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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 619 401L1 GLOBAL COMM & INFO PERSP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bakhshi, Shiv SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 62.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 12.5 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 3 37.5 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 62.5 4 - 5 hours 3 37.5 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 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 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 20.0 30.0 50.0 3.3 0.82 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 80.0 10.0 10.0 2.3 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 22.2 66.7 11.1 2.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 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 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 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 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 % % % % 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 90.0 10.0 3.1 0.32 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 619 401L1 GLOBAL COMM & INFO PERSP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bakhshi, Shiv % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 28. Guided student report preparation 8 0.0 50.0 37.5 12.5 2.6 . 29. Students free to express opinions 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 615 401L1 PROSEM IN COMM AND INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Finn, Andrew SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 16.7 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 33.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 66.7 4 - 5 hours 2 33.3 6 - 7 hours 2 33.3 8 or more hours 2 33.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 2.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 25.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 50.0 16.7 33.3 2.8 . 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 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 2.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 2.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 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 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 16.7 16.7 16.7 50.0 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 2.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 33.3 16.7 33.3 16.7 2.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 615 401L1 PROSEM IN COMM AND INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Finn, Andrew % % 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 6 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 2.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 0.0 50.0 16.7 33.3 2.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 780 001S1 SPEC TOPS COM:HEALTH COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrington, Nancy Grant SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 16.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 33.3 3 hours 4 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 8 66.7 4 - 5 hours 4 33.3 6 - 7 hours 3 25.0 8 or more hours 1 8.3 % % 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 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 25.0 33.3 41.7 3.2 0.83 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 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 0.0 25.0 33.3 41.7 3.2 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 % % % % 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 25.0 58.3 3.4 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 25.0 16.7 58.3 3.3 0.89 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 780 001S1 SPEC TOPS COM:HEALTH COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrington, Nancy Grant % % 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 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 28. Guided student report preparation 12 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.85 29. Students free to express opinions 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 31. Developed abil to conduct research 11 0.0 27.3 27.3 45.5 3.2 0.87 SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 725 001S1 SEM IN ORG COMM:LEARNING SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Knuf, Joachim M 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 10 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 11.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 22.2 Required by my major 1 10.0 3 hours 1 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 9 90.0 4 - 5 hours 3 33.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 22.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 9.1 27.3 36.4 27.3 2.8 0.98 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 0.0 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 725 001S1 SEM IN ORG COMM:LEARNING SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Knuf, Joachim 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 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 91.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 608 001L1 MASS COMMUNICA & SOCIETY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rush, Ramona R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 14.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 100.0 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 2 28.6 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 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 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 608 001L1 MASS COMMUNICA & SOCIETY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rush, Ramona R % % 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 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 28. Guided student report preparation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 14.3 0.0 85.7 3.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 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 = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 80.0 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 601 401S1 PROSEM IN COMMUNICATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Van Tubergen, G Norman SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 88.