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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 104 001L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 31 55.4 A 6 10.9 Sophomore 14 25.0 B 25 45.5 Junior 4 7.1 C 18 32.7 Senior 6 10.7 D 4 7.3 Graduate 1 1.8 E/Fail 2 3.6 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 13.0 Studies Program 15 26.8 2 hours 12 22.2 Required by my major 33 58.9 3 hours 22 40.7 Other (e.g. elective) 8 14.3 4 - 5 hours 10 18.5 6 - 7 hours 2 3.7 8 or more hours 1 1.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 71 1.4 4.2 62.0 32.4 3.3 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 72 2.8 11.1 55.6 30.6 3.1 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 61 6.6 24.6 45.9 23.0 2.9 0.85 4. Exams reflected what was taught 72 4.2 18.1 56.9 20.8 2.9 0.75 5. Grading was fair and consistent 69 1.4 8.7 66.7 23.2 3.1 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 57 5.3 12.3 57.9 24.6 3.0 0.77 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 69 4.3 1.4 49.3 44.9 3.3 0.72 8. Graded assignments included comments 46 30.4 32.6 28.3 8.7 2.2 0.97 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 70 20.0 20.0 47.1 12.9 2.5 0.96 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 71 5.6 12.7 46.5 35.2 3.1 0.84 11. Was available for consultation 69 2.9 2.9 58.0 36.2 3.3 0.66 12. Satisfact answered class questions 72 12.5 23.6 51.4 12.5 2.6 0.86 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 71 21.1 36.6 35.2 7.0 2.3 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 69 15.9 37.7 39.1 7.2 2.4 0.84 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 52 7.7 34.6 46.2 11.5 2.6 0.80 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 68 5.9 20.6 50.0 23.5 2.9 0.82 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 71 7.0 14.1 53.5 25.4 3.0 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 72 8.3 13.9 59.7 18.1 2.9 0.80 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 65 20.0 46.2 26.2 7.7 2.2 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 72 12.5 34.7 41.7 11.1 2.5 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 71 25.4 26.8 33.8 14.1 2.4 1.02 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 104 001L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet 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 16 0.0 12.5 81.3 6.3 2.9 0.44 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 14 0.0 28.6 50.0 21.4 2.9 0.73 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 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 = 108 Number of forms scanned = 105 Number of forms with at least one student response = 72 Percent completed = 66.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 232 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anthony, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 28.1 Sophomore 9 13.8 B 25 39.1 Junior 33 50.8 C 19 29.7 Senior 18 27.7 D 2 3.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 5 7.7 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 6.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 10.8 Required by my major 54 84.4 3 hours 22 33.8 Other (e.g. elective) 10 15.6 4 - 5 hours 22 33.8 6 - 7 hours 7 10.8 8 or more hours 3 4.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 68 1.5 0.0 54.4 44.1 3.4 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 67 0.0 0.0 55.2 44.8 3.4 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 63 1.6 1.6 63.5 33.3 3.3 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 67 0.0 6.0 56.7 37.3 3.3 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 68 0.0 2.9 51.5 45.6 3.4 0.55 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 58 0.0 0.0 62.1 37.9 3.4 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 66 0.0 0.0 42.4 57.6 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 59 1.7 22.0 54.2 22.0 3.0 0.72 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 68 0.0 1.5 48.5 50.0 3.5 0.53 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 68 0.0 0.0 19.1 80.9 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 64 0.0 3.1 45.3 51.6 3.5 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 66 0.0 1.5 51.5 47.0 3.5 0.53 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 66 3.0 9.1 45.5 42.4 3.3 0.76 14. Encouraged class participation 68 0.0 1.5 33.8 64.7 3.6 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 43 2.3 7.0 74.4 16.3 3.0 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 67 1.5 0.0 56.7 41.8 3.4 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 66 0.0 1.5 56.1 42.4 3.4 0.53 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 68 1.5 1.5 52.9 44.1 3.4 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 62 6.5 35.5 45.2 12.9 2.6 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 68 0.0 5.9 58.8 35.3 3.3 0.57 21. Overall quality of teaching 68 0.0 4.4 32.4 63.2 3.6 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 232 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anthony, John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 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 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 = 119 Number of forms scanned = 119 Number of forms with at least one student response = 68 Percent completed = 57.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 001L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 0 0.0 Sophomore 1 20.0 B 3 75.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 25.0 Senior 4 80.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 3 60.0 3 hours 3 60.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 40.0 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 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.0 2.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 2.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 14.3 57.1 28.6 0.0 2.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 57.1 42.9 0.0 2.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 001L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 46.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 002L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 37.5 Sophomore 2 25.0 B 4 50.0 Junior 5 62.5 C 1 12.5 Senior 1 12.5 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 1 12.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 12.5 Required by my major 7 87.5 3 hours 2 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 2 25.0 6 - 7 hours 1 12.5 8 or more hours 1 12.