1****************************************************************************** * * * Please note that these results DO NOT INCLUDE: * * * * * Course sections taught by a TA * * * Discussion, Laboratory, Independent Study, Practicum, or * * Residency course sections (results contain only LECTURES * * and SEMINARS) * * * Any course section with fewer than 5 evaluations returned * * * * Given for each item are the number responding (N), the percentage that * * strongly disagreed, the percentage that disagreed, the percentage that * * agreed, the percentage that strongly agreed, the mean, and the standard * * deviation (SD). * * * ****************************************************************************** 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 305 002L1 HEALTH CARE ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderson, Clelia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 57.1 Sophomore 2 9.5 B 6 28.6 Junior 9 42.9 C 2 9.5 Senior 10 47.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 9.1 Studies Program 7 33.3 2 hours 8 36.4 Required by my major 5 23.8 3 hours 8 36.4 Other (e.g. elective) 9 42.9 4 - 5 hours 3 13.6 6 - 7 hours 1 4.5 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 9.1 40.9 50.0 3.4 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 13.0 26.1 60.9 3.5 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 31.8 54.5 13.6 2.8 0.66 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 4.3 34.8 60.9 3.6 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 4.3 34.8 60.9 3.6 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 5.6 61.1 33.3 3.3 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 0.0 19.0 47.6 33.3 3.1 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 13.0 39.1 47.8 3.3 0.71 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 8.7 30.4 60.9 3.5 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 305 002L1 HEALTH CARE ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderson, Clelia % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 4 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 32 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 71.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 680 001S1 SPEC TOPS IN PHILOSOPHY: DESIRE, KNOWLEDGE,& GAZ INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bordo, S SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 46.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 46.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 13 100.0 E/Fail 1 7.7 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 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 13 100.0 4 - 5 hours 7 53.8 6 - 7 hours 5 38.5 8 or more hours 1 7.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 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 38.5 46.2 3.3 0.75 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 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 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 680 001S1 SPEC TOPS IN PHILOSOPHY: DESIRE, KNOWLEDGE,& GAZ INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bordo, S % % 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 11 18.2 36.4 27.3 18.2 2.5 1.04 28. Guided student report preparation 12 0.0 33.3 25.0 41.7 3.1 0.90 29. Students free to express opinions 12 0.0 8.3 8.3 83.3 3.8 0.62 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 12 8.3 8.3 8.3 75.0 3.5 1.00 31. Developed abil to conduct research 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 004L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 10 66.7 A 7 50.0 Sophomore 5 33.3 B 5 35.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 14.3 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 3 20.0 Studies Program 10 66.7 2 hours 5 33.3 Required by my major 1 6.7 3 hours 3 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 26.7 4 - 5 hours 4 26.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 5.3 26.3 52.6 15.8 2.8 0.79 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 5.3 5.3 52.6 36.8 3.2 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 5.6 38.9 55.6 3.5 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 5.3 47.4 47.4 3.4 0.61 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 5.3 26.3 31.6 36.8 3.0 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 5.3 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 10.5 15.8 73.7 3.6 0.68 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 004L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James 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 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 31 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 61.3 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 513 001L1 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 7.7 A 4 40.0 Sophomore 1 7.7 B 6 60.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 23.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 61.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 16.7 3 hours 1 8.3 Other (e.g. elective) 10 83.3 4 - 5 hours 3 25.0 6 - 7 hours 2 16.7 8 or more hours 6 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 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 7.7 7.7 84.6 3.8 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 513 001L1 19TH CENTURY PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 19 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 68.4 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 130 007L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 15.0 A 7 35.0 Sophomore 8 40.0 B 8 40.0 Junior 7 35.0 C 5 25.0 Senior 2 10.0 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 3 15.0 Studies Program 13 65.0 2 hours 9 45.0 Required by my major 2 10.0 3 hours 5 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 25.0 4 - 5 hours 3 15.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 10.0 55.0 35.0 3.3 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.68 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 5.0 25.0 40.0 30.0 3.0 0.89 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 10.0 55.0 35.0 3.3 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.68 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 5.0 5.0 55.0 35.0 3.2 0.77 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 5.0 30.0 65.0 3.6 0.60 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 5.0 20.0 45.0 30.0 3.0 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 5.3 47.4 47.4 3.4 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 5.3 10.5 52.6 31.6 3.1 0.81 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 10.5 26.3 52.6 10.5 2.6 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 5.0 15.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.88 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 5.0 40.0 55.0 3.5 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 130 007L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan 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 9 11.1 33.3 44.4 11.1 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 11 9.1 9.1 36.4 45.5 3.2 0.98 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 13 7.7 15.4 46.2 30.8 3.0 0.91 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 = 29 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 69.