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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 002L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 37 88.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 11.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 44 100.0 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 15 35.7 Studies Program 6 14.0 2 hours 16 38.1 Required by my major 35 81.4 3 hours 6 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 2 4.7 4 - 5 hours 4 9.5 6 - 7 hours 1 2.4 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 45 4.4 11.1 51.1 33.3 3.1 0.79 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 45 2.2 17.8 53.3 26.7 3.0 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 33 9.1 21.2 48.5 21.2 2.8 0.88 4. Exams reflected what was taught 45 0.0 2.2 60.0 37.8 3.4 0.53 5. Grading was fair and consistent 45 0.0 2.2 40.0 57.8 3.6 0.55 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 34 8.8 14.7 32.4 44.1 3.1 0.98 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 44 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 40 2.5 17.5 55.0 25.0 3.0 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 45 6.7 24.4 55.6 13.3 2.8 0.77 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 45 2.2 0.0 24.4 73.3 3.7 0.60 11. Was available for consultation 36 2.8 0.0 52.8 44.4 3.4 0.64 12. Satisfact answered class questions 44 0.0 15.9 54.5 29.5 3.1 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 44 6.8 34.1 36.4 22.7 2.8 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 44 4.5 11.4 61.4 22.7 3.0 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 36 0.0 19.4 52.8 27.8 3.1 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 44 2.3 6.8 56.8 34.1 3.2 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 45 2.2 8.9 48.9 40.0 3.3 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 45 6.7 8.9 55.6 28.9 3.1 0.81 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 42 19.0 31.0 31.0 19.0 2.5 1.02 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 44 6.8 13.6 63.6 15.9 2.9 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 44 9.1 20.5 45.5 25.0 2.9 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 002L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 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 = 49 Number of forms scanned = 45 Number of forms with at least one student response = 45 Percent completed = 91.8 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 401L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 28 93.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 6.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 29 100.0 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 11 37.9 Studies Program 6 20.0 2 hours 7 24.1 Required by my major 23 76.7 3 hours 5 17.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.3 4 - 5 hours 4 13.8 6 - 7 hours 1 3.4 8 or more hours 1 3.4 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 30 3.3 6.7 66.7 23.3 3.1 0.66 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 30 3.3 3.3 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 4.8 14.3 66.7 14.3 2.9 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 30 0.0 13.3 70.0 16.7 3.0 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 30 0.0 3.3 53.3 43.3 3.4 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 30 0.0 3.3 30.0 66.7 3.6 0.56 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 4.3 13.0 65.2 17.4 3.0 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 30 6.7 30.0 53.3 10.0 2.7 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 30 0.0 0.0 43.3 56.7 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 4.3 65.2 30.4 3.3 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 30 3.3 13.3 60.0 23.3 3.0 0.72 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 29 13.8 20.7 55.2 10.3 2.6 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 30 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 10.5 78.9 5.3 2.8 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 30 0.0 10.0 66.7 23.3 3.1 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 30 3.3 6.7 63.3 26.7 3.1 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 30 3.3 10.0 70.0 16.7 3.0 0.64 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 29 13.8 48.3 34.5 3.4 2.3 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 31 12.9 29.0 54.8 3.2 2.5 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 31 9.7 29.0 51.6 9.7 2.6 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 651 401L1 QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS IN BUSINESS DECISION MAKIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 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 = 47 Number of forms scanned = 32 Number of forms with at least one student response = 31 Percent completed = 66.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 350 001L1 QUANT ANALYSIS IN MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gonsalves, Gerald SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 52.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 43.5 Junior 2 8.3 C 1 4.3 Senior 22 91.7 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 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 29.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 29.2 Required by my major 22 91.7 3 hours 7 29.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 8.3 4 - 5 hours 2 8.3 6 - 7 hours 1 4.2 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 24 0.0 4.2 62.5 33.3 3.3 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 12.5 4.2 54.2 29.2 3.0 0.93 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 4.2 8.3 58.3 29.2 3.1 0.74 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 0.0 12.5 45.8 41.7 3.3 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 4.2 41.7 54.2 3.5 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 0.0 12.5 54.2 33.3 3.2 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 12.5 20.8 54.2 12.5 2.7 0.87 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 0.0 25.0 54.2 20.8 3.0 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 8.3 33.3 41.7 16.7 2.7 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 4.2 25.0 54.2 16.7 2.8 0.76 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 13.6 50.0 36.4 3.2 0.69 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 4.2 29.2 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.78 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 12.5 41.7 37.5 8.3 2.4 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 23 4.3 8.7 69.6 17.4 3.0 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 10.5 21.1 57.9 10.5 2.7 0.82 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 4.2 20.8 58.3 16.7 2.9 0.74 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 8.3 20.8 41.7 29.2 2.9 0.93 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 8.7 17.4 60.9 13.0 2.8 0.80 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 21.7 34.8 34.8 8.7 2.3 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 18.2 45.5 31.8 4.5 2.2 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 13.6 45.5 31.8 9.1 2.4 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 350 001L1 QUANT ANALYSIS IN MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gonsalves, Gerald % % 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 85.7 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 402S1 SP TOPS IN MGT DIS: DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 100.0 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 4 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 3 75.0 3 hours 2 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 25.0 4 - 5 hours 2 50.