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 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 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 3.6 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 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 10 10.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 3.1 0.88 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 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 10.0 30.0 50.0 10.0 2.6 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 002L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G % % 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 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 = 13 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 76.9 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 003L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 0 0.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 75.0 Junior 2 50.0 C 1 25.0 Senior 2 50.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 25.0 Required by my major 3 75.0 3 hours 1 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 25.0 4 - 5 hours 1 25.0 6 - 7 hours 1 25.0 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 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 83.3 16.7 0.0 2.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 2.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 83.3 16.7 0.0 2.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 003L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 = 10 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 440G001L1 PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Butterfield, David A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 34.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 43.5 Junior 1 4.3 C 2 8.7 Senior 17 73.9 D 2 8.7 Graduate 5 21.7 E/Fail 1 4.3 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 2 8.7 2 hours 1 4.3 Required by my major 18 78.3 3 hours 3 13.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 13.0 4 - 5 hours 5 21.7 6 - 7 hours 6 26.1 8 or more hours 8 34.8 % % 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 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 4.3 13.0 65.2 17.4 3.0 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 13.0 21.7 34.8 30.4 2.8 1.03 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 8.7 43.5 47.8 3.4 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 8.7 60.9 30.4 3.2 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 15.8 42.1 31.6 10.5 2.4 0.90 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 21.7 39.1 39.1 3.2 0.78 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 26.1 73.9 3.7 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.77 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 4.3 0.0 43.5 52.2 3.4 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 8.7 21.7 30.4 39.1 3.0 1.00 14. Encouraged class participation 23 4.3 4.3 21.7 69.6 3.6 0.79 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 8.7 43.5 47.8 3.4 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 4.3 8.7 47.8 39.1 3.2 0.80 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 8.7 34.8 39.1 17.4 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 23 4.3 17.4 39.1 39.1 3.1 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 13.0 43.5 43.5 3.3 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 440G001L1 PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Butterfield, David 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 100.0 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 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 = 40 Number of forms scanned = 40 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 57.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 532 001L1 SPECTROMET ID-ORG COMPND INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cammers-Goodwin, Arthur SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 60.0 Junior 4 19.0 C 3 15.0 Senior 10 47.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 33.3 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 7 33.3 Required by my major 13 61.9 3 hours 8 38.1 Other (e.g. elective) 8 38.1 4 - 5 hours 6 28.6 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 56.5 34.8 3.3 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 4.8 28.6 52.4 14.3 2.8 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 13.0 4.3 52.2 30.4 3.0 0.95 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 8.7 65.2 26.1 3.2 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 4.3 17.4 47.8 30.4 3.0 0.82 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 8.7 73.9 17.4 3.1 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 8.7 78.3 13.0 3.0 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 4.8 33.3 47.6 14.3 2.7 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 13.0 34.8 39.1 13.0 2.5 0.90 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 4.3 13.0 56.5 26.1 3.0 0.77 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 31.8 54.5 13.6 2.8 0.66 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 82.6 17.4 3.2 0.39 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 3.0 0.45 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 4.5 0.0 59.1 36.4 3.3 0.70 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 4.3 4.3 56.5 34.8 3.2 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 4.3 13.0 56.5 26.1 3.0 0.77 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 9.1 36.4 36.4 18.2 2.6 0.90 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 4.3 21.7 60.9 13.0 2.8 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 8.7 26.1 43.5 21.7 2.8 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 532 001L1 SPECTROMET ID-ORG COMPND INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cammers-Goodwin, Arthur % % 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 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 = 33 Number of forms scanned = 33 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 69.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 547 001L1 PRIN OF PHYSICAL CHEM I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Clouthier, Dennis J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 16.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 16.7 Senior 2 16.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 83.