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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 280 001L1 ISSUES IN PUBLIC POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 2 25.0 B 4 50.0 Junior 4 50.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 25.0 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 1 12.5 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 62.5 3 hours 3 37.5 Other (e.g. elective) 2 25.0 4 - 5 hours 3 37.5 6 - 7 hours 1 12.5 8 or more hours 1 12.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 280 001L1 ISSUES IN PUBLIC POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 14 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 57.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 433G001L1 POL INTERNTNL ECON RELAT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 23.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 47.1 Junior 6 35.3 C 1 5.9 Senior 10 58.8 D 1 5.9 Graduate 1 5.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 3 17.6 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 23.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 17.6 Required by my major 9 56.3 3 hours 4 23.5 Other (e.g. elective) 7 43.8 4 - 5 hours 3 17.6 6 - 7 hours 1 5.9 8 or more hours 2 11.8 % % 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 5.6 50.0 44.4 3.4 0.61 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 11.1 72.2 16.7 3.1 0.54 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 11.8 5.9 64.7 17.6 2.9 0.86 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 5.6 22.2 55.6 16.7 2.8 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 5.6 5.6 61.1 27.8 3.1 0.76 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 22.2 38.9 33.3 5.6 2.2 0.88 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 5.6 16.7 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.80 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 16.7 61.1 22.2 3.1 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 13.3 66.7 20.0 3.1 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 5.6 38.9 50.0 5.6 2.6 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 16.7 50.0 27.8 3.0 0.84 14. Encouraged class participation 18 5.6 22.2 61.1 11.1 2.8 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 11.8 76.5 11.8 3.0 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 5.6 5.6 61.1 27.8 3.1 0.76 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 5.6 11.1 72.2 11.1 2.9 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 0.0 72.2 27.8 3.3 0.46 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 5.6 38.9 38.9 16.7 2.7 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 18 5.6 22.2 55.6 16.7 2.8 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 33.3 38.9 27.8 2.9 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 433G001L1 POL INTERNTNL ECON RELAT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 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 = 31 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 58.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 566 001L1 CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 30.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 60.0 Junior 1 10.0 C 1 10.0 Senior 8 80.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 10.0 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 10.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 40.0 3 hours 3 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 60.0 4 - 5 hours 6 60.0 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 11 9.1 0.0 45.5 45.5 3.3 0.90 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3 3.0 0.89 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 9.1 9.1 36.4 45.5 3.2 0.98 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 9.1 9.1 45.5 36.4 3.1 0.94 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 18.2 0.0 54.5 27.3 2.9 1.04 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 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 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3 3.0 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 11 9.1 0.0 45.5 45.5 3.3 0.90 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 2.9 0.83 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 9.1 0.0 54.5 36.4 3.2 0.87 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 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 2.9 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 2.8 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 9.1 18.2 36.4 36.4 3.0 1.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 566 001L1 CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 18 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 61.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 760 001S1 SEMINAR IN JUDICIAL PROCESS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley C 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 1 20.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 80.0 4 - 5 hours 3 60.0 6 - 7 hours 2 40.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 760 001S1 SEMINAR IN JUDICIAL PROCESS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = PS 235 401L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cotter, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 9.1 A 2 18.2 Sophomore 3 27.3 B 7 63.6 Junior 4 36.4 C 2 18.2 Senior 2 18.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 9.1 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 9.1 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 3 27.3 3 hours 5 45.5 Other (e.g. elective) 7 63.6 4 - 5 hours 3 27.3 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 11 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 27.3 18.2 54.5 3.3 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 10 10.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 3.2 1.03 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 40.0 10.0 50.0 3.1 0.99 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 44.4 44.4 11.1 2.