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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 539 001L1 TRANSPORTATN SYS DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 31.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 13 59.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 9.1 Senior 20 95.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.8 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 4.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 13.6 Required by my major 14 66.7 3 hours 2 9.1 Other (e.g. elective) 7 33.3 4 - 5 hours 11 50.0 6 - 7 hours 1 4.5 8 or more hours 4 18.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 4.5 4.5 63.6 27.3 3.1 0.71 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 9.5 76.2 14.3 3.0 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 13.6 59.1 27.3 3.1 0.64 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 9.1 13.6 68.2 9.1 2.8 0.75 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 14.3 76.2 9.5 3.0 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 4.5 81.8 13.6 3.1 0.43 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 9.5 61.9 28.6 3.2 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 22.7 50.0 27.3 3.0 0.72 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 4.5 63.6 31.8 3.3 0.55 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 9.1 13.6 40.9 36.4 3.0 0.95 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 4.5 72.7 22.7 3.2 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 5.6 16.7 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.80 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 9.1 68.2 22.7 3.1 0.56 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 4.5 68.2 27.3 3.2 0.53 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 4.5 63.6 31.8 3.3 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 13.6 18.2 54.5 13.6 2.7 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 4.5 13.6 63.6 18.2 3.0 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 36.4 40.9 22.7 2.9 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 539 001L1 TRANSPORTATN SYS DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa 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 = 30 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 73.3 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 699 003L1 TOPS IN CE:TRANSPORTATN SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 80.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 20.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 80.0 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 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 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 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 699 003L1 TOPS IN CE:TRANSPORTATN SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 83.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 682 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 12.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 87.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 12.5 Required by my major 1 12.5 3 hours 1 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 7 87.5 4 - 5 hours 4 50.0 6 - 7 hours 2 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 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 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 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 14.3 42.9 14.3 28.6 2.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 37.5 25.0 37.5 0.0 2.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 12.5 12.5 75.0 0.0 2.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 682 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 8 Percent completed = 88.9 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 599 001L1 TOPS IN CE:ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 83.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 16.7 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 3 50.0 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 3 50.0 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 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 16.7 0.0 66.7 16.7 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 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 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 599 001L1 TOPS IN CE:ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail % % 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 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 1 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 = 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 401S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 46.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 46.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 25 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 2 7.7 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 14 53.8 Studies Program 1 3.8 2 hours 8 30.8 Required by my major 25 96.2 3 hours 2 7.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 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 27 3.7 11.1 55.6 29.6 3.1 0.75 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 14.8 18.5 37.0 29.6 2.8 1.04 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 16.0 24.0 44.0 16.0 2.6 0.96 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 11.5 19.2 50.0 19.2 2.8 0.91 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 11.1 11.1 48.1 29.6 3.0 0.94 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 12.5 8.3 50.0 29.2 3.0 0.95 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 14.8 7.4 48.1 29.6 2.9 1.00 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 20.8 16.7 50.0 12.5 2.5 0.98 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 11.1 18.5 44.4 25.9 2.9 0.95 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 7.4 3.7 44.4 44.4 3.3 0.86 11. Was available for consultation 25 16.0 24.0 36.0 24.0 2.7 1.03 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 15.4 7.7 50.0 26.9 2.9 0.99 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 24.0 28.0 24.0 24.0 2.5 1.12 14. Encouraged class participation 27 11.1 18.5 33.3 37.0 3.0 1.02 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 8.0 16.0 56.0 20.0 2.9 0.83 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 12.5 25.0 45.8 16.7 2.7 0.92 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 16.7 25.0 37.5 20.8 2.6 1.01 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 14.8 7.4 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.95 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 20.0 28.0 36.0 16.0 2.5 1.00 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 29.6 7.4 33.3 29.6 2.6 1.21 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 14.8 22.2 33.3 29.6 2.8 1.05 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 401S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, 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 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 13 0.0 38.5 38.5 23.1 2.8 0.80 28. Guided student report preparation 14 7.1 28.6 42.9 21.4 2.8 0.89 29. Students free to express opinions 16 0.0 18.8 31.3 50.0 3.3 0.79 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 16 6.3 18.8 43.8 31.3 3.0 0.89 31. Developed abil to conduct research 12 8.3 41.7 33.3 16.7 2.6 0.90 SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 30 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 90.0 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 402S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 16 72.