1****************************************************************************** * * * Please note that these results DO NOT INCLUDE: * * * * * Course sections taught by a TA * * * Discussion, Laboratory, Independent Study, Practicum, or * * Residency course sections (results contain only LECTURES * * and SEMINARS) * * * Any course section with fewer than 5 evaluations returned * * * * Given for each item are the number responding (N), the percentage that * * strongly disagreed, the percentage that disagreed, the percentage that * * agreed, the percentage that strongly agreed, the mean, and the standard * * deviation (SD). * * * ****************************************************************************** 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 305 001L1 HEALTH CARE ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderson, Clelia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 40.0 Sophomore 2 9.5 B 9 45.0 Junior 6 28.6 C 2 10.0 Senior 13 61.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 5.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 25.0 Studies Program 5 25.0 2 hours 6 30.0 Required by my major 8 40.0 3 hours 3 15.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 35.0 4 - 5 hours 4 20.0 6 - 7 hours 2 10.0 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 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 0.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 3.5 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 0.0 4.3 34.8 60.9 3.6 0.59 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 69.6 30.4 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 0.0 4.3 52.2 43.5 3.4 0.58 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 0.0 26.1 73.9 3.7 0.45 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 305 001L1 HEALTH CARE ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderson, Clelia % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 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 = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 75.0 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 004L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bradshaw, David SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 9 50.0 A 4 25.0 Sophomore 8 44.4 B 10 62.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 12.5 Senior 1 5.6 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 4 25.0 Studies Program 11 68.8 2 hours 7 43.8 Required by my major 2 12.5 3 hours 5 31.3 Other (e.g. elective) 3 18.8 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 26 0.0 0.0 57.7 42.3 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 16.0 60.0 24.0 3.1 0.64 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 3.8 7.7 76.9 11.5 3.0 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 4.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 3.8 65.4 30.8 3.3 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 3.8 3.8 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.69 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 15.4 50.0 34.6 3.2 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 15.4 57.7 26.9 3.1 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 3.8 57.7 38.5 3.3 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 15.4 11.5 50.0 23.1 2.8 0.98 14. Encouraged class participation 26 3.8 3.8 46.2 46.2 3.3 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 3.8 7.7 53.8 34.6 3.2 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 4.0 8.0 48.0 40.0 3.2 0.78 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 4.0 16.0 52.0 28.0 3.0 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 7.7 65.4 26.9 3.2 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 19.2 26.9 26.9 26.9 2.6 1.10 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 20.0 56.0 24.0 3.0 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 16.0 32.0 52.0 3.4 0.76 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 004L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bradshaw, David % % 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 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 0.0 30.0 40.0 30.0 3.0 0.82 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 31 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 83.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 317 001L1 EXISTENTIALIST THGT/LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 33.3 Sophomore 4 30.8 B 8 66.7 Junior 5 38.5 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 30.8 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 16.7 Required by my major 2 15.4 3 hours 5 41.7 Other (e.g. elective) 11 84.6 4 - 5 hours 4 33.3 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 7.7 0.0 46.2 46.2 3.3 0.85 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 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 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 317 001L1 EXISTENTIALIST THGT/LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D % % 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 29 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 44.8 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 509 001L1 TOPS IN HIS MODERN PHI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 23.1 Sophomore 1 7.1 B 8 61.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 7.7 Senior 3 21.4 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 64.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 7.1 Pass or Audit 1 7.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 7.7 3 hours 1 6.7 Other (e.g. elective) 12 92.3 4 - 5 hours 6 40.0 6 - 7 hours 6 40.0 8 or more hours 2 13.3 % % 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 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.63 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 12.5 31.3 56.3 3.4 0.73 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 12.5 81.3 3.8 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 509 001L1 TOPS IN HIS MODERN PHI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 550 001L1 PHI PROBS KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bruzina, Ronald C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 41.