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 30.0 10.0 60.0 3.3 0.95 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 18.2 18.2 63.6 3.5 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = PS 235 401L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cotter, 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 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 78.6 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 212 001L1 CULT/POL IN THIRD WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 4.8 A 15 35.7 Sophomore 21 50.0 B 23 54.8 Junior 12 28.6 C 4 9.5 Senior 6 14.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 2.4 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 17 40.5 Studies Program 33 82.5 2 hours 11 26.2 Required by my major 6 15.0 3 hours 9 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.5 4 - 5 hours 1 2.4 6 - 7 hours 3 7.1 8 or more hours 1 2.4 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 43 2.3 2.3 53.5 41.9 3.3 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 43 16.3 30.2 41.9 11.6 2.5 0.91 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 41 14.6 9.8 63.4 12.2 2.7 0.87 4. Exams reflected what was taught 43 0.0 7.0 55.8 37.2 3.3 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 43 0.0 14.0 55.8 30.2 3.2 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 42 7.1 11.9 52.4 28.6 3.0 0.84 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 43 0.0 0.0 62.8 37.2 3.4 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 41 0.0 29.3 39.0 31.7 3.0 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 43 4.7 20.9 39.5 34.9 3.0 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 43 0.0 2.3 62.8 34.9 3.3 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 35 0.0 0.0 51.4 48.6 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 43 2.3 4.7 53.5 39.5 3.3 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 42 14.3 28.6 38.1 19.0 2.6 0.96 14. Encouraged class participation 43 0.0 16.3 55.8 27.9 3.1 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 40 2.5 12.5 52.5 32.5 3.2 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 40 2.5 27.5 45.0 25.0 2.9 0.80 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 36 2.8 30.6 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.75 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 41 0.0 9.8 53.7 36.6 3.3 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 41 17.1 36.6 29.3 17.1 2.5 0.98 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 43 7.0 20.9 53.5 18.6 2.8 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 43 9.3 18.6 46.5 25.6 2.9 0.91 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 212 001L1 CULT/POL IN THIRD WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles L % % 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 10 10.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 2.4 0.70 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 22 4.5 22.7 50.0 22.7 2.9 0.81 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 23 4.3 17.4 52.2 26.1 3.0 0.80 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 24 8.3 8.3 45.8 37.5 3.1 0.90 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 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 = 59 Number of forms scanned = 43 Number of forms with at least one student response = 43 Percent completed = 72.9 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 428G001L1 LATIN AMER GOVT/POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 2.2 A 16 34.0 Sophomore 2 4.3 B 24 51.1 Junior 10 21.7 C 7 14.9 Senior 32 69.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 2.2 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 9 19.1 Studies Program 9 19.1 2 hours 19 40.4 Required by my major 29 61.7 3 hours 8 17.0 Other (e.g. elective) 9 19.1 4 - 5 hours 11 23.4 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 48 2.1 4.2 47.9 45.8 3.4 0.67 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 48 4.2 4.2 70.8 20.8 3.1 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 46 2.2 4.3 69.6 23.9 3.2 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 46 2.2 2.2 63.0 32.6 3.3 0.61 5. Grading was fair and consistent 48 2.1 2.1 58.3 37.5 3.3 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 47 2.1 2.1 59.6 36.2 3.3 0.62 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 48 2.1 6.3 47.9 43.8 3.3 0.69 8. Graded assignments included comments 46 2.2 6.5 63.0 28.3 3.2 0.64 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 48 2.1 10.4 47.9 39.6 3.3 0.73 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 48 2.1 0.0 31.3 66.7 3.6 0.61 11. Was available for consultation 45 2.2 2.2 55.6 40.0 3.3 0.64 12. Satisfact answered class questions 48 2.1 0.0 41.7 56.3 3.5 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 48 6.3 14.6 43.8 35.4 3.1 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 48 2.1 12.5 54.2 31.3 3.1 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 47 4.3 4.3 55.3 36.2 3.2 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 45 4.4 13.3 48.9 33.3 3.1 0.80 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 38 5.3 26.3 44.7 23.7 2.9 0.84 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 48 4.2 0.0 58.3 37.5 3.3 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 46 4.3 26.1 43.5 26.1 2.9 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 47 2.1 10.6 57.4 29.8 3.1 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 47 2.1 12.8 44.7 40.4 3.2 0.76 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 428G001L1 LATIN AMER GOVT/POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 5 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.72 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 10 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.71 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 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 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 = 62 Number of forms scanned = 49 Number of forms with at least one student response = 48 Percent completed = 77.4 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = PS 212 002L1 CULT/POL IN THIRD WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dawahare, Michael SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 12.5 A 22 88.0 Sophomore 13 54.2 B 3 12.0 Junior 6 25.