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 2 16.7 2 hours 2 16.7 Required by my major 9 75.0 3 hours 2 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 8.3 4 - 5 hours 6 50.0 6 - 7 hours 2 16.7 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 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 42.9 50.0 7.1 2.6 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 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 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.74 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 547 001L1 PRIN OF PHYSICAL CHEM I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Clouthier, Dennis J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 0.0 100.0 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 73.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 001L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 71.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 28.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 7 100.0 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 1 14.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 7 100.0 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 42.9 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 8 or more hours 1 14.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 12.5 12.5 37.5 37.5 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 25.0 37.5 12.5 25.0 2.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 25.0 12.5 25.0 37.5 2.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 12.5 25.0 25.0 37.5 2.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 12.5 25.0 12.5 50.0 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 25.0 12.5 37.5 25.0 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 25.0 12.5 12.5 50.0 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 12.5 0.0 37.5 50.0 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 12.5 0.0 37.5 50.0 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 12.5 25.0 12.5 50.0 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 37.5 0.0 25.0 37.5 2.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 12.5 12.5 25.0 50.0 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 28.6 14.3 14.3 42.9 2.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 25.0 25.0 12.5 37.5 2.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 25.0 12.5 12.5 50.0 2.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 37.5 12.5 25.0 25.0 2.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 25.0 12.5 37.5 25.0 2.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 25.0 12.5 12.5 50.0 2.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 001L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % 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 = 10 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 002L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 54.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 45.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 10 90.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 9.1 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 27.3 Required by my major 11 100.0 3 hours 5 45.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 18.2 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 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 10.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 3.1 0.88 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 10.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 3.1 0.88 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 11.1 0.0 44.4 44.4 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 9.1 0.0 18.2 72.7 3.5 0.93 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 9.1 0.0 36.4 54.5 3.4 0.92 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 27.3 27.3 45.5 3.2 0.87 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 18.2 9.1 63.6 9.1 2.6 0.92 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 27.3 18.2 54.5 3.3 0.90 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 27.3 9.1 63.6 3.4 0.92 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 9.1 9.1 36.4 45.5 3.2 0.98 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 1.03 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 20.0 10.0 60.0 10.0 2.6 0.97 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 1.15 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 22.2 33.3 44.4 0.0 2.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 1.15 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 30.0 20.0 50.0 3.2 0.92 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 002L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 91.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 580 001L1 TOPICS IN CHEMISTRY: SYMMETRY IN CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grev, Roger SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 33.3 Senior 2 33.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 66.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 16.7 Required by my major 1 16.7 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 83.3 4 - 5 hours 2 33.3 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 2 33.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 580 001L1 TOPICS IN CHEMISTRY: SYMMETRY IN CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grev, Roger % % 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 = 7 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 538 001L1 PRIN OF ORGANIC CHE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, Robert SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 34.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 34.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 7 30.4 Senior 3 13.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 20 87.0 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 4 17.4 2 hours 4 17.4 Required by my major 16 69.6 3 hours 3 13.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 13.0 4 - 5 hours 6 26.1 6 - 7 hours 5 21.7 8 or more hours 5 21.7 % % 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 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 13.0 69.6 17.4 3.0 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 0.0 8.7 65.2 26.1 3.2 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 4.5 9.1 72.7 13.6 3.0 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 13.0 78.3 8.7 3.0 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 11.8 17.6 58.8 11.8 2.7 0.85 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 18.8 37.5 31.3 12.5 2.4 0.96 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 4.5 18.2 45.5 31.8 3.0 0.84 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 4.3 43.5 30.4 21.7 2.7 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 9.1 77.3 13.6 3.0 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 25.0 66.7 8.3 2.8 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 4.5 13.6 50.0 31.8 3.1 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 21.7 34.8 43.5 3.2 0.80 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 4.3 4.3 60.9 30.4 3.2 0.72 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 13.0 39.1 34.8 13.0 2.5 0.90 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 4.3 13.0 47.8 34.8 3.1 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 4.3 21.7 39.1 34.8 3.0 0.88 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 538 001L1 PRIN OF ORGANIC CHE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, 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 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 33 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 69.