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 11.1 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 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 11.1 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 1 11.1 2 hours 2 25.0 Required by my major 6 66.7 3 hours 5 62.5 Other (e.g. elective) 2 22.2 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 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 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 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 11.1 0.0 66.7 22.2 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 601 401S1 PROSEM IN COMMUNICATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Van Tubergen, G Norman % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 71.4 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 351 002L1 INTRO COMMUNICATION THRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 12.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 75.0 Junior 5 31.3 C 2 12.5 Senior 11 68.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 37.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 37.5 Required by my major 15 93.8 3 hours 3 18.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.3 4 - 5 hours 1 6.3 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 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 5.9 5.9 35.3 52.9 3.4 0.86 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 17.6 41.2 41.2 3.2 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 5.9 17.6 29.4 47.1 3.2 0.95 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 6.3 18.8 31.3 43.8 3.1 0.96 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 5.9 5.9 41.2 47.1 3.3 0.85 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 0.0 50.0 43.8 3.3 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 5.9 0.0 52.9 41.2 3.3 0.77 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 18.8 18.8 25.0 37.5 2.8 1.17 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 5.9 11.8 47.1 35.3 3.1 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 5.9 11.8 35.3 47.1 3.2 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 351 002L1 INTRO COMMUNICATION THRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R % % 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 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 94.4 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 365 002L1 INTRO TO COMM RES METH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 57.1 Junior 6 40.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 9 60.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 50.0 Studies Program 1 6.7 2 hours 5 35.7 Required by my major 13 86.7 3 hours 2 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.7 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 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 20.0 46.7 33.3 3.1 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 0.81 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 18.8 43.8 37.5 3.2 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 365 002L1 INTRO TO COMM RES METH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N % % 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 76.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 482 001L1 PERSUASION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 16.7 Junior 1 8.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 11 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 6 50.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 9 75.0 3 hours 3 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 25.0 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 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 0.76 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 7.1 7.1 85.7 3.8 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 7.1 21.4 71.4 3.6 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 15.4 30.8 53.8 3.4 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 482 001L1 PERSUASION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bostrom, R N % % 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 = 20 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 70.0 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 319 001L1 WORLD MEDIA SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Boyd, Douglas A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 18.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 40.9 Junior 4 16.0 C 8 36.4 Senior 21 84.0 D 1 4.5 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 12.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 11 44.0 Required by my major 14 56.0 3 hours 8 32.0 Other (e.g. elective) 11 44.0 4 - 5 hours 3 12.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 27 3.7 3.7 55.6 37.0 3.3 0.71 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 3.7 11.1 48.1 37.0 3.2 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 7.4 14.8 59.3 18.5 2.9 0.80 4. Exams reflected what was taught 27 18.5 29.6 44.4 7.4 2.4 0.89 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 3.7 7.4 74.1 14.8 3.0 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 8.0 68.0 24.0 3.2 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 0.0 0.0 48.1 51.9 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 7.4 22.2 44.4 25.9 2.9 0.89 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 3.7 25.9 59.3 11.1 2.8 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 14.8 85.2 3.9 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 26 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 7.4 18.5 37.0 37.0 3.0 0.94 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 27 11.1 25.9 40.7 22.2 2.7 0.94 14. Encouraged class participation 27 0.0 11.1 74.1 14.8 3.0 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 8.0 68.0 24.0 3.2 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 7.7 23.1 46.2 23.1 2.8 0.88 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 10.0 35.0 40.0 15.0 2.6 0.88 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 7.7 3.8 61.5 26.9 3.1 0.80 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 27 18.5 25.9 40.7 14.8 2.5 0.98 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 15.4 23.1 50.0 11.5 2.6 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 7.7 34.6 30.8 26.9 2.8 0.95 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 319 001L1 WORLD MEDIA SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Boyd, Douglas 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 32 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 84.4 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 001L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 76 80.9 A 22 23.7 Sophomore 7 7.4 B 49 52.7 Junior 5 5.3 C 20 21.5 Senior 5 5.3 D 2 2.2 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 1.1 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 33 35.1 Studies Program 52 56.5 2 hours 25 26.6 Required by my major 23 25.0 3 hours 27 28.7 Other (e.g. elective) 17 18.5 4 - 5 hours 8 8.