 100.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 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 4 44.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 11.1 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 9 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 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 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 301 001L1 LEADERSHP & MANAGEMNT I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dutton, Brian % % 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 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 = 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 = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 341 001L1 LEADERSHP & MANAGEMNT II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Farquhar, Robert P 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 5 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 50.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 25.0 Required by my major 2 40.0 3 hours 1 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 60.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 341 001L1 LEADERSHP & MANAGEMNT II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Farquhar, Robert P % % 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 = 5 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 341 002L1 LEADERSHP & MANAGEMNT II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Farquhar, Robert P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 25.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 8 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 25.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 25.0 Studies Program 1 12.5 2 hours 5 62.5 Required by my major 1 12.5 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 75.0 4 - 5 hours 1 12.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 14.3 0.0 57.1 28.6 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 341 002L1 LEADERSHP & MANAGEMNT II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Farquhar, Robert P % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 103 001L1 ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 6 66.7 A 7 77.8 Sophomore 2 22.2 B 2 22.2 Junior 1 11.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 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 6 66.7 Studies Program 1 12.5 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 7 87.5 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 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 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 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . % % % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 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 = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 103 001L1 ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 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 = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 103 002L1 ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 60.0 A 4 80.0 Sophomore 1 20.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 20.0 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 40.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 100.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 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 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 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 = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 103 002L1 ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.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 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 = 5 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 103 003L1 ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 80.0 A 2 40.0 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 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 20.0 Pass or Audit 1 20.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 80.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 20.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 100.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 103 003L1 ROLE OF THE U.S. ARMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.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 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 = 5 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 203 001L1 AMERICAN MILITARY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 14.3 A 5 71.4 Sophomore 3 42.9 B 2 28.6 Junior 2 28.6 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 14.3 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 4 57.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 14.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 7 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 14.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 203 001L1 AMERICAN MILITARY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.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 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 = 8 Percent completed = 66.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 203 003L1 AMERICAN MILITARY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 20.0 A 2 40.0 Sophomore 2 40.0 B 3 60.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 20.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 20.0 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 4 80.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 20.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 100.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 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 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 203 003L1 AMERICAN MILITARY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.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 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 = 9 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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".