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 41.7 Junior 1 7.7 C 1 8.3 Senior 5 38.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 38.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 15.4 Pass or Audit 1 8.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 15.4 Studies Program 1 7.7 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 3 23.1 3 hours 2 15.4 Other (e.g. elective) 9 69.2 4 - 5 hours 7 53.8 6 - 7 hours 1 7.7 8 or more hours 1 7.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 7.1 0.0 50.0 42.9 3.3 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 14.3 35.7 50.0 3.4 0.74 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 7.1 7.1 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.83 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 38.5 61.5 0.0 2.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 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 13 0.0 7.7 23.1 69.2 3.6 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 550 001L1 PHI PROBS KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bruzina, Ronald C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 87.5 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 002L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 13 56.5 A 7 30.4 Sophomore 9 39.1 B 10 43.5 Junior 1 4.3 C 6 26.1 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 26.1 Studies Program 15 65.2 2 hours 8 34.8 Required by my major 3 13.0 3 hours 5 21.7 Other (e.g. elective) 5 21.7 4 - 5 hours 3 13.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 4.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 13.0 47.8 39.1 3.3 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 9.1 50.0 40.9 3.3 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 4.3 30.4 65.2 3.6 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 4.3 52.2 43.5 3.4 0.58 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 5.3 31.6 63.2 3.6 0.61 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 13.0 43.5 43.5 3.3 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 21.7 39.1 39.1 3.2 0.78 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.46 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 26.3 47.4 26.3 3.0 0.75 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.59 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 9.1 36.4 27.3 27.3 2.7 0.98 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 4.3 17.4 47.8 30.4 3.0 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 002L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James 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 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 13 0.0 38.5 23.1 38.5 3.0 0.91 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 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 = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 76.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 310 001L1 PHI OF HUMAN NATURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 43.5 Sophomore 1 4.3 B 10 43.5 Junior 5 21.7 C 2 8.7 Senior 17 73.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 17.4 Studies Program 1 4.5 2 hours 7 30.4 Required by my major 7 31.8 3 hours 6 26.1 Other (e.g. elective) 14 63.6 4 - 5 hours 5 21.7 6 - 7 hours 1 4.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 0.0 26.1 73.9 3.7 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 8.7 34.8 56.5 3.5 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 4.8 33.3 61.9 3.6 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 4.8 4.8 33.3 57.1 3.4 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 310 001L1 PHI OF HUMAN NATURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James 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 = 34 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 67.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 260 001L1 HIS PHI I:GRK BEGINNINGS TO THE MIDDLE AGES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 12.5 A 9 39.1 Sophomore 9 37.5 B 11 47.8 Junior 2 8.3 C 2 8.7 Senior 7 29.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.2 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 8.3 Pass or Audit 1 4.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 30.4 Studies Program 7 30.4 2 hours 7 30.4 Required by my major 6 26.1 3 hours 8 34.8 Other (e.g. elective) 10 43.5 4 - 5 hours 1 4.3 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 25 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 13.6 54.5 31.8 3.2 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 4.0 64.0 32.0 3.3 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 16.0 44.0 40.0 3.2 0.72 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 8.0 44.0 48.0 3.4 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 8.7 60.9 30.4 3.2 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 12.5 58.3 29.2 3.2 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 26.3 52.6 21.1 2.9 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 4.0 24.0 44.0 28.0 3.0 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 260 001L1 HIS PHI I:GRK BEGINNINGS TO THE MIDDLE AGES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel % % 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 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 2.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 6 16.7 0.0 66.7 16.7 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 61 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 41.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 503 001L1 TOPS ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 57.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 42.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 57.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 42.9 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 42.9 Required by my major 2 28.6 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 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 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 503 001L1 TOPS ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 130 001L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gelfand, Scott SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 4.3 A 10 43.5 Sophomore 19 82.6 B 8 34.