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 4.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 4.2 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 20.0 Studies Program 16 64.0 2 hours 6 24.0 Required by my major 8 32.0 3 hours 9 36.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.0 4 - 5 hours 5 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 28 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.64 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 0.0 3.6 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 3.6 0.0 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 3.6 0.0 28.6 67.9 3.6 0.69 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 7.1 0.0 53.6 39.3 3.3 0.80 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 3.6 0.0 42.9 53.6 3.5 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 7.1 39.3 53.6 3.5 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 28 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 3.6 7.1 28.6 60.7 3.5 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 3.6 25.0 71.4 3.7 0.55 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 3.6 0.0 28.6 67.9 3.6 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 3.6 0.0 35.7 60.7 3.5 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 3.6 0.0 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 0.0 0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 7.1 3.6 32.1 57.1 3.4 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 7.4 33.3 59.3 3.5 0.64 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 3.7 0.0 29.6 66.7 3.6 0.69 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = PS 212 002L1 CULT/POL IN THIRD WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dawahare, Michael % % 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 8.3 8.3 50.0 33.3 3.1 0.90 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 = 61 Number of forms scanned = 31 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 45.9 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 245 001L1 INTRO POLITICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fording, Richard C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 36.4 Sophomore 5 22.7 B 12 54.5 Junior 9 40.9 C 2 9.1 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 7 31.8 Studies Program 1 4.5 2 hours 10 45.5 Required by my major 20 90.9 3 hours 4 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.5 4 - 5 hours 1 4.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 4.5 40.9 54.5 3.5 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 4.8 47.6 47.6 3.4 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 0.0 61.9 38.1 3.4 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 5.9 58.8 35.3 3.3 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 4.8 47.6 47.6 3.4 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 0.0 59.1 40.9 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 0.0 19.0 52.4 28.6 3.1 0.70 % % % % 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 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.46 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 245 001L1 INTRO POLITICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fording, Richard 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 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 24 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 91.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 711 001S1 TOP SEM IN PS:STATISTICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fording, Richard C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 40.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 60.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 90.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 10.0 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 8 72.7 3 hours 4 44.4 Other (e.g. elective) 3 27.3 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 1 11.1 8 or more hours 3 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 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 20.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 2.5 1.08 % % % % 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 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 711 001S1 TOP SEM IN PS:STATISTICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fording, Richard C. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 14 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 78.6 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 101 013L1 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 13 29.5 A 20 47.6 Sophomore 15 34.1 B 16 38.1 Junior 9 20.5 C 6 14.3 Senior 7 15.9 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 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 16 36.4 Studies Program 16 38.1 2 hours 14 31.8 Required by my major 17 40.5 3 hours 10 22.7 Other (e.g. elective) 9 21.4 4 - 5 hours 3 6.8 6 - 7 hours 1 2.3 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 48 0.0 0.0 70.8 29.2 3.3 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 48 0.0 16.7 56.3 27.1 3.1 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 48 2.1 10.4 75.0 12.5 3.0 0.56 4. Exams reflected what was taught 48 2.1 14.6 54.2 29.2 3.1 0.72 5. Grading was fair and consistent 48 0.0 2.1 66.7 31.3 3.3 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 48 0.0 2.1 66.7 31.3 3.3 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 48 0.0 4.2 72.9 22.9 3.2 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 39 5.1 43.6 41.0 10.3 2.6 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 48 