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 402S1 SP TOPS IN MGT DIS: DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde 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 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 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 = 6 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 83.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 001L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS IN DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 24 80.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 30 100.0 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 6.5 Studies Program 10 32.3 2 hours 10 32.3 Required by my major 21 67.7 3 hours 11 35.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 6 19.4 6 - 7 hours 2 6.5 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 31 0.0 0.0 32.3 67.7 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 3.2 12.9 64.5 19.4 3.0 0.68 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 31 0.0 3.2 64.5 32.3 3.3 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 31 3.2 16.1 51.6 29.0 3.1 0.77 5. Grading was fair and consistent 30 0.0 3.3 63.3 33.3 3.3 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 31 0.0 0.0 41.9 58.1 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 30 0.0 0.0 36.7 63.3 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 29 0.0 0.0 58.6 41.4 3.4 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 30 0.0 3.3 60.0 36.7 3.3 0.55 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 31 0.0 3.2 25.8 71.0 3.7 0.54 11. Was available for consultation 27 0.0 11.1 40.7 48.1 3.4 0.69 12. Satisfact answered class questions 31 3.2 9.7 45.2 41.9 3.3 0.77 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 31 3.2 19.4 45.2 32.3 3.1 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 31 0.0 3.2 38.7 58.1 3.5 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 14.3 60.7 25.0 3.1 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 30 0.0 6.7 50.0 43.3 3.4 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 29 0.0 10.3 58.6 31.0 3.2 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 0.0 3.2 61.3 35.5 3.3 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 3.3 33.3 36.7 26.7 2.9 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 31 0.0 16.1 41.9 41.9 3.3 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 31 0.0 3.2 45.2 51.6 3.5 0.57 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 001L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS IN DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al % % 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 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 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 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 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 = 35 Number of forms scanned = 31 Number of forms with at least one student response = 31 Percent completed = 88.6 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS IN DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 23 85.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 14.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 27 100.0 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 3 11.5 Studies Program 2 7.4 2 hours 11 42.3 Required by my major 22 81.5 3 hours 6 23.1 Other (e.g. elective) 3 11.1 4 - 5 hours 5 19.2 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 3.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 27 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 0.0 22.2 51.9 25.9 3.0 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 0.0 14.8 29.6 55.6 3.4 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 27 0.0 14.8 40.7 44.4 3.3 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 3.7 51.9 44.4 3.4 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 3.3 0.74 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 7.4 7.4 40.7 44.4 3.2 0.89 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 0.0 3.7 44.4 51.9 3.5 0.58 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 7.7 7.7 42.3 42.3 3.2 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 27 3.7 3.7 22.2 70.4 3.6 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 3.7 11.1 51.9 33.3 3.1 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 3.8 11.5 50.0 34.6 3.2 0.78 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 0.0 3.7 48.1 48.1 3.4 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 7.7 23.1 38.5 30.8 2.9 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 3.7 7.4 44.4 44.4 3.3 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 7.4 7.4 29.6 55.6 3.3 0.92 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS IN DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al % % 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 = 34 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 79.4 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 401L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS IN DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 22 71.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 29.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 30 96.8 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 3.2 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 9.7 Studies Program 6 19.4 2 hours 10 32.3 Required by my major 24 77.4 3 hours 10 32.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.2 4 - 5 hours 6 19.4 6 - 7 hours 1 3.2 8 or more hours 1 3.