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 530 001L1 ETHICAL THEORY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 63.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 27.3 Junior 1 9.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 9.1 D 1 9.1 Graduate 9 81.8 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 9.1 3 hours 1 9.1 Other (e.g. elective) 10 90.9 4 - 5 hours 8 72.7 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 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 10.0 0.0 90.0 3.8 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 11 18.2 9.1 18.2 54.5 3.1 1.22 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 3.0 0.94 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 10.0 0.0 50.0 40.0 3.2 0.92 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 530 001L1 ETHICAL THEORY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 91.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Estes, Yolanda SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 5.6 A 10 55.6 Sophomore 1 5.6 B 8 44.4 Junior 5 27.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 11 61.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 38.9 Studies Program 4 22.2 2 hours 6 33.3 Required by my major 5 27.8 3 hours 3 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 9 50.0 4 - 5 hours 2 11.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 4.5 9.1 45.5 40.9 3.2 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 4.5 68.2 27.3 3.2 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 9.1 59.1 31.8 3.2 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 4.5 9.1 50.0 36.4 3.2 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 4.8 47.6 47.6 3.4 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 4.8 4.8 52.4 38.1 3.2 0.77 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 4.8 4.8 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.75 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 5.0 5.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 4.8 0.0 57.1 38.1 3.3 0.72 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 14.3 33.3 28.6 23.8 2.6 1.02 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 9.1 4.5 54.5 31.8 3.1 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 9.5 42.9 47.6 3.4 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Estes, Yolanda % % 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 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 = 26 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 84.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 002L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Estes, Yolanda SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 36.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 44.0 Junior 10 40.0 C 1 4.0 Senior 15 60.0 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 4 16.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 9 36.0 Studies Program 4 15.4 2 hours 8 32.0 Required by my major 6 23.1 3 hours 5 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 16 61.5 4 - 5 hours 3 12.0 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 26 0.0 0.0 73.1 26.9 3.3 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 0.0 23.1 42.3 34.6 3.1 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 15.4 50.0 34.6 3.2 0.69 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 3.8 57.7 38.5 3.3 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 0.0 65.4 34.6 3.3 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 3.8 57.7 38.5 3.3 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 15.4 30.8 34.6 19.2 2.6 0.99 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 3.8 61.5 34.6 3.3 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 15.4 61.5 23.1 3.1 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 16.0 28.0 40.0 16.0 2.6 0.96 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 4.2 16.7 58.3 20.8 3.0 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 4.2 8.3 70.8 16.7 3.0 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 4.2 12.5 70.8 12.5 2.9 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 4.2 79.2 16.7 3.1 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 13.0 26.1 52.2 8.7 2.6 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 0.0 50.0 38.5 11.5 2.6 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 24.0 60.0 16.0 2.9 0.64 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 002L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Estes, Yolanda % % 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 36 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 350 001L1 DEATH/DYING/QUAL OF LIFE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Estes, Yolanda SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 22 44.0 Sophomore 8 16.0 B 26 52.0 Junior 14 28.0 C 1 2.0 Senior 28 56.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 2.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 16.0 Studies Program 20 40.0 2 hours 23 46.0 Required by my major 3 6.0 3 hours 10 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 27 54.0 4 - 5 hours 9 18.0 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 51 0.0 13.7 58.8 27.5 3.1 0.63 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 51 2.0 0.0 58.8 39.2 3.4 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 51 2.0 3.9 52.9 41.2 3.3 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 51 2.0 2.0 39.2 56.9 3.5 0.64 5. Grading was fair and consistent 50 0.0 14.0 56.0 30.0 3.2 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 50 2.0 4.0 54.0 40.0 3.3 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 50 2.0 26.0 56.0 16.0 2.9 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 50 2.0 10.0 60.0 28.0 3.1 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 50 2.0 6.0 54.0 38.0 3.3 0.67 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 50 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 49 0.0 0.0 53.1 46.9 3.5 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 50 2.0 0.0 50.0 48.0 3.4 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 50 4.0 12.0 38.0 46.0 3.3 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 50 0.0 0.0 46.0 54.0 3.5 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 50 4.0 4.0 50.0 42.0 3.3 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 48 4.2 2.1 60.4 33.3 3.2 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 43 4.7 9.3 53.5 32.6 3.1 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 50 0.0 4.0 56.0 40.0 3.4 0.56 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 48 4.2 20.8 43.8 31.3 3.0 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 50 4.0 2.0 46.0 48.0 3.4 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 50 0.0 12.0 40.0 48.0 3.4 0.69 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 350 001L1 DEATH/DYING/QUAL OF LIFE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Estes, Yolanda % % 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 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 11.1 11.1 44.4 33.3 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 11.1 0.0 55.6 33.3 3.1 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 8 12.5 37.5 25.0 25.0 2.6 . 