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 27.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 22 100.0 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 15 68.2 Studies Program 1 4.5 2 hours 4 18.2 Required by my major 21 95.5 3 hours 3 13.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 21 4.8 4.8 42.9 47.6 3.3 0.80 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 10.0 25.0 45.0 20.0 2.8 0.91 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 9.5 28.6 38.1 23.8 2.8 0.94 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 15.0 25.0 40.0 20.0 2.7 0.99 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 9.5 4.8 66.7 19.0 3.0 0.80 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 10.5 5.3 57.9 26.3 3.0 0.88 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 9.5 0.0 61.9 28.6 3.1 0.83 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 15.8 36.8 26.3 21.1 2.5 1.02 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 14.3 19.0 42.9 23.8 2.8 1.00 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 14.3 0.0 52.4 33.3 3.0 0.97 11. Was available for consultation 19 21.1 15.8 36.8 26.3 2.7 1.11 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 9.5 4.8 61.9 23.8 3.0 0.84 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 25.0 25.0 30.0 20.0 2.5 1.10 14. Encouraged class participation 21 9.5 9.5 57.1 23.8 3.0 0.86 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 10.5 15.8 47.4 26.3 2.9 0.94 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 11.8 11.8 52.9 23.5 2.9 0.93 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 18.8 18.8 43.8 18.8 2.6 1.02 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 15.0 5.0 65.0 15.0 2.8 0.89 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 31.6 26.3 26.3 15.8 2.3 1.10 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 13.0 21.7 34.8 30.4 2.8 1.03 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 8.7 30.4 39.1 21.7 2.7 0.92 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 402S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, 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 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 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 8 12.5 25.0 62.5 0.0 2.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 31. Developed abil to conduct research 8 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 2.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 29 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 503 401L1 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = FENN, PETER SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 68.8 Junior 1 6.3 C 1 6.3 Senior 11 68.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 25.0 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 31.3 Studies Program 1 6.3 2 hours 3 18.8 Required by my major 8 50.0 3 hours 8 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 43.8 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 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 6.7 46.7 46.7 0.0 2.4 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 0.34 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 0.34 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 12.5 81.3 6.3 2.9 0.44 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 81.3 18.8 3.2 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 18.8 75.0 6.3 2.9 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 18.2 81.8 0.0 2.8 0.40 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 6.7 80.0 13.3 3.1 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 6.7 80.0 13.3 3.1 0.46 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 6.7 86.7 6.7 3.0 0.38 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 46.7 40.0 13.3 2.7 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 12.5 81.3 6.3 2.9 0.44 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 25.0 43.8 31.3 3.1 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 503 401L1 CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = FENN, PETER % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 19 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 84.2 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 599 401L1 TOPICS IN CE:GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fister, Ben SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 70.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 23.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 14 77.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 16.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 5.6 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 5.9 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 29.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 35.3 Required by my major 6 33.3 3 hours 6 35.3 Other (e.g. elective) 12 66.7 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 10.5 63.2 26.3 3.2 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 10.5 21.1 52.6 15.8 2.7 0.87 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 10.5 73.7 15.8 3.1 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 15.8 63.2 21.1 3.1 0.62 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 16.7 61.1 22.2 3.1 0.64 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 15.8 68.4 15.8 3.0 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 5.6 72.2 22.2 3.2 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 21.1 52.6 26.3 3.1 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 16.7 61.1 22.2 3.1 0.64 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 15.8 63.2 21.1 3.1 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 20.0 66.7 13.3 2.9 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 23.5 58.8 17.6 2.9 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 23.5 64.7 11.8 2.9 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 5.9 70.6 23.5 3.2 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 41.2 35.3 23.5 2.8 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 5.3 15.8 52.6 26.3 3.0 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 5.6 11.1 55.6 27.8 3.1 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 599 401L1 TOPICS IN CE:GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fister, Ben % % 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 = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 90.5 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 12.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 17 68.0 Senior 25 100.0 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 2 8.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 4.0 Required by my major 24 96.0 3 hours 7 28.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.0 4 - 5 hours 9 36.0 6 - 7 hours 4 16.0 8 or more hours 2 8.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 8.0 80.0 12.0 3.0 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 9.1 45.5 40.9 4.5 2.4 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 8.0 28.0 52.0 12.0 2.7 0.80 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 8.0 28.0 52.0 12.0 2.7 0.80 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 8.3 75.0 16.7 3.1 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 24.0 56.0 20.0 3.0 0.68 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 8.0 80.0 12.0 3.0 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 16.0 48.0 28.0 8.0 2.3 0.84 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 29.2 33.3 29.2 8.3 2.2 0.96 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 8.0 48.0 44.0 3.4 0.64 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 13.0 60.9 26.1 3.1 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 8.0 28.0 48.0 16.0 2.7 0.84 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 25.0 45.8 25.0 4.2 2.1 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 24 0.0 33.3 41.7 25.0 2.9 0.78 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 11.1 22.2 55.6 11.1 2.7 0.84 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 17.4 21.7 47.8 13.0 2.6 0.95 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 17.4 17.4 56.5 8.7 2.6 0.90 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 21.7 21.7 43.5 13.0 2.5 0.99 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 34.8 39.1 17.4 8.7 2.0 0.95 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 36.0 32.0 24.0 8.0 2.0 0.98 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 36.0 36.0 16.0 12.0 2.0 1.02 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans % % 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 = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 89.3 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 486G001L1 REINFORCED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 20.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 45.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 7 29.2 Senior 25 100.0 D 1 4.2 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 4.0 Required by my major 22 88.0 3 hours 7 28.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 12.0 4 - 5 hours 9 36.0 6 - 7 hours 7 28.0 8 or more hours 1 4.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 4.0 8.0 76.0 12.0 3.0 0.61 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 29.2 33.3 29.2 8.3 2.2 0.96 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 20.0 8.0 56.0 16.0 2.7 0.99 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 12.0 24.0 48.0 16.0 2.7 0.90 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 4.0 8.0 72.0 16.0 3.0 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 4.0 64.0 32.0 3.3 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 20.0 64.0 16.0 3.0 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 37.5 41.7 12.5 8.3 1.9 0.93 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 20.0 36.0 36.0 8.0 2.3 0.90 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 22 4.5 4.5 63.6 27.3 3.1 0.71 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 4.0 24.0 48.0 24.0 2.9 0.81 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 16.0 32.0 40.0 12.0 2.5 0.92 14. Encouraged class participation 24 8.3 8.3 62.5 20.8 3.0 0.81 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 6.3 6.3 68.8 18.8 3.0 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.83 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 8.3 4.2 58.3 29.2 3.1 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 8.0 24.0 52.0 16.0 2.8 0.83 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 20.0 28.0 44.0 8.0 2.4 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 8.3 25.0 58.3 8.3 2.7 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 20.8 33.3 29.2 16.7 2.4 1.02 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 486G001L1 REINFORCED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 34 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 76.5 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 382 001L1 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 30.8 Junior 3 12.0 C 5 19.2 Senior 22 88.0 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 3.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 15.4 Required by my major 25 100.0 3 hours 8 30.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 10 38.5 6 - 7 hours 3 11.5 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 28 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 0.0 17.9 67.9 14.3 3.0 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 3.6 67.9 28.6 3.3 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 10.7 60.7 28.6 3.2 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.46 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 3.7 29.6 51.9 14.8 2.8 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 3.6 0.0 67.9 28.6 3.2 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 3.6 67.9 28.6 3.3 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 28 3.6 3.6 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 3.6 67.9 28.6 3.3 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 0.0 10.7 71.4 17.9 3.1 0.54 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 0.0 46.4 53.6 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 5.3 84.2 5.3 2.9 0.57 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 3.7 81.5 14.8 3.1 0.42 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 0.0 0.0 85.2 14.8 3.1 0.36 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 0.0 0.0 85.2 14.8 3.1 0.36 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 0.0 16.0 72.0 12.0 3.0 0.54 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 0.0 10.7 60.7 28.6 3.2 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 3.6 7.1 46.4 42.9 3.3 0.76 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 382 001L1 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 36 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 77.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 505 001L1 CONSTRUCT PROJ PLAN/MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 37.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 22 55.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 5.0 Senior 33 82.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 15.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 2.5 Pass or Audit 1 2.5 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 2.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 12 30.0 Required by my major 14 35.0 3 hours 18 45.0 Other (e.g. elective) 26 65.0 4 - 5 hours 5 12.5 6 - 7 hours 2 5.0 8 or more hours 2 5.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 41 0.0 2.4 46.3 51.2 3.5 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 41 24.4 29.3 29.3 17.1 2.4 1.05 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 41 0.0 2.4 34.1 63.4 3.6 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 41 0.0 0.0 48.8 51.2 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 41 9.8 17.1 43.9 29.3 2.9 0.93 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 41 0.0 4.9 53.7 41.5 3.4 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 40 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 40 5.0 10.0 52.5 32.5 3.1 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 41 0.0 0.0 26.8 73.2 3.7 0.45 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 41 0.0 0.0 24.4 75.6 3.8 0.43 11. Was available for consultation 41 0.0 2.4 43.9 53.7 3.5 0.55 12. Satisfact answered class questions 41 0.0 0.0 29.3 70.7 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 41 0.0 2.4 26.8 70.7 3.7 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 41 0.0 0.0 24.4 75.6 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 39 0.0 0.0 59.0 41.0 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 41 0.0 0.0 51.2 48.8 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 41 0.0 0.0 56.1 43.9 3.4 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 41 0.0 0.0 48.8 51.2 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 39 2.6 7.7 48.7 41.0 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 40 0.0 2.5 30.0 67.5 3.7 0.53 21. Overall quality of teaching 40 0.0 2.5 10.0 87.5 3.9 0.43 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 505 001L1 CONSTRUCT PROJ PLAN/MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 44 Number of forms scanned = 42 Number of forms with at least one student response = 41 Percent completed = 93.2 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G001L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 0 0.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 75.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 16.7 Senior 11 91.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 8.3 I 1 8.3 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 8.3 Required by my major 10 83.3 3 hours 6 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 16.7 4 - 5 hours 2 16.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 3 25.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 12 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 0.39 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 41.7 41.7 16.7 2.8 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 8.3 0.0 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.79 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 8.3 0.0 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 16.7 0.0 58.3 25.0 2.9 1.00 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 8.3 33.3 41.7 16.7 2.7 0.89 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 8.3 16.7 41.7 33.3 3.0 0.95 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 12 8.3 16.7 50.0 25.0 2.9 0.90 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.85 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 8.3 16.7 50.0 25.0 2.9 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 11 9.1 36.4 36.4 18.2 2.6 0.92 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 3.0 0.94 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 8.3 0.0 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.79 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 8.3 0.0 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 8.3 0.0 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.79 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 27.3 45.5 18.2 2.7 0.90 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 8.3 0.0 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 8.3 8.3 41.7 41.7 3.2 0.94 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G001L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % 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 = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G002L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 55.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 11.1 Senior 9 100.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 33.3 Required by my major 9 100.0 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 6 - 7 hours 2 22.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 11.1 0.0 66.7 22.2 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 11.1 22.2 66.7 0.0 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 11.1 0.0 66.7 22.2 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 11.1 0.0 77.8 11.1 2.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 11.1 22.2 66.7 0.0 2.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 2.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 12.5 25.0 62.5 0.0 2.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 11.1 11.1 44.4 33.3 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 11.1 22.2 33.3 33.3 2.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G002L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % 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 = 16 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 56.3 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G003L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 27.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 54.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 18.2 Senior 11 100.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 9.1 Required by my major 11 100.0 3 hours 6 54.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 9.1 6 - 7 hours 2 18.2 8 or more hours 1 9.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 3.1 0.30 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 9.1 45.5 45.5 0.0 2.4 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 10.0 10.0 40.0 40.0 3.1 0.99 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 2.4 0.97 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 18.2 0.0 63.6 18.2 2.8 0.98 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 10 10.0 0.0 80.0 10.0 2.9 0.74 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 18.2 0.0 72.7 9.1 2.7 0.90 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 9.1 27.3 45.5 18.2 2.7 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 10 20.0 0.0 70.0 10.0 2.7 0.95 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 14.3 0.0 71.4 14.3 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 2.9 0.83 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 2.9 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 9.1 18.2 63.6 9.1 2.7 0.79 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 27.3 18.2 45.5 9.1 2.4 1.03 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 36.4 45.5 18.2 2.8 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 18.2 18.2 45.5 18.2 2.6 1.03 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G003L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % 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 = 16 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 68.8 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G004L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 40.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 60.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 100.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 5 100.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 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 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 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 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 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 60.0 40.0 0.0 2.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 471G004L1 SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 19 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 26.3 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 671 001L1 ADVANCED SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 80.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 3 60.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 40.0 4 - 5 hours 2 40.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 3 60.0 % % 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 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 671 001L1 ADVANCED SOIL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % 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 = 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 586 001L1 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 63.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 36.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 18.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 81.8 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 9.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 1 9.1 3 hours 3 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 10 90.9 4 - 5 hours 4 36.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 22.2 55.6 11.1 11.1 2.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 % % % % 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 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 586 001L1 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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