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 4 17.4 Senior 1 4.3 D 1 4.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 4.3 I 0 0.0 Other 1 4.3 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 4.3 Studies Program 16 72.7 2 hours 5 21.7 Required by my major 2 9.1 3 hours 10 43.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 18.2 4 - 5 hours 2 8.7 6 - 7 hours 3 13.0 8 or more hours 2 8.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 8.7 30.4 60.9 3.5 0.67 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 4.3 52.2 43.5 3.4 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 0.0 8.7 52.2 39.1 3.3 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2 3.5 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2 3.5 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 4.8 4.8 52.4 38.1 3.2 0.77 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2 3.5 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 26.1 73.9 3.7 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 13.0 30.4 56.5 3.4 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 4.3 52.2 43.5 3.4 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 4.3 21.7 56.5 17.4 2.9 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 8.7 47.8 43.5 3.3 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 4.3 30.4 65.2 3.6 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 130 001L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gelfand, Scott % % 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 8 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 11.1 88.9 0.0 2.9 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 = 32 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 71.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 337 001L1 INTRO-LEGAL PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gelfand, Scott SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 16 40.0 Sophomore 5 12.5 B 20 50.0 Junior 10 25.0 C 3 7.5 Senior 23 57.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 2.5 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 6 15.4 Studies Program 13 32.5 2 hours 7 17.9 Required by my major 8 20.0 3 hours 17 43.6 Other (e.g. elective) 19 47.5 4 - 5 hours 7 17.9 6 - 7 hours 2 5.1 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 49 4.1 2.0 59.2 34.7 3.2 0.69 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 47 2.1 2.1 55.3 40.4 3.3 0.64 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 49 2.0 4.1 53.1 40.8 3.3 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 49 2.0 0.0 46.9 51.0 3.5 0.62 5. Grading was fair and consistent 49 4.1 10.2 49.0 36.7 3.2 0.78 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 49 2.0 8.2 59.2 30.6 3.2 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 49 4.1 12.2 61.2 22.4 3.0 0.72 8. Graded assignments included comments 48 8.3 27.1 50.0 14.6 2.7 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 49 6.1 6.1 51.0 36.7 3.2 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 48 0.0 0.0 39.6 60.4 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 44 0.0 2.3 61.4 36.4 3.3 0.53 12. Satisfact answered class questions 49 8.2 12.2 51.0 28.6 3.0 0.87 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 48 8.3 10.4 43.8 37.5 3.1 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 49 2.0 0.0 34.7 63.3 3.6 0.61 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 49 4.1 6.1 57.1 32.7 3.2 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 49 4.1 4.1 55.1 36.7 3.2 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 48 4.2 4.2 56.3 35.4 3.2 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 49 2.0 6.1 53.1 38.8 3.3 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 46 8.7 13.0 52.2 26.1 3.0 0.87 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 48 6.3 12.5 43.8 37.5 3.1 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 48 6.3 12.5 37.5 43.8 3.2 0.89 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 337 001L1 INTRO-LEGAL PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gelfand, Scott % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 22.2 33.3 44.4 3.2 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 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 = 69 Number of forms scanned = 49 Number of forms with at least one student response = 49 Percent completed = 71.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 343 001L1 ASIAN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Giles, Don SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 6.5 A 28 60.9 Sophomore 17 37.0 B 14 30.4 Junior 12 26.1 C 3 6.5 Senior 13 28.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 2.2 Professional 1 2.2 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 17.4 Studies Program 25 56.8 2 hours 13 28.3 Required by my major 1 2.3 3 hours 14 30.4 Other (e.g. elective) 18 40.9 4 - 5 hours 8 17.4 6 - 7 hours 2 4.3 8 or more hours 1 2.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 53 0.0 0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 52 0.0 0.0 26.9 73.1 3.7 0.45 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 50 0.0 8.0 32.0 60.0 3.5 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 52 0.0 1.9 44.2 53.8 3.5 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 50 0.0 4.0 46.0 50.0 3.5 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 52 0.0 1.9 46.2 51.9 3.5 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 50 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 53 1.9 1.9 35.8 60.4 3.5 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 53 0.0 1.9 9.4 88.7 3.9 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 51 0.0 0.0 37.3 62.7 3.6 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 53 0.0 3.8 32.1 64.2 3.6 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 52 0.0 13.5 26.9 59.6 3.5 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 52 0.0 0.0 44.2 55.8 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 51 0.0 5.9 31.4 62.7 3.6 0.61 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 52 0.0 11.5 38.5 50.0 3.4 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 48 0.0 16.7 45.8 37.5 3.2 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 52 0.0 5.8 38.5 55.8 3.5 0.61 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 53 1.9 11.3 34.0 52.8 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 53 3.8 3.8 35.8 56.6 3.5 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 52 1.9 3.8 23.1 71.2 3.6 0.66 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 343 001L1 ASIAN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Giles, Don % % 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 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 20 5.0 20.