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 = 65 Number of forms scanned = 51 Number of forms with at least one student response = 51 Percent completed = 78.5 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 002L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 27.8 A 4 23.5 Sophomore 11 61.1 B 9 52.9 Junior 1 5.6 C 4 23.5 Senior 1 5.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 27.8 Studies Program 12 66.7 2 hours 5 27.8 Required by my major 2 11.1 3 hours 5 27.8 Other (e.g. elective) 4 22.2 4 - 5 hours 2 11.1 6 - 7 hours 1 5.6 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 5.3 36.8 57.9 3.5 0.61 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 59.1 40.9 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 4.5 40.9 54.5 3.5 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 11.1 50.0 38.9 3.3 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 0.0 27.3 27.3 45.5 3.2 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 002L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 78.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 710 401S1 SEM IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 25.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 16.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 66.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 16.7 Pass or Audit 1 25.0 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 16.7 Required by my major 1 16.7 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 5 83.3 4 - 5 hours 1 16.7 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 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 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 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 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 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 710 401S1 SEM IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 503 001L1 TOPS ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 33.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 66.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 40.0 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 3 60.0 4 - 5 hours 2 33.3 6 - 7 hours 2 33.3 8 or more hours 1 16.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 12.5 0.0 50.0 37.5 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 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 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 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 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 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 37.5 50.0 3.4 . % % % % 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 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 503 001L1 TOPS ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 17 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 47.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 100 005L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabhart, Mitch SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 16 76.2 A 9 42.9 Sophomore 4 19.0 B 5 23.8 Junior 1 4.8 C 5 23.8 Senior 0 0.0 D 2 9.5 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 9 42.9 Studies Program 14 66.7 2 hours 9 42.9 Required by my major 1 4.8 3 hours 2 9.5 Other (e.g. elective) 6 28.6 4 - 5 hours 1 4.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 10.0 10.0 55.0 25.0 3.0 0.89 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 5.6 22.2 50.0 22.2 2.9 0.83 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 0.0 4.8 38.1 57.1 3.5 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 7.1 42.9 35.7 14.3 2.6 0.85 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 9.5 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 81.0 19.0 3.2 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 4.8 33.3 61.9 3.6 0.60 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 10.0 10.0 45.0 35.0 3.1 0.94 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 10.0 75.0 15.0 3.1 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 10.0 55.0 35.0 3.3 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 4.8 19.0 57.1 19.0 2.9 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 47.1 35.3 17.6 2.7 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 14.3 52.4 33.3 3.2 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 10.0 45.0 25.0 20.0 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 21 14.3 4.8 57.1 23.8 2.9 0.94 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 100 005L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabhart, Mitch % % 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 11 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 2.8 0.87 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 15 13.3 6.7 66.7 13.3 2.8 0.86 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 1.8 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 2.8 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 32 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 65.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 001L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabhart, Mitch SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 16.7 A 5 27.8 Sophomore 5 27.8 B 9 50.0 Junior 3 16.7 C 3 16.7 Senior 6 33.3 D 1 5.6 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 5.6 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 9 50.0 Studies Program 12 66.7 2 hours 4 22.2 Required by my major 5 27.8 3 hours 2 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.6 4 - 5 hours 3 16.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 11.1 61.1 27.8 3.2 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 13.3 66.7 20.0 3.1 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 5.6 38.9 55.6 3.5 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 11.1 38.9 50.0 3.4 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 0.0 27.8 27.8 44.4 3.2 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 18.8 31.3 43.8 6.3 2.4 0.89 % % % % 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 27.8 50.0 3.3 0.83 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 11.1 27.8 61.1 3.5 0.71 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 001L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabhart, Mitch % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 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 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 = 31 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 58.