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 = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = LAS 201 001L1 INTRO TO LATIN AMERICA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chassen-Lopez, Francie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 10.0 A 11 37.9 Sophomore 12 40.0 B 11 37.9 Junior 11 36.7 C 6 20.7 Senior 4 13.3 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 3.4 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 17.2 Studies Program 23 79.3 2 hours 8 27.6 Required by my major 2 6.9 3 hours 6 20.7 Other (e.g. elective) 4 13.8 4 - 5 hours 8 27.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 6.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 35 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 35 2.9 11.4 65.7 20.0 3.0 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 35 0.0 8.6 68.6 22.9 3.1 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 34 0.0 5.9 67.6 26.5 3.2 0.54 5. Grading was fair and consistent 35 5.7 22.9 45.7 25.7 2.9 0.85 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 35 2.9 20.0 48.6 28.6 3.0 0.79 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 35 0.0 20.0 57.1 22.9 3.0 0.66 8. Graded assignments included comments 35 0.0 8.6 65.7 25.7 3.2 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 35 0.0 31.4 48.6 20.0 2.9 0.72 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 34 0.0 0.0 38.2 61.8 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 33 6.1 6.1 72.7 15.2 3.0 0.68 12. Satisfact answered class questions 35 5.7 0.0 65.7 28.6 3.2 0.71 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 34 14.7 17.6 44.1 23.5 2.8 0.99 14. Encouraged class participation 35 2.9 5.7 62.9 28.6 3.2 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 35 0.0 2.9 45.7 51.4 3.5 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 34 2.9 11.8 70.6 14.7 3.0 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 7.4 29.6 55.6 7.4 2.6 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 34 2.9 8.8 67.6 20.6 3.1 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 35 14.3 20.0 48.6 17.1 2.7 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 34 8.8 14.7 50.0 26.5 2.9 0.89 21. Overall quality of teaching 34 5.9 35.3 38.2 20.6 2.7 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. Arts and Sciences FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = LAS 201 001L1 INTRO TO LATIN AMERICA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chassen-Lopez, Francie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 6 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 2.7 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 13 7.7 15.4 61.5 15.4 2.8 0.80 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 17 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.49 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 21 0.0 14.3 33.3 52.4 3.4 0.74 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 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 = 48 Number of forms scanned = 35 Number of forms with at least one student response = 35 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 522 001L1 SURVEY OF THE COMEDIA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allen, John J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 36.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 54.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 9.1 Senior 5 45.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 54.5 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 5 45.5 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 6 54.5 4 - 5 hours 5 45.5 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 8 or more hours 3 27.3 % % 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 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 7.7 23.1 69.2 3.6 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 7.1 21.4 50.0 21.4 2.9 0.86 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 14.3 50.0 35.7 3.2 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 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 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 522 001L1 SURVEY OF THE COMEDIA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allen, John J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 004L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 16.7 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 2 33.3 B 1 20.0 Junior 1 16.7 C 1 20.0 Senior 2 33.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 33.3 Studies Program 3 50.0 2 hours 4 66.7 Required by my major 2 33.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 16.7 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 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 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 2.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 14.3 42.9 14.3 28.6 2.6 . % % % % 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 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 004L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 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 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 20 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 40.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 009L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 57.1 Sophomore 10 66.7 B 3 21.4 Junior 5 33.3 C 1 7.1 Senior 0 0.0 D 2 14.3 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 46.7 Studies Program 6 40.0 2 hours 3 20.0 Required by my major 8 53.3 3 hours 5 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.7 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 12.5 6.3 56.3 25.0 2.9 0.93 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 6.3 6.3 68.8 18.8 3.0 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 6.3 6.3 50.0 37.5 3.2 0.83 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 6.3 0.0 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.77 11. Was available for consultation 15 6.7 0.0 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.80 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 6.3 0.0 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.77 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 12.5 37.5 18.8 31.3 2.7 1.08 14. Encouraged class participation 16 6.3 0.0 62.5 31.3 3.2 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 35.7 35.7 28.6 2.9 0.83 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 0.86 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 53.8 15.4 30.8 2.8 0.93 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 35.7 35.7 28.6 2.9 0.83 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 21.4 35.7 7.1 35.7 2.6 1.22 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 18.8 31.3 31.3 18.8 2.5 1.03 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 6.3 12.5 43.8 37.5 3.1 0.89 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 009L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 64.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 016L2 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 40.0 A 3 30.0 Sophomore 4 40.0 B 4 40.0 Junior 2 20.0 C 2 20.0 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 1 10.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 3 30.0 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 4 40.0 3 hours 5 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 30.0 4 - 5 hours 1 10.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 20.0 % % 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 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 13.3 66.7 20.0 3.1 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 21.4 42.9 35.7 3.1 0.77 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 7.7 23.1 38.5 30.8 2.9 0.95 % % % % 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 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 016L2 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % 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 = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 62.