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, Floyd J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 78 90.7 A 22 25.9 Sophomore 6 7.0 B 28 32.9 Junior 2 2.3 C 29 34.1 Senior 0 0.0 D 6 7.1 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 4.7 Studies Program 10 12.2 2 hours 20 23.3 Required by my major 71 86.6 3 hours 20 23.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 1.2 4 - 5 hours 26 30.2 6 - 7 hours 9 10.5 8 or more hours 7 8.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 96 0.0 2.1 53.1 44.8 3.4 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 98 2.0 12.2 53.1 32.7 3.2 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 97 1.0 2.1 59.8 37.1 3.3 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 98 3.1 19.4 55.1 22.4 3.0 0.74 5. Grading was fair and consistent 97 2.1 5.2 62.9 29.9 3.2 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 94 0.0 1.1 61.7 37.2 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 79 0.0 2.5 46.8 50.6 3.5 0.55 8. Graded assignments included comments 43 25.6 37.2 23.3 14.0 2.3 1.00 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 98 7.1 9.2 42.9 40.8 3.2 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 98 1.0 0.0 36.7 62.2 3.6 0.55 11. Was available for consultation 89 2.2 5.6 49.4 42.7 3.3 0.69 12. Satisfact answered class questions 98 2.0 13.3 46.9 37.8 3.2 0.75 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 97 6.2 12.4 37.1 44.3 3.2 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 98 1.0 3.1 53.1 42.9 3.4 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 72 5.6 16.7 59.7 18.1 2.9 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 93 1.1 7.5 64.5 26.9 3.2 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 94 1.1 11.7 59.6 27.7 3.1 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 96 2.1 5.2 65.6 27.1 3.2 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 96 10.4 38.5 40.6 10.4 2.5 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 97 3.1 15.5 53.6 27.8 3.1 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 96 9.4 14.6 28.1 47.9 3.1 0.99 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, Floyd J % % 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 27 0.0 0.0 70.4 29.6 3.3 0.47 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 23 0.0 17.4 56.5 26.1 3.1 0.67 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 11 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 3.1 0.30 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 204 Number of forms scanned = 169 Number of forms with at least one student response = 98 Percent completed = 48.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 625 001L1 OPTICAL METHS ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, Floyd J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 50.0 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 1 25.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 50.0 Required by my major 4 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 25.0 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 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 4 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 2.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 625 001L1 OPTICAL METHS ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, Floyd J % % 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 = 6 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 002L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kash, Phillip SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 13 100.0 A 8 61.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 38.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 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 1 7.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 15.4 Required by my major 13 100.0 3 hours 4 30.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 7.7 6 - 7 hours 4 30.8 8 or more hours 1 7.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 2.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.77 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 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 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 002L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kash, Phillip % % 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 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 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 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 = 16 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 81.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 004L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kash, Phillip SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 77 76.2 A 23 23.0 Sophomore 17 16.8 B 39 39.0 Junior 6 5.9 C 35 35.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 3 3.0 Graduate 1 1.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 5.1 Studies Program 9 9.0 2 hours 28 28.3 Required by my major 88 88.0 3 hours 46 46.5 Other (e.g. elective) 3 3.0 4 - 5 hours 11 11.1 6 - 7 hours 3 3.0 8 or more hours 6 6.