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 1.1 % % 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 0.0 39.3 60.7 3.6 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 104 1.0 24.0 51.0 24.0 3.0 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 106 0.0 2.8 57.5 39.6 3.4 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 107 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 107 0.0 6.5 52.3 41.1 3.3 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 107 0.0 0.9 47.7 51.4 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 105 1.0 24.8 47.6 26.7 3.0 0.75 8. Graded assignments included comments 96 5.2 36.5 40.6 17.7 2.7 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 107 0.9 0.9 16.8 81.3 3.8 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 107 0.9 0.9 11.2 86.9 3.8 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 97 1.0 1.0 30.9 67.0 3.6 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 107 0.9 0.9 21.5 76.6 3.7 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 107 0.9 2.8 14.0 82.2 3.8 0.54 14. Encouraged class participation 107 0.0 2.8 28.0 69.2 3.7 0.53 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 104 1.0 1.9 41.3 55.8 3.5 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 103 1.0 1.9 42.7 54.4 3.5 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 96 2.1 9.4 45.8 42.7 3.3 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 106 0.9 0.9 34.9 63.2 3.6 0.56 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 102 2.0 14.7 35.3 48.0 3.3 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 107 1.9 1.9 15.0 81.3 3.8 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 107 1.9 0.9 4.7 92.5 3.9 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 001L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 36 0.0 5.6 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.59 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 50 0.0 10.0 48.0 42.0 3.3 0.65 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 47 0.0 6.4 51.1 42.6 3.4 0.61 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 20 0.0 10.0 45.0 45.0 3.4 0.67 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 29. Students free to express opinions 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 4 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 = 135 Number of forms scanned = 107 Number of forms with at least one student response = 107 Percent completed = 79.3 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 002L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 32 31.4 A 34 33.0 Sophomore 35 34.3 B 55 53.4 Junior 27 26.5 C 11 10.7 Senior 8 7.8 D 2 1.9 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 1.0 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 36 35.3 Studies Program 51 50.5 2 hours 32 31.4 Required by my major 30 29.7 3 hours 24 23.5 Other (e.g. elective) 20 19.8 4 - 5 hours 6 5.9 6 - 7 hours 3 2.9 8 or more hours 1 1.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 110 0.0 0.0 51.8 48.2 3.5 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 108 4.6 21.3 50.0 24.1 2.9 0.80 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 110 0.9 2.7 59.1 37.3 3.3 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 109 0.9 0.9 47.7 50.5 3.5 0.57 5. Grading was fair and consistent 110 0.0 2.7 50.9 46.4 3.4 0.55 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 110 0.0 1.8 51.8 46.4 3.4 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 108 4.6 24.1 53.7 17.6 2.8 0.76 8. Graded assignments included comments 100 2.0 53.0 30.0 15.0 2.6 0.77 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 110 0.0 0.9 26.4 72.7 3.7 0.47 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 110 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 99 0.0 4.0 44.4 51.5 3.5 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 110 0.0 0.0 37.3 62.7 3.6 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 110 0.0 0.9 26.4 72.7 3.7 0.47 14. Encouraged class participation 110 0.0 0.9 40.0 59.1 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 104 0.0 2.9 44.2 52.9 3.5 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 109 0.0 1.8 45.9 52.3 3.5 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 95 1.1 6.3 57.9 34.7 3.3 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 108 0.0 1.9 38.9 59.3 3.6 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 106 0.9 12.3 43.4 43.4 3.3 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 109 0.0 2.8 24.8 72.5 3.7 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 109 0.0 0.9 17.4 81.7 3.8 0.42 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 002L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 38 0.0 10.5 55.3 34.2 3.2 0.63 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 49 0.0 10.2 57.1 32.7 3.2 0.62 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 48 0.0 6.3 60.4 33.3 3.3 0.57 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 15 6.7 6.7 66.7 20.0 3.0 0.76 SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 135 Number of forms scanned = 110 Number of forms with at least one student response = 110 Percent completed = 81.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 351 001L1 INTRO COMMUNICATION THRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 35.3 Sophomore 1 5.6 B 10 58.8 Junior 6 33.3 C 1 5.9 Senior 11 61.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 3 16.7 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 11 61.1 3 hours 4 23.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 22.2 4 - 5 hours 9 52.9 6 - 7 hours 4 23.5 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 19 0.0 5.3 21.1 73.7 3.7 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 0.76 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 5.3 5.3 15.8 73.7 3.6 0.84 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 5.3 94.7 3.9 0.23 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 5.3 94.7 3.9 0.23 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 0.0 5.3 94.7 3.9 0.23 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 5.3 15.8 78.9 3.7 0.56 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 351 001L1 INTRO COMMUNICATION THRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 = 30 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 63.3 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 181 014L1 BASIC PUBLIC SPEAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 33.3 A 5 33.3 Sophomore 8 53.3 B 9 60.0 Junior 2 13.3 C 1 6.7 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 40.0 Studies Program 11 84.6 2 hours 4 26.7 Required by my major 2 15.4 3 hours 4 26.