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 343 001L1 ASIAN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Giles, Don SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 5.6 A 13 37.1 Sophomore 7 19.4 B 19 54.3 Junior 15 41.7 C 2 5.7 Senior 11 30.6 D 1 2.9 Graduate 1 2.8 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 11.1 Studies Program 22 62.9 2 hours 9 25.0 Required by my major 3 8.6 3 hours 13 36.1 Other (e.g. elective) 10 28.6 4 - 5 hours 8 22.2 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 5.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 37 0.0 0.0 54.1 45.9 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 37 0.0 0.0 43.2 56.8 3.6 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 37 2.7 0.0 51.4 45.9 3.4 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 37 0.0 2.7 37.8 59.5 3.6 0.55 5. Grading was fair and consistent 37 2.7 10.8 37.8 48.6 3.3 0.78 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 37 0.0 2.7 43.2 54.1 3.5 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 37 0.0 0.0 54.1 45.9 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 36 0.0 2.8 63.9 33.3 3.3 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 37 0.0 8.1 29.7 62.2 3.5 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 37 0.0 0.0 18.9 81.1 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 33 0.0 0.0 39.4 60.6 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 37 0.0 0.0 40.5 59.5 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 37 0.0 2.7 35.1 62.2 3.6 0.55 14. Encouraged class participation 37 0.0 0.0 27.0 73.0 3.7 0.45 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 37 0.0 0.0 35.1 64.9 3.6 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 37 0.0 0.0 62.2 37.8 3.4 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 32 0.0 12.5 59.4 28.1 3.2 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 36 0.0 0.0 47.2 52.8 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 35 0.0 8.6 40.0 51.4 3.4 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 37 0.0 5.4 27.0 67.6 3.6 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 36 0.0 2.8 25.0 72.2 3.7 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 343 001L1 ASIAN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Giles, Don % % 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 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 17 0.0 17.6 64.7 17.6 3.0 0.61 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 = 72 Number of forms scanned = 37 Number of forms with at least one student response = 37 Percent completed = 51.4 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 402L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 5.6 A 13 72.2 Sophomore 8 44.4 B 1 5.6 Junior 5 27.8 C 3 16.7 Senior 3 16.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 5.6 Pass or Audit 1 5.6 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 5.6 Studies Program 17 94.4 2 hours 4 22.2 Required by my major 1 5.6 3 hours 9 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 22.2 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 0.0 5.6 94.4 3.9 0.24 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 0.0 5.6 94.4 3.9 0.24 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 5.6 16.7 77.8 3.7 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 5.6 94.4 3.9 0.24 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 6.3 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 5.6 94.4 3.9 0.24 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 5.9 11.8 82.4 3.8 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 3.9 0.33 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 12.5 43.8 31.3 12.5 2.4 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 402L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy % % 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 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 64.3 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 130 006L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 9 42.9 A 7 33.3 Sophomore 7 33.3 B 9 42.9 Junior 3 14.3 C 4 19.0 Senior 2 9.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 23.8 Studies Program 13 61.9 2 hours 6 28.6 Required by my major 4 19.0 3 hours 6 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 4 19.0 4 - 5 hours 4 19.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 8.7 60.9 30.4 3.2 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 0.0 0.0 69.6 30.4 3.3 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 17.4 43.5 39.1 3.2 0.74 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 0.0 60.9 39.1 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 4.3 65.2 30.4 3.3 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 0.0 60.9 39.1 3.4 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 17.4 52.2 30.4 3.1 0.69 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 4.3 69.6 26.1 3.2 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 0.0 77.3 22.7 3.2 0.43 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 19.0 61.9 19.0 3.0 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 0.0 73.9 26.1 3.3 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 9.1 27.3 50.0 13.6 2.7 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 8.7 52.2 39.1 3.3 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 130 006L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 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 = 31 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 74.2 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 009L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holcomb III, Harmon R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 12 54.5 A 6 27.3 Sophomore 6 27.3 B 9 40.9 Junior 3 13.6 C 7 31.8 Senior 1 4.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 22.7 Studies Program 17 81.0 2 hours 5 22.7 Required by my major 1 4.8 3 hours 10 45.5 Other (e.g. elective) 3 14.3 4 - 5 hours 2 9.1 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 26 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 0.0 11.5 42.3 46.2 3.3 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 3.3 0.74 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 3.8 11.5 34.6 50.0 3.3 0.84 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 3.8 19.2 34.6 42.3 3.2 0.88 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 23.1 46.2 30.8 3.1 0.74 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 8.0 32.0 60.0 3.5 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 3.8 19.2 30.8 46.2 3.2 0.90 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 3.8 38.5 57.7 3.5 0.58 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 4.0 52.0 44.0 3.4 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 3.8 15.4 50.0 30.8 3.1 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 3.8 30.8 65.4 3.6 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 3.8 3.8 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 4.3 8.7 65.2 21.7 3.0 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 3.8 65.4 30.8 3.3 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 12.0 48.0 32.0 8.0 2.4 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 0.0 19.2 53.8 26.9 3.1 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 0.0 19.2 34.6 46.2 3.3 0.78 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = A