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 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 201 001L1 INTRO TO FARM & NATURAL RESOURCE FINANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 45.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 45.5 Junior 5 45.5 C 1 9.1 Senior 6 54.5 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 7 63.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 9 81.8 3 hours 1 9.1 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 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 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 50.0 30.0 20.0 2.7 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 18.2 72.7 9.1 2.9 0.54 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 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 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 9.1 0.0 54.5 36.4 3.2 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 3.0 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 201 001L1 INTRO TO FARM & NATURAL RESOURCE FINANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 57.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 441G001L1 AG FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ervin, Danny M Jr SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 50.0 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 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 50.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 25.0 Required by my major 5 62.5 3 hours 2 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 37.5 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 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 12.5 25.0 37.5 25.0 2.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 50.0 37.5 12.5 2.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 25.0 12.5 50.0 12.5 2.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 441G001L1 AG FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ervin, Danny M Jr % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 72.7 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 324 001L1 AGRICULTURAL LAW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Foree, Robert SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 15 42.9 Junior 7 20.0 C 5 14.3 Senior 26 74.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 2.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 2.9 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 10 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 25.7 Required by my major 12 34.3 3 hours 11 31.4 Other (e.g. elective) 23 65.7 4 - 5 hours 4 11.4 6 - 7 hours 1 2.9 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 35 0.0 5.7 77.1 17.1 3.1 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 34 5.9 11.8 67.6 14.7 2.9 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 30 3.3 10.0 70.0 16.7 3.0 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 35 0.0 5.7 68.6 25.7 3.2 0.53 5. Grading was fair and consistent 35 0.0 5.7 71.4 22.9 3.2 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 33 0.0 9.1 66.7 24.2 3.2 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 34 0.0 0.0 67.6 32.4 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 31 6.5 19.4 61.3 12.9 2.8 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 35 0.0 5.7 71.4 22.9 3.2 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 35 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 32 0.0 6.3 59.4 34.4 3.3 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 35 0.0 0.0 54.3 45.7 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 35 0.0 17.1 48.6 34.3 3.2 0.71 14. Encouraged class participation 35 0.0 2.9 45.7 51.4 3.5 0.56 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 30 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 0.38 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 34 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 31 0.0 16.1 67.7 16.1 3.0 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 35 0.0 0.0 68.6 31.4 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 35 5.7 22.9 51.4 20.0 2.9 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 35 0.0 20.0 34.3 45.7 3.3 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 35 0.0 11.4 45.7 42.9 3.3 0.68 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 324 001L1 AGRICULTURAL LAW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Foree, Robert % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 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 = 39 Number of forms scanned = 35 Number of forms with at least one student response = 35 Percent completed = 89.7 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 304 001L1 MACROECONOMIC CONCEPTS IN AG ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 16 72.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 22.7 Junior 12 54.5 C 1 4.5 Senior 10 45.5 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 12 54.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 9.1 Required by my major 21 95.5 3 hours 5 22.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.5 4 - 5 hours 3 13.6 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 8.7 43.5 47.8 3.4 0.66 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 20.0 10.0 30.0 40.0 2.9 1.20 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 4.3 8.7 52.2 34.8 3.2 0.78 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 8.7 39.1 52.2 3.4 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 13.0 39.1 47.8 3.3 0.71 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 4.5 13.6 45.5 36.4 3.1 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 4.3 17.4 43.5 34.8 3.1 0.85 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 20 10.0 0.0 55.0 35.0 3.2 0.88 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 8.7 60.9 30.4 3.2 0.60 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 8.7 17.4 47.8 26.1 2.9 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 13.0 56.5 30.4 3.2 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 0.0 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.73 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 21 4.8 4.8 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.75 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 9.1 50.0 40.9 3.3 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 4.8 28.6 38.1 28.6 2.9 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 13.0 8.7 39.1 39.1 3.0 1.02 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 8.7 17.4 30.4 43.5 3.1 1.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 304 001L1 MACROECONOMIC CONCEPTS IN AG ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan % % 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 = 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 401L1 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 45.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 54.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 5 41.7 3 hours 3 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 58.3 4 - 5 hours 5 41.7 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 7.1 21.4 71.4 3.6 0.63 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 14.3 35.7 50.0 3.4 0.74 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 7.1 28.6 14.3 50.0 3.1 1.07 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 7.1 0.0 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.84 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 401L1 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 93.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 001L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 19 65.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 34.5 Junior 6 20.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 23 79.3 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 13.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 15 51.7 Required by my major 20 71.4 3 hours 6 20.7 Other (e.g. elective) 8 28.6 4 - 5 hours 4 13.8 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 30 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 3.6 17.9 42.9 35.7 3.1 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 30 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 30 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 30 0.0 3.3 16.7 80.0 3.8 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 30 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 30 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 30 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 30 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 30 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31 11. Was available for consultation 30 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 12. Satisfact answered class questions 30 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 30 0.0 3.3 10.0 86.7 3.8 0.46 14. Encouraged class participation 30 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 0.0 39.3 60.7 3.6 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 30 0.0 0.0 23.3 76.7 3.8 0.43 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 30 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 30 0.0 3.3 6.7 90.0 3.9 0.43 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 0.0 3.3 23.3 73.3 3.7 0.53 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 30 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 21. Overall quality of teaching 30 0.0 0.0 3.3 96.7 4.0 0.18 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 001L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven % % 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 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 33. Amount of work appropriate 22 0.0 4.5 31.8 63.6 3.6 0.59 34. Instructor explained expectations 22 0.0 9.1 22.7 68.2 3.6 0.67 35. Instructor helped with my problems 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 21 0.0 9.5 28.6 61.9 3.5 0.68 % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 30 Number of forms scanned = 30 Number of forms with at least one student response = 30 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 002L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 59.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 40.9 Junior 6 27.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 15 68.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.5 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 7 31.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 31.8 Required by my major 15 68.2 3 hours 6 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 7 31.8 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 22 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 9.5 23.8 47.6 19.0 2.8 0.89 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 4.5 40.9 54.5 3.5 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 4.5 0.0 45.5 50.0 3.4 0.73 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 4.5 0.0 54.5 40.9 3.3 0.72 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 4.5 27.3 68.2 3.6 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 4.5 36.4 59.1 3.5 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 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 13.6 50.0 36.4 3.2 0.69 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 0.0 9.5 28.6 61.9 3.5 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 4.8 23.8 71.4 3.7 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 002L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven % % 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 17 0.0 11.8 29.4 58.8 3.5 0.72 33. Amount of work appropriate 17 0.0 5.9 58.8 35.3 3.3 0.59 34. Instructor explained expectations 17 0.0 5.9 64.7 29.4 3.2 0.56 35. Instructor helped with my problems 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 % 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 = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 75.9 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 624 001L1 ADV QUANT METHS IN AEC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Marchant, SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 5 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 40.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 20.0 % % 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 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 40.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 2.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 40.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 2.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 40.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 2.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 2.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 624 001L1 ADV QUANT METHS IN AEC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Marchant, % % 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 002L1 TOPS AEC:SENIOR SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 17 81.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 19.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 21 100.0 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 6 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 33.3 Required by my major 20 100.0 3 hours 6 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 9.5 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 22 0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 9.5 42.9 47.6 3.4 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 0.0 61.9 38.1 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 4.5 59.1 36.4 3.3 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 19.0 47.6 33.3 3.1 0.73 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 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 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 0.0 9.5 38.1 52.4 3.4 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 002L1 TOPS AEC:SENIOR SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 81.5 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL MARKETING PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 16.7 Sophomore 6 14.3 B 24 57.1 Junior 21 50.0 C 10 23.8 Senior 15 35.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 2.4 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 11.9 Studies Program 1 2.4 2 hours 11 26.2 Required by my major 32 76.2 3 hours 15 35.7 Other (e.g. elective) 9 21.4 4 - 5 hours 7 16.7 6 - 7 hours 4 9.5 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 42 0.0 0.0 40.5 59.5 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 42 4.8 19.0 45.2 31.0 3.0 0.84 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 42 0.0 4.8 50.0 45.2 3.4 0.59 4. Exams reflected what was taught 42 0.0 0.0 40.5 59.5 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 42 0.0 4.8 54.8 40.5 3.4 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 42 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 42 0.0 2.4 42.9 54.8 3.5 0.55 8. Graded assignments included comments 40 0.0 2.5 45.0 52.5 3.5 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 42 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 42 0.0 0.0 11.9 88.1 3.9 0.33 11. Was available for consultation 42 0.0 0.0 31.0 69.0 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 42 0.0 0.0 26.2 73.8 3.7 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 42 0.0 7.1 33.3 59.5 3.5 0.63 14. Encouraged class participation 42 0.0 0.0 26.2 73.8 3.7 0.45 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 40 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 42 0.0 2.4 45.2 52.4 3.5 0.55 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 42 0.0 4.8 42.9 52.4 3.5 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 42 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 42 0.0 19.0 35.7 45.2 3.3 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 40 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 40 0.0 0.0 17.5 82.5 3.8 0.38 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL MARKETING PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 51 Number of forms scanned = 42 Number of forms with at least one student response = 42 Percent completed = 82.4 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 311 001L1 LIVESTOCK/MEAT MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meyer, Alphonse L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 41.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 14 58.3 Junior 5 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 19 76.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 11 45.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 33.3 Required by my major 4 16.7 3 hours 4 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 20 83.3 4 - 5 hours 1 4.2 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 26 0.0 19.2 76.9 3.8 2.8 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 3.8 23.1 65.4 7.7 2.8 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 3.8 19.2 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 0.39 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 23.1 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 3.8 3.8 88.5 3.8 2.9 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 0.0 84.6 15.4 3.2 0.37 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 23.1 73.1 3.8 2.8 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 18.5 40.7 37.0 3.7 2.3 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 11.1 18.5 51.9 18.5 2.8 0.89 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.39 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 7.4 37.0 44.4 11.1 2.6 0.80 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 27 7.4 40.7 44.4 7.4 2.5 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 3.8 76.9 19.2 3.2 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 13.6 86.4 0.0 2.9 0.35 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 25.9 63.0 11.1 2.9 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 0.0 32.0 64.0 4.0 2.7 0.54 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 7.7 26.9 57.7 7.7 2.7 0.75 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 27 3.7 48.1 40.7 7.4 2.5 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 11.5 26.9 53.8 7.7 2.6 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 23.1 30.8 34.6 11.5 2.3 0.98 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 311 001L1 LIVESTOCK/MEAT MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meyer, Alphonse 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 313 001L1 TOBACCO MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Snell, Will SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 20 95.2 Sophomore 1 4.8 B 1 4.8 Junior 7 33.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 13 61.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 13 61.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 23.8 Required by my major 5 23.8 3 hours 3 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 16 76.2 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 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 0.0 19.0 81.0 3.8 0.40 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9 0.29 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 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 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 313 001L1 TOBACCO MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Snell, Will % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 92.0 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 309 001L1 INTNL AG/WRLD FOOD NEEDS & US TRADE IN AG PRODUC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Vantreese, Valerie L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 57.7 Sophomore 3 11.5 B 11 42.3 Junior 7 26.9 C 0 0.0 Senior 16 61.5 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 14 53.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 19.2 Required by my major 12 46.2 3 hours 6 23.1 Other (e.g. elective) 14 53.8 4 - 5 hours 1 3.8 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 26 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 8.0 20.0 44.0 28.0 2.9 0.91 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 0.0 65.4 34.6 3.3 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 0.0 57.7 42.3 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 7.7 57.7 34.6 3.3 0.60 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 26 0.0 0.0 42.3 57.7 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 7.7 42.3 50.0 3.4 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 3.8 15.4 42.3 38.5 3.2 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 0.0 42.3 57.7 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 16.0 52.0 32.0 3.2 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.61 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. 26 0.0 3.8 61.5 34.6 3.3 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 4.0 16.0 52.0 28.0 3.0 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 3.8 11.5 50.0 34.6 3.2 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 0.0 11.5 23.1 65.4 3.5 0.71 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 309 001L1 INTNL AG/WRLD FOOD NEEDS & US TRADE IN AG PRODUC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Vantreese, Valerie 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 001L1 TOPS AEC:HORTICULTURAL MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 92.3 Sophomore 2 15.4 B 1 7.7 Junior 3 23.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 8 61.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 23.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 2 15.4 3 hours 6 46.2 Other (e.g. elective) 11 84.6 4 - 5 hours 1 7.7 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 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 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 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 % % % % 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 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 001L1 TOPS AEC:HORTICULTURAL MARKETING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim % % 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 = at least 13 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 003L1 TOPS AEC:AG PRODUCT MARKETING & SALES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 45.5 Junior 5 22.7 C 1 4.5 Senior 17 77.3 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 7 31.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 31.8 Required by my major 10 50.0 3 hours 6 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 10 50.0 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 22 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 9.5 47.6 28.6 14.3 2.5 0.87 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 4.5 68.2 27.3 3.2 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 4.5 9.1 63.6 22.7 3.0 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 4.5 18.2 45.5 31.8 3.0 0.84 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 13.6 4.5 59.1 22.7 2.9 0.92 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 9.5 66.7 23.8 3.1 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 4.5 22.7 40.9 31.8 3.0 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 9.1 59.1 31.8 3.2 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 31.8 50.0 18.2 2.9 0.71 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.59 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 0.0 14.3 66.7 19.0 3.0 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 13.6 68.2 18.2 3.0 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 18.2 59.1 22.7 3.0 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 0.0 77.3 22.7 3.2 0.43 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 9.5 28.6 47.6 14.3 2.7 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 31.8 40.9 27.3 3.0 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 4.5 27.3 50.0 18.2 2.8 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 003L1 TOPS AEC:AG PRODUCT MARKETING & SALES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Woods, Tim % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 31 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 71.0 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 535 001L1 PRIN & PHIL OF VOC EDU INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Tulloch, Rodney W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 90.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 10.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 50.0 Required by my major 8 80.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 20.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 2 20.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 30.0 60.0 10.0 2.8 0.63 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AED 535 001L1 PRIN & PHIL OF VOC EDU INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Tulloch, Rodney W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 90.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agronomy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 101 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Glenn B SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 15 65.2 A 19 90.5 Sophomore 3 13.0 B 1 4.8 Junior 4 17.4 C 1 4.8 Senior 1 4.3 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 20 90.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 9.1 Required by my major 19 82.6 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 17.4 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 30 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 0.0 0.0 37.9 62.1 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 29 0.0 0.0 41.4 58.6 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 30 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 30 0.0 0.0 23.3 76.7 3.8 0.43 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 0.0 0.0 34.5 65.5 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 30 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 30 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.45 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 0.0 4.0 48.0 48.0 3.4 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 30 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 0.0 10.0 43.3 46.7 3.4 0.67 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 29 0.0 3.4 17.2 79.3 3.8 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 0.0 3.6 17.9 78.6 3.8 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agronomy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 101 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Glenn B % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 33 Number of forms scanned = 30 Number of forms with at least one student response = 30 Percent completed = 90.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agronomy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 201 001L1 SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dawson, Karl A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 16 88.9 Sophomore 7 38.9 B 2 11.1 Junior 4 22.2 C 0 0.0 Senior 7 38.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 14 77.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 16.7 Required by my major 18 100.0 3 hours 1 5.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 7.1 0.0 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.84 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 23.1 30.8 30.8 15.4 2.4 1.04 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 20.0 10.0 40.0 30.0 2.8 1.14 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 0.0 11.1 38.9 50.0 3.4 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 0.0 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.81 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 5.6 0.0 50.0 44.4 3.3 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 5.3 0.0 42.1 52.6 3.4 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agronomy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 201 001L1 SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dawson, Karl A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 9 11.1 22.2 55.6 11.1 2.7 . 28. Guided student report preparation 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 29. Students free to express opinions 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 10 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 2.8 0.92 31. Developed abil to conduct research 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 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 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 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 % ***********************************************************************