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 107 0.0 1.9 57.9 40.2 3.4 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 107 1.9 12.1 57.0 29.0 3.1 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 107 0.9 5.6 42.1 51.4 3.4 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 106 2.8 12.3 55.7 29.2 3.1 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 106 0.9 7.5 57.5 34.0 3.2 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 103 0.0 1.0 67.0 32.0 3.3 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 93 0.0 0.0 58.1 41.9 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 38 23.7 52.6 18.4 5.3 2.1 0.80 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 107 0.9 13.1 51.4 34.6 3.2 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 107 0.0 0.0 39.3 60.7 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 96 1.0 5.2 54.2 39.6 3.3 0.62 12. Satisfact answered class questions 107 0.0 6.5 51.4 42.1 3.4 0.60 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 106 4.7 36.8 36.8 21.7 2.8 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 102 2.9 24.5 50.0 22.5 2.9 0.77 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 66 3.0 31.8 53.0 12.1 2.7 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 103 0.0 11.7 60.2 28.2 3.2 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 105 0.0 8.6 57.1 34.3 3.3 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 105 0.0 12.4 60.0 27.6 3.2 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 103 15.5 44.7 29.1 10.7 2.3 0.87 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 107 4.7 16.8 52.3 26.2 3.0 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 107 3.7 13.1 41.1 42.1 3.2 0.81 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 004L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kash, Phillip % % 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 31 0.0 6.5 71.0 22.6 3.2 0.52 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 30 0.0 30.0 56.7 13.3 2.8 0.65 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 12 8.3 8.3 66.7 16.7 2.9 0.79 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 8 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 = 196 Number of forms scanned = 182 Number of forms with at least one student response = 107 Percent completed = 54.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 006L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kash, Phillip SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 49 79.0 A 16 26.7 Sophomore 9 14.5 B 16 26.7 Junior 2 3.2 C 19 31.7 Senior 1 1.6 D 9 15.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 1.6 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 11.3 Studies Program 8 12.9 2 hours 12 19.4 Required by my major 53 85.5 3 hours 15 24.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 1.6 4 - 5 hours 20 32.3 6 - 7 hours 4 6.5 8 or more hours 4 6.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 69 0.0 2.9 52.2 44.9 3.4 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 70 7.1 10.0 58.6 24.3 3.0 0.80 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 70 11.4 7.1 45.7 35.7 3.1 0.95 4. Exams reflected what was taught 70 0.0 17.1 45.7 37.1 3.2 0.71 5. Grading was fair and consistent 70 1.4 5.7 52.9 40.0 3.3 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 67 1.5 6.0 55.2 37.3 3.3 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 61 0.0 1.6 44.3 54.1 3.5 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 35 40.0 31.4 22.9 5.7 1.9 0.94 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 70 2.9 14.3 45.7 37.1 3.2 0.78 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 70 0.0 0.0 38.6 61.4 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 64 0.0 1.6 60.9 37.5 3.4 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 70 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 69 5.8 31.9 39.1 23.2 2.8 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 67 0.0 22.4 53.7 23.9 3.0 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 45 8.9 22.2 53.3 15.6 2.8 0.83 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 69 4.3 13.0 58.0 24.6 3.0 0.75 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 70 4.3 14.3 55.7 25.7 3.0 0.76 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 70 1.4 14.3 55.7 28.6 3.1 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 69 11.6 53.6 23.2 11.6 2.3 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 70 7.1 31.4 35.7 25.7 2.8 0.91 21. Overall quality of teaching 70 0.0 18.6 38.6 42.9 3.2 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 006L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kash, Phillip % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 9 11.1 0.0 33.3 55.6 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 28.6 0.0 42.9 28.6 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 137 Number of forms scanned = 137 Number of forms with at least one student response = 70 Percent completed = 51.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 104 002L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Krause, Marge SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 52 66.7 A 4 5.3 Sophomore 19 24.4 B 25 32.9 Junior 7 9.0 C 34 44.7 Senior 0 0.0 D 12 15.8 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 1.3 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 9 11.7 Studies Program 14 18.2 2 hours 19 24.7 Required by my major 48 62.3 3 hours 19 24.7 Other (e.g. elective) 15 19.5 4 - 5 hours 18 23.4 6 - 7 hours 4 5.2 8 or more hours 8 10.4 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 81 1.2 4.9 58.0 35.8 3.3 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 83 2.4 10.8 50.6 36.1 3.2 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 72 6.9 18.1 52.8 22.2 2.9 0.82 4. Exams reflected what was taught 83 4.8 13.3 56.6 25.3 3.0 0.76 5. Grading was fair and consistent 83 2.4 12.0 62.7 22.9 3.1 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 59 3.4 15.3 67.8 13.6 2.9 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 76 1.3 1.3 60.5 36.8 3.3 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 44 31.8 54.5 11.4 2.3 1.8 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 83 13.3 37.3 38.6 10.8 2.5 0.86 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 82 2.4 6.1 56.1 35.4 3.2 0.68 11. Was available for consultation 80 2.5 7.5 65.0 25.0 3.1 0.64 12. Satisfact answered class questions 83 42.2 32.5 16.9 8.4 1.9 0.97 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 82 30.5 39.0 23.2 7.3 2.1 0.91 14. Encouraged class participation 83 14.5 12.0 50.6 22.9 2.8 0.95 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 64 10.9 34.4 46.9 7.8 2.5 0.80 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 82 11.0 18.3 59.8 11.0 2.7 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 81 7.4 21.0 60.5 11.1 2.8 0.75 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 83 7.2 21.7 62.7 8.4 2.7 0.72 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 83 21.7 57.8 19.3 1.2 2.0 0.68 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 83 7.2 36.1 45.8 10.8 2.6 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 83 30.1 31.3 26.5 12.0 2.2 1.01 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 104 002L1 INTRO GENERAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Krause, Marge % %