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 11.1 22.2 50.0 16.7 2.7 0.89 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.59 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 11.1 22.2 55.6 11.1 2.7 0.84 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 11.1 72.2 16.7 3.1 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 5.6 77.8 16.7 3.1 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 0.43 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 5.6 66.7 27.8 3.2 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 5.6 72.2 22.2 3.2 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 22.2 61.1 11.1 2.8 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 5.6 66.7 27.8 3.2 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 5.6 16.7 61.1 16.7 2.9 0.76 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 47.1 47.1 5.9 2.6 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 5.6 83.3 11.1 3.1 0.42 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 13.3 66.7 20.0 0.0 2.1 0.59 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 5.6 11.1 72.2 11.1 2.9 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 16.7 44.4 38.9 3.2 0.73 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 181 014L1 BASIC PUBLIC SPEAKING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 11 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1 2.6 0.81 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 11 9.1 18.2 72.7 0.0 2.6 0.67 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 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 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 72.0 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 252 201L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 62.5 Junior 4 50.0 C 1 12.5 Senior 4 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 4 50.0 Studies Program 5 62.5 2 hours 3 37.5 Required by my major 2 25.0 3 hours 1 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 252 201L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 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 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 252 202L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 5.9 A 5 29.4 Sophomore 2 11.8 B 6 35.3 Junior 11 64.7 C 6 35.3 Senior 3 17.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 41.2 Studies Program 11 64.7 2 hours 5 29.4 Required by my major 5 29.4 3 hours 3 17.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.9 4 - 5 hours 1 5.9 6 - 7 hours 1 5.9 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 5.3 0.0 52.6 42.1 3.3 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 5.3 36.8 57.9 3.5 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 10.5 15.8 52.6 21.1 2.8 0.90 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 5.9 58.8 35.3 3.3 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 5.6 38.9 55.6 3.5 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 15.8 52.6 31.6 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 19 0.0 5.3 31.6 63.2 3.6 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 5.3 21.1 73.7 3.7 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = COM 252 202L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harrison, Tyler % % 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 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 = 22 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 86.4 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 525 001L1 ORGANIZATIONAL COMM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Knuf, Joachim M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 20 80.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 24 96.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 13 52.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 32.0 Required by my major 14 58.3 3 hours 4 16.0 Other (e.g. elective) 10 41.7 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 26 7.7 0.0 57.7 34.6 3.2 0.80 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 12.5 12.5 58.3 16.7 2.8 0.88 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 7.7 11.5 38.5 42.3 3.2 0.92 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 16.7 0.0 16.7 66.7 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 7.7 19.2 50.0 23.1 2.9 0.86 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 13.0 13.0 56.5 17.4 2.8 0.90 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 12.5 12.5 45.8 29.2 2.9 0.97 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 3.8 19.2 38.5 38.5 3.1 0.86 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 3.8 0.0 23.1 73.1 3.7 0.69 11. Was available for consultation 25 4.0 0.0 32.0 64.0 3.6 0.71 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 4.0 0.0 52.0 44.0 3.4 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 4.0 8.0 44.0 44.0 3.3 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 26 3.8 0.0 38.5 57.7 3.5 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 4.0 4.0 64.0 28.0 3.2 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 3.8 3.8 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 3.8 0.0 65.4 30.8 3.2 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 3.8 0.0 65.4 30.8 3.2 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 4.0 12.0 64.0 20.0 3.0 0.71 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 3.8 19.2 42.3 34.6 3.1 0.84 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 3.8 15.4 34.6 46.2 3.2 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 525 001L1 ORGANIZATIONAL COMM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Knuf, Joachim 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 92.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 252 009L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 9 33.3 A 23 85.2 Sophomore 3 11.1 B 4 14.8 Junior 4 14.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 10 37.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 3.7 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 7.4 Studies Program 23 88.5 2 hours 18 66.7 Required by my major 2 7.7 3 hours 6 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.8 4 - 5 hours 1 3.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 28 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.26 11. Was available for consultation 28 0.0 3.6 14.3 82.1 3.8 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 0.0 17.9 82.1 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 0.0 3.6 25.0 71.4 3.7 0.55 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 0.0 46.4 53.6 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 0.0 10.7 53.6 35.7 3.3 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 0.0 0.0 17.9 82.1 3.8 0.39 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 0.0 0.0 10.7 89.3 3.9 0.31 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 252 009L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 11 0.0 18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.79 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 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 = 30 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 93.3 % For help w