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.83 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 21 0.0 9.5 47.6 42.9 3.3 0.66 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 20 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 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 = 76 Number of forms scanned = 53 Number of forms with at least one student response = 53 Percent completed = 69.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 63.6 Sophomore 4 18.2 B 7 31.8 Junior 10 45.5 C 1 4.5 Senior 8 36.4 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 27.3 Studies Program 4 18.2 2 hours 6 27.3 Required by my major 10 45.5 3 hours 6 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 8 36.4 4 - 5 hours 3 13.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 4.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 0.0 4.2 33.3 62.5 3.6 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8 3.7 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 4.2 0.0 20.8 75.0 3.7 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8 3.7 0.56 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 0.0 4.2 37.5 58.3 3.5 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 24 0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8 3.7 0.56 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 0.0 8.3 37.5 54.2 3.5 0.66 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 0.0 8.3 12.5 79.2 3.7 0.62 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 26 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 92.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 340 001L1 INTRO TO FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 53.8 Sophomore 1 7.7 B 6 46.2 Junior 6 46.2 C 0 0.0 Senior 6 46.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 7.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 1 7.7 3 hours 5 38.5 Other (e.g. elective) 12 92.3 4 - 5 hours 3 23.1 6 - 7 hours 1 7.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 13.3 26.7 60.0 3.5 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 13.3 33.3 53.3 3.4 0.74 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 13.3 6.7 80.0 3.7 0.72 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 14.3 50.0 35.7 3.2 0.70 % % % % 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 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 340 001L1 INTRO TO FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy % % 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 = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 100 006L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holbrook Jr, Paul E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 8 72.7 A 6 54.5 Sophomore 2 18.2 B 5 45.5 Junior 1 9.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 45.5 Studies Program 8 72.7 2 hours 4 36.4 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 3 27.3 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 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 23.5 35.3 41.2 3.2 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 5.9 35.3 58.8 3.5 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 35.3 47.1 17.6 2.8 0.73 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 11.8 47.1 41.2 3.3 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 6.7 26.7 33.3 33.3 2.9 0.96 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 5.9 58.8 35.3 3.3 0.59 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 17.6 23.5 41.2 17.6 2.6 1.00 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 35.3 41.2 23.5 2.9 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 18.8 43.8 37.5 3.2 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 100 006L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holbrook Jr, Paul 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 3 33.3 0.0 0.0 66.7 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 60.7 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 251 001L1 PHI & CLASSICAL PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jankovic, Vladimir SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 22.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 23 63.9 Junior 15 40.5 C 4 11.1 Senior 22 59.5 D 1 2.8 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 10 27.8 Studies Program 33 91.7 2 hours 14 38.9 Required by my major 2 5.6 3 hours 6 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.8 4 - 5 hours 6 16.7 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 38 2.6 13.2 71.1 13.2 2.9 0.61 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 37 8.1 27.0 56.8 8.1 2.6 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 35 11.4 14.3 65.7 8.6 2.7 0.79 4. Exams reflected what was taught 38 2.6 15.8 68.4 13.2 2.9 0.63 5. Grading was fair and consistent 37 13.5 16.2 59.5 10.8 2.7 0.85 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 36 5.6 8.3 75.0 11.1 2.9 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 38 0.0 13.2 76.3 10.5 3.0 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 38 10.5 36.8 44.7 7.9 2.5 0.80 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 38 10.5 26.3 52.6 10.5 2.6 0.82 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 38 0.0 0.0 39.5 60.5 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 32 0.0 9.4 75.0 15.6 3.1 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 37 8.1 8.1 62.2 21.6 3.0 0.80 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 37 13.5 24.3 48.6 13.5 2.6 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 38 2.6 13.2 57.9 26.3 3.1 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 36 5.6 11.1 75.0 8.3 2.9 