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 31 0.0 3.2 48.4 48.4 3.5 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 6.5 9.7 58.1 25.8 3.0 0.80 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 31 0.0 3.2 48.4 48.4 3.5 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 31 3.2 16.1 58.1 22.6 3.0 0.73 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 0.0 12.9 51.6 35.5 3.2 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 31 3.2 3.2 58.1 35.5 3.3 0.68 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 31 0.0 0.0 35.5 64.5 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 30 3.3 16.7 56.7 23.3 3.0 0.74 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 31 6.5 16.1 45.2 32.3 3.0 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 31 3.2 6.5 32.3 58.1 3.5 0.77 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 31 6.5 16.1 45.2 32.3 3.0 0.87 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 31 9.7 19.4 45.2 25.8 2.9 0.92 14. Encouraged class participation 31 3.2 12.9 29.0 54.8 3.4 0.84 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 12.0 60.0 28.0 3.2 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 30 3.3 20.0 53.3 23.3 3.0 0.76 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 30 3.3 23.3 60.0 13.3 2.8 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 0.0 6.5 67.7 25.8 3.2 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 16.7 26.7 40.0 16.7 2.6 0.97 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 31 0.0 25.8 58.1 16.1 2.9 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 31 9.7 12.9 38.7 38.7 3.1 0.96 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 620 401L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS IN DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al % % 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 = 35 Number of forms scanned = 31 Number of forms with at least one student response = 31 Percent completed = 88.6 % 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 50.0 Sophomore 1 4.0 B 10 41.7 Junior 1 4.0 C 1 4.2 Senior 23 92.0 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 4.2 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 17 68.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 8.0 Required by my major 10 40.0 3 hours 5 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 15 60.0 4 - 5 hours 1 4.0 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 27 0.0 3.7 51.9 44.4 3.4 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 7.4 22.2 51.9 18.5 2.8 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 3.7 14.8 63.0 18.5 3.0 0.71 4. Exams reflected what was taught 27 3.7 11.1 63.0 22.2 3.0 0.71 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 14.8 59.3 25.9 3.1 0.64 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 8.0 68.0 24.0 3.2 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 3.7 14.8 63.0 18.5 3.0 0.71 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 20.0 68.0 12.0 2.9 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 7.4 7.4 70.4 14.8 2.9 0.73 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 3.7 3.7 51.9 40.7 3.3 0.72 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 0.36 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 3.7 18.5 63.0 14.8 2.9 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 27 22.2 18.5 48.1 11.1 2.5 0.98 14. Encouraged class participation 27 0.0 7.4 74.1 18.5 3.1 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 4.5 13.6 72.7 9.1 2.9 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 7.4 18.5 59.3 14.8 2.8 0.79 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 11.1 14.8 59.3 14.8 2.8 0.85 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 7.4 7.4 66.7 18.5 3.0 0.76 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 19.2 42.3 26.9 11.5 2.3 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 11.1 33.3 40.7 14.8 2.6 0.89 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 7.4 14.8 51.9 25.9 3.0 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita % % 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 = 34 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 79.4 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 611 001L1 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 88.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 11.1 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 37.5 Required by my major 5 50.0 3 hours 4 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 50.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 12.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 % % % % 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 611 001L1 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 506 401L1 PRODUCTIV/QUAL CONTROL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Maloney, William F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 28.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 16 64.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 8.0 Senior 13 44.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 16 55.2 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 21.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 10 35.7 Required by my major 29 100.0 3 hours 8 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 14.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 29 10.3 13.8 72.4 3.4 2.7 0.71 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 29 6.9 17.2 72.4 3.4 2.7 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 29 13.8 31.0 48.3 6.9 2.5 0.83 4. Exams reflected what was taught 29 37.9 34.5 24.1 3.4 1.9 0.88 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 31.0 44.8 24.1 0.0 1.9 0.75 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 29 6.9 10.3 75.9 6.9 2.8 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 17.2 17.2 58.6 6.9 2.6 0.87 8. Graded assignments included comments 29 34.5 27.6 31.0 6.9 2.1 0.98 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 20.7 48.3 27.6 3.4 2.1 0.79 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 10.3 69.0 20.7 3.1 0.56 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 21.1 57.9 21.1 3.0 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 0.0 29.6 66.7 3.7 2.7 0.53 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 29 34.5 37.9 24.1 3.4 2.0 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 32.1 50.0 17.9 2.9 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 12.5 25.0 58.3 4.2 2.5 0.78 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 29 6.9 48.3 41.4 3.4 2.4 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 29 3.4 65.5 27.6 3.4 2.3 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 6.9 31.0 58.6 3.4 2.6 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 29 37.9 41.4 17.2 3.4 1.9 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 32.1 39.3 28.6 0.0 2.0 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 39.3 35.7 25.0 0.0 1.9 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 506 401L1 PRODUCTIV/QUAL CONTROL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Maloney, William F % % 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 = 47 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 29 Percent completed = 61.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 520 001L1 ADV BUS DATA PROCSS/INFO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 21 84.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 12.0 Junior 1 4.0 C 1 4.0 Senior 17 68.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 28.0 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 16.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 36.0 Required by my major 21 84.0 3 hours 4 16.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 16.0 4 - 5 hours 4 16.0 6 - 7 hours 2 8.0 8 or more hours 2 8.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 28 0.0 0.0 53.6 46.4 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 0.0 10.7 57.1 32.1 3.2 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 3.6 57.1 39.3 3.4 0.56 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 3.6 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 3.6 57.1 39.3 3.4 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 0.0 0.0 53.6 46.4 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 0.0 7.4 66.7 25.9 3.2 0.56 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 7.1 60.7 32.1 3.3 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 3.6 50.0 46.4 3.4 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 3.6 10.7 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.74 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 17.9 64.3 17.9 3.0 0.61 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 27 0.0 11.1 59.3 29.6 3.2 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 0.0 25.9 48.1 25.9 3.0 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 3.6 10.7 53.6 32.1 3.1 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 7.4 11.1 40.7 40.7 3.1 0.91 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 11.1 59.3 29.6 3.2 0.62 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 520 001L1 ADV BUS DATA PROCSS/INFO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 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 37. Question 37 25 0.0 4.0 12.0 72.0 12.0 3.9 0.64 38. Question 38 25 0.0 4.0 12.0 72.0 12.0 3.9 0.64 39. Question 39 25 0.0 4.0 12.0 72.0 12.0 3.9 0.64 40. Question 40 25 0.0 0.0 28.0 60.0 12.0 3.8 0.62 41. Question 41 25 0.0 0.0 8.0 72.0 20.0 4.1 0.53 42. Question 42 25 0.0 4.0 32.0 56.0 8.0 3.7 0.69 43. Question 43 25 0.0 0.0 32.0 64.0 4.0 3.7 0.54 44. Question 44 25 8.0 8.0 28.0 48.0 8.0 3.4 1.04 Number of forms preslugged = 36 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 77.8 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 401S1 SP TOPS IN DIS:BUSINESS TELECOM AND NETWORKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 100.0 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 2 66.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 33.3 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 33.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 66.7 4 - 5 hours 2 66.7 6 - 7 hours 1 33.3 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 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 4 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 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 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 790 401S1 SP TOPS IN DIS:BUSINESS TELECOM AND NETWORKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pakath, Ramakrishnan % % 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 37. Question 37 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 4.2 . 38. Question 38 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 4.2 . 39. Question 39 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . 40. Question 40 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 4.2 . 41. Question 41 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 4.0 . 42. Question 42 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 3.8 . 43. Question 43 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 3.8 . 44. Question 44 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 3.8 . 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = B&E 300 001L1 CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blanchard, Kem SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 21 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 7 33.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 14 66.7 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 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 19 90.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 9.5 Required by my major 7 33.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 14 66.7 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 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 4.5 36.4 59.1 3.5 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 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 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 13.6 31.8 54.5 3.4 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.66 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 4.8 9.5 47.6 38.1 3.2 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 5.0 15.0 45.0 35.0 3.1 0.85 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 4.5 27.3 31.8 36.4 3.0 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 4.5 27.3 68.2 3.6 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 4.5 18.2 77.3 3.7 0.55 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = B&E 300 001L1 CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blanchard, Kem % % 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 = 24 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = B&E 309 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Curtis E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 13.3 Sophomore 2 6.7 B 13 43.3 Junior 8 26.7 C 6 20.0 Senior 20 66.7 D 1 3.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 6 20.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 23.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 30.0 Required by my major 2 6.7 3 hours 10 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 28 93.3 4 - 5 hours 4 13.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 30 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.61 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 30 0.0 10.0 63.3 26.7 3.2 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 29 3.4 17.2 69.0 10.3 2.9 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 30 10.0 0.0 66.7 23.3 3.0 0.81 5. Grading was fair and consistent 30 16.7 53.3 30.0 0.0 2.1 0.68 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 3.6 7.1 85.7 3.6 2.9 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 0.0 0.0 72.4 27.6 3.3 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 11.1 59.3 25.9 3.7 2.2 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 30 3.3 20.0 56.7 20.0 2.9 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 30 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 28 14.3 39.3 39.3 7.1 2.4 0.83 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 0.0 3.4 69.0 27.6 3.2 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 30 6.7 10.0 60.0 23.3 3.0 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 30 3.3 13.3 60.0 23.3 3.0 0.72 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 29 3.4 10.3 69.0 17.2 3.0 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 3.6 14.3 64.3 17.9 3.0 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 3.8 19.2 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 30 3.3 10.0 66.7 20.0 3.0 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 13.3 16.7 56.7 13.3 2.7 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 30 6.7 20.0 56.7 16.7 2.8 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 30 16.7 20.0 53.3 10.0 2.6 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = B&E 309 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Curtis 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 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 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 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 = 50 Number of forms scanned = 30 Number of forms with at least one student response = 30 Percent completed = 60.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 626 001L1 TIME SERIES ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 57.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 42.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 75.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 25.0 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 14.3 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 6 85.7 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 2 28.6 8 or more hours 4 57.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 626 001L1 TIME SERIES ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 9 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 662 001L1 RES MTHDS&PROCEDURE ECON INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 16.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 16.7 Senior 1 8.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 11 91.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 16.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 8.3 2 hours 2 16.7 Required by my major 10 83.3 3 hours 1 8.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 8.3 4 - 5 hours 1 8.3 6 - 7 hours 4 33.3 8 or more hours 4 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 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 16.7 41.7 41.7 0.0 2.3 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 27.3 9.1 63.6 0.0 2.4 0.92 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 0.85 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 8.3 16.7 50.0 25.0 2.9 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 16.7 58.3 25.0 3.1 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 18.2 27.3 27.3 27.3 2.6 1.12 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 25.0 41.7 33.3 3.1 0.79 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 662 001L1 RES MTHDS&PROCEDURE ECON INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ali, Mukhtar M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . % 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 = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 85.7 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 477 001L1 LABOR ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Mark C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 31.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 42.1 Junior 2 10.5 C 4 21.1 Senior 17 89.5 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 5.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 15.8 Studies Program 1 5.3 2 hours 7 36.8 Required by my major 11 57.9 3 hours 4 21.1 Other (e.g. elective) 7 36.8 4 - 5 hours 4 21.1 6 - 7 hours 1 5.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 0.0 73.7 26.3 3.3 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 11.1 72.2 16.7 3.1 0.54 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 10.5 68.4 21.1 3.1 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 5.3 78.9 15.8 3.1 0.46 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 3.2 0.42 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 3.2 0.42 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 5.3 84.2 10.5 3.1 0.40 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 26.3 57.9 15.8 2.9 0.66 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 86.7 6.7 3.0 0.38 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 0.38 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 0.0 94.4 5.6 3.1 0.24 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 94.7 5.3 3.1 0.23 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 26.3 73.7 0.0 2.7 0.45 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 15.8 68.4 15.8 3.0 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 10.5 36.8 52.6 3.4 0.69 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 477 001L1 LABOR ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Mark C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 34 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 55.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ECO 488G001L1 INTERMED MICROECO THEORY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Black, Dan A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 55.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 27.8 Junior 4 22.2 C 2 11.1 Senior 9 50.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 22.2 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 5.9 Required by my major 13 72.2 3 hours 4 23.5 Other (e.g. elective) 5 27.8 4 - 5 hours 7 41.2 6 - 7 hours 4 23.5 8 or more hours 1 5.9 % % 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 0.0 10.0 65.0 25.0 3.2 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 0.0 5.0 40.0 55.0 3.5 0.61 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 10.0 35.0 55.0 3.5 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 10.5 42.1 47.4 3.4 0.68 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.69 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 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 5.0 5.0 35.0 55.0 3.4 0.82 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 13.3 46.7 40.0 3.3 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 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 20 5.0 10.0 55.0 30.0 3.1 0.79 % % % % 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 5.3 31.6 63.2 3.6 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DE