4.2 18.8 54.2 22.9 3.0 0.77 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 39 0.0 10.3 69.2 20.5 3.1 0.55 12. Satisfact answered class questions 48 0.0 0.0 64.6 35.4 3.4 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 48 6.3 16.7 54.2 22.9 2.9 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 48 4.2 27.1 60.4 8.3 2.7 0.68 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 41 2.4 17.1 65.9 14.6 2.9 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 44 0.0 25.0 63.6 11.4 2.9 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 37 0.0 24.3 64.9 10.8 2.9 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 47 0.0 12.8 66.0 21.3 3.1 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 47 2.1 31.9 53.2 12.8 2.8 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 48 4.2 18.8 54.2 22.9 3.0 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 48 4.2 18.8 47.9 29.2 3.0 0.81 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 101 013L1 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 13 0.0 15.4 76.9 7.7 2.9 0.49 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 16 0.0 25.0 68.8 6.3 2.8 0.54 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 15 0.0 26.7 53.3 20.0 2.9 0.70 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 2.7 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 65 Number of forms scanned = 48 Number of forms with at least one student response = 48 Percent completed = 73.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 470G001L1 AMERIC POLITICAL PARTIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 23.8 Sophomore 1 4.8 B 11 52.4 Junior 5 23.8 C 3 14.3 Senior 15 71.4 D 1 4.8 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 23.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 42.9 Required by my major 11 55.0 3 hours 5 23.8 Other (e.g. elective) 9 45.0 4 - 5 hours 1 4.8 6 - 7 hours 1 4.8 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 0.0 0.0 76.2 23.8 3.2 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.46 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 0.0 9.5 66.7 23.8 3.1 0.57 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 9.5 66.7 23.8 3.1 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 5.6 22.2 55.6 16.7 2.8 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 5.0 60.0 35.0 3.3 0.57 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 4.8 61.9 33.3 3.3 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 4.8 19.0 61.9 14.3 2.9 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 21 4.8 4.8 61.9 28.6 3.1 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 21.1 57.9 21.1 3.0 0.67 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.55 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 18.8 56.3 25.0 3.1 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 4.8 57.1 38.1 3.3 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 9.5 19.0 42.9 28.6 2.9 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 0.0 28.6 61.9 9.5 2.8 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 4.8 23.8 47.6 23.8 2.9 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 470G001L1 AMERIC POLITICAL PARTIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 37 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 56.8 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = PS 235 004L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gunter, Michael SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 7 25.0 A 9 33.3 Sophomore 8 28.6 B 14 51.9 Junior 6 21.4 C 4 14.8 Senior 7 25.0 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 9 32.1 Studies Program 8 29.6 2 hours 7 25.0 Required by my major 9 33.3 3 hours 7 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 10 37.0 4 - 5 hours 4 14.3 6 - 7 hours 1 3.6 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 32 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 35 2.9 5.7 65.7 25.7 3.1 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 35 2.9 5.7 68.6 22.9 3.1 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 35 2.9 2.9 51.4 42.9 3.3 0.68 5. Grading was fair and consistent 35 0.0 8.6 37.1 54.3 3.5 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 35 2.9 5.7 48.6 42.9 3.3 0.72 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 35 0.0 17.1 54.3 28.6 3.1 0.68 8. Graded assignments included comments 35 0.0 8.6 54.3 37.1 3.3 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 35 11.4 8.6 54.3 25.7 2.9 0.91 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 35 0.0 5.7 48.6 45.7 3.4 0.60 11. Was available for consultation 32 0.0 3.1 56.3 40.6 3.4 0.55 12. Satisfact answered class questions 35 0.0 5.7 42.9 51.4 3.5 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 34 5.9 14.7 47.1 32.4 3.1 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 35 0.0 2.9 34.3 62.9 3.6 0.55 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 31 6.5 6.5 45.2 41.9 3.2 0.84 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 31 3.2 12.9 51.6 32.3 3.1 0.76 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 29 3.4 17.2 51.7 27.6 3.0 0.78 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 34 5.9 8.8 44.1 41.2 3.2 0.84 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 34 8.8 23.5 41.2 26.5 2.9 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 35 5.7 17.1 42.9 34.3 3.1 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 35 11.4 5.7 48.6 34.3 3.1 0.94 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = PS 235 004L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gunter, Michael % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 6 16.7 0.0 33.3 50.0 3.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 55 Number of forms scanned = 36 Number of forms with at least one student response = 35 Percent completed = 63.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 480G001L1 GOVERNMENT & THE ECONOMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hager, Gregory L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 40.0 Sophomore 1 4.0 B 11 44.0 Junior 7 28.0 C 4 16.0 Senior 10 40.