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 33 9.1 27.3 57.6 6.1 2.6 0.75 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 30 13.3 43.3 36.7 6.7 2.4 0.81 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 38 7.9 5.3 73.7 13.2 2.9 0.71 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 37 13.5 45.9 29.7 10.8 2.4 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 38 13.2 28.9 55.3 2.6 2.5 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 38 10.5 21.1 47.4 21.1 2.8 0.91 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 251 001L1 PHI & CLASSICAL PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jankovic, Vladimir % % 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 23 13.0 8.7 65.2 13.0 2.8 0.85 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 26 3.8 15.4 69.2 11.5 2.9 0.65 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 24 12.5 12.5 66.7 8.3 2.7 0.81 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 21 0.0 0.0 61.9 38.1 3.4 0.50 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 = 65 Number of forms scanned = 39 Number of forms with at least one student response = 38 Percent completed = 58.5 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 251 002L1 PHI & CLASSICAL PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jankovic, Vladimir SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 19.2 Sophomore 7 25.9 B 14 53.8 Junior 12 44.4 C 6 23.1 Senior 8 29.6 D 1 3.8 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 26.9 Studies Program 23 85.2 2 hours 4 15.4 Required by my major 2 7.4 3 hours 6 23.1 Other (e.g. elective) 2 7.4 4 - 5 hours 4 15.4 6 - 7 hours 2 7.7 8 or more hours 3 11.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 27 0.0 18.5 70.4 11.1 2.9 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 3.7 29.6 51.9 14.8 2.8 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 11.5 26.9 50.0 11.5 2.6 0.85 4. Exams reflected what was taught 27 3.7 3.7 81.5 11.1 3.0 0.55 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 7.4 11.1 74.1 7.4 2.8 0.68 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 27 7.4 14.8 66.7 11.1 2.8 0.74 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 3.8 84.6 11.5 3.1 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 7.4 14.8 70.4 7.4 2.8 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 7.4 14.8 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.83 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 7.7 26.9 65.4 3.6 0.64 11. Was available for consultation 24 8.3 12.5 58.3 20.8 2.9 0.83 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 3.7 11.1 59.3 25.9 3.1 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 20.0 8.0 48.0 24.0 2.8 1.05 14. Encouraged class participation 26 7.7 19.2 57.7 15.4 2.8 0.80 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 4.0 20.0 64.0 12.0 2.8 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 8.3 25.0 58.3 8.3 2.7 0.76 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1 2.6 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 19.2 65.4 15.4 3.0 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 23.1 26.9 38.5 11.5 2.4 0.98 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 11.1 33.3 40.7 14.8 2.6 0.89 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 14.8 14.8 48.1 22.2 2.8 0.97 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 251 002L1 PHI & CLASSICAL PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jankovic, Vladimir % % 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 12 33.3 0.0 41.7 25.0 2.6 1.24 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 8.3 16.7 50.0 25.0 2.9 0.90 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 10 10.0 10.0 70.0 10.0 2.8 0.79 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 = 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 320 002L1 SYMBOLIC LOGIC I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lehner, Christoph SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 17.6 Sophomore 5 27.8 B 6 35.3 Junior 5 27.8 C 6 35.3 Senior 8 44.4 D 2 11.8 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 5.6 Studies Program 6 35.3 2 hours 3 16.7 Required by my major 7 41.2 3 hours 7 38.9 Other (e.g. elective) 4 23.5 4 - 5 hours 7 38.9 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 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 31.6 21.1 36.8 10.5 2.3 1.05 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 10.5 21.1 57.9 10.5 2.7 0.82 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 5.3 10.5 63.2 21.1 3.0 0.75 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 5.3 5.3 63.2 26.3 3.1 0.74 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 5.3 26.3 68.4 0.0 2.6 0.60 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 11.1 22.2 61.1 5.6 2.6 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 21.1 52.6 21.1 5.3 2.1 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 5.3 47.4 47.4 3.4 0.61 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 5.3 21.1 57.9 15.8 2.8 0.76 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 41.2 29.4 23.5 5.9 1.9 0.97 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 31.6 68.4 0.0 2.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 14.3 57.1 21.4 7.1 2.2 0.80 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 11.1 16.7 50.0 22.2 2.8 0.92 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 11.8 23.5 47.1 17.6 2.7 0.92 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 10.5 10.5 68.4 10.5 2.8 0.79 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 47.4 15.8 31.6 5.3 1.9 1.03 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 26.3 47.4 26.3 0.0 2.0 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 21.1 36.8 36.8 5.3 2.3 0.87 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 320 002L1 SYMBOLIC LOGIC I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lehner, Christoph % % 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 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 42.9 14.3 42.9 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 16.7 33.3 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 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 expect