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 28.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 8.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 37.5 Required by my major 9 36.0 3 hours 7 29.2 Other (e.g. elective) 16 64.0 4 - 5 hours 5 20.8 6 - 7 hours 1 4.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 4.0 72.0 24.0 3.2 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 4.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 4.2 70.8 25.0 3.2 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 0.0 72.0 28.0 3.3 0.46 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 0.0 4.0 56.0 40.0 3.4 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 4.2 4.2 62.5 29.2 3.2 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 4.0 8.0 48.0 40.0 3.2 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 16.0 52.0 32.0 3.2 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 12.0 60.0 28.0 3.2 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 4.0 36.0 60.0 3.6 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 0.0 86.4 13.6 3.1 0.35 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 0.0 65.2 34.8 3.3 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 5.6 0.0 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.75 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 0.0 69.6 30.4 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 0.0 17.4 56.5 26.1 3.1 0.67 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 8.0 52.0 40.0 3.3 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 12.0 24.0 64.0 3.5 0.71 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 480G001L1 GOVERNMENT & THE ECONOMY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hager, Gregory L. % % 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 36 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 72.2 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 680 001S1 PROSEM POL INSTS PROC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hager, Gregory L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 37.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 62.5 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 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 50.0 3 hours 1 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 50.0 4 - 5 hours 2 25.0 6 - 7 hours 4 50.0 8 or more hours 1 12.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 680 001S1 PROSEM POL INSTS PROC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hager, Gregory L. % % 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 9 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 210 001L1 INTRO EURO POL:EAST/WEST INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Irvin, Cynthia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 38.5 Sophomore 2 15.4 B 6 46.2 Junior 6 46.2 C 2 15.4 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 1 7.7 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 8.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 33.3 Required by my major 9 69.2 3 hours 5 41.7 Other (e.g. elective) 4 30.8 4 - 5 hours 1 8.3 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 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 7.7 0.0 38.5 53.8 3.4 0.87 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 % % % % 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 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 210 001L1 INTRO EURO POL:EAST/WEST INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Irvin, Cynthia % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 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 = 16 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 81.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 412G001L1 COMP GOVT-PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Irvin, Cynthia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 20.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 73.3 Junior 2 13.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 12 80.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 6.7 Pass or Audit 1 6.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 13.3 Studies Program 1 6.7 2 hours 9 60.0 Required by my major 11 73.3 3 hours 1 6.7 Other (e.g. elective) 3 20.0 4 - 5 hours 2 13.3 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 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 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 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 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 5.9 29.4 64.7 3.6 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 412G001L1 COMP GOVT-PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Irvin, Cynthia % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 63.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 235 001L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kaufman, Stuart SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 8 57.1 A 4 30.8 Sophomore 2 14.3 B 9 69.2 Junior 2 14.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 7.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 7.1 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 23.1 Studies Program 3 23.1 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 6 46.2 3 hours 5 38.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 30.8 4 - 5 hours 2 15.4 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 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 26.7 46.7 26.7 3.0 0.76 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 0.36 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 14.3 64.3 21.4 3.1 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 20.0 53.3 26.7 3.1 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 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 235 001L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kaufman, Stuart % % Strongly % % Strongly