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 018L2 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 31.3 A 4 25.0 Sophomore 5 31.3 B 9 56.3 Junior 6 37.5 C 3 18.8 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 31.3 Studies Program 3 20.0 2 hours 5 31.3 Required by my major 5 33.3 3 hours 4 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 46.7 4 - 5 hours 1 6.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 6.3 % % 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 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 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 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 18.8 43.8 37.5 3.2 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 26.7 53.3 20.0 2.9 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 018L2 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 4 0.0 75.0 0.0 25.0 2.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 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 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 66.7 0.0 33.3 2.7 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % 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 = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 66.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 025L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 30.0 A 1 10.0 Sophomore 2 20.0 B 7 70.0 Junior 5 50.0 C 1 10.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 1 10.0 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 60.0 Studies Program 2 20.0 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 6 60.0 3 hours 2 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 20.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 3.1 0.30 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 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 9.1 0.0 63.6 27.3 3.1 0.83 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 9.1 0.0 63.6 27.3 3.1 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 18.2 72.7 9.1 2.9 0.54 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 3.1 0.30 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 3.0 0.45 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 50.0 40.0 10.0 2.6 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 30.0 60.0 10.0 2.8 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 2.7 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 3.0 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 45.5 45.5 0.0 2.4 0.67 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3 3.0 0.89 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 025L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 9 22.2 0.0 77.8 0.0 2.6 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 9 11.1 0.0 88.9 0.0 2.8 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 5 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 = 20 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 55.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 102 005L3 ELEM SPAN II (SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 30.8 A 9 69.2 Sophomore 3 23.1 B 4 30.8 Junior 5 38.5 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 7.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 61.5 Studies Program 5 45.5 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 4 36.4 3 hours 1 7.7 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 4 - 5 hours 1 7.7 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 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 7.1 14.3 50.0 28.6 3.0 0.88 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 7.1 14.3 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 26.7 66.7 6.7 2.8 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 20.0 53.3 26.7 3.1 0.70 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 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 13.3 53.3 33.3 3.2 0.68 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 10.0 0.0 90.0 0.0 2.8 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 22.2 22.2 55.6 0.0 2.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 7.7 0.0 84.6 7.7 2.9 0.64 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 18.2 63.6 9.1 2.7 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.55 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 102 005L3 ELEM SPAN II (SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 6 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 2.7 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 23 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 65.2 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 102 010L3 ELEM SPAN II (SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 10.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 3 30.0 B 3 37.5 Junior 3 30.0 C 1 12.5 Senior 3 30.0 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 66.7 Studies Program 2 22.2 2 hours 1 11.1 Required by my major 7 77.8 3 hours 1 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 5.9 23.5 58.8 11.8 2.8 0.75 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 6.7 6.7 73.3 13.3 2.9 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 6.3 31.3 50.0 12.5 2.7 0.79 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 6.3 25.0 50.0 18.8 2.8 0.83 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 5.9 5.9 76.5 11.8 2.9 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 82.4 17.6 3.2 0.39 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 11.8 52.9 17.6 17.6 2.4 0.94 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 17.6 35.3 29.4 17.6 2.5 1.01 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 52.9 41.2 5.9 2.5 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 17.6 52.9 29.4 3.1 0.70 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 20.0 66.7 13.3 2.9 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 0.68 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 6.3 50.0 37.5 6.3 2.4 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 31.3 62.5 6.3 2.8 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 37.5 56.3 6.3 2.7 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 26.7 60.0 13.3 2.9 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 57.1 28.6 14.3 2.6 0.76 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 35.3 58.8 5.9 2.7 0.59 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 12.5 50.0 25.0 12.5 2.4 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 13.3 33.3 40.0 13.3 2.5 0.92 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 13.3 60.0 20.0 6.7 2.2 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 102 010L3 ELEM SPAN II (SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beasley, Stephanie R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 4 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 2.3 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 81.0 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 211 001L1 SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 71.4 Sophomore 5 35.7 B 4 28.6 Junior 3 21.4 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 35.7 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 4 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 35.7 Required by my major 7 50.0 3 hours 3 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 7 50.0 4 - 5 hours 1 7.1 6 - 7 hours 1 7.1 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 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 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 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 7.7 84.6 7.7 3.0 0.41 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 3.0 0.63 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 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 211 001L1 SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 82.4 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 613 001L1 SPA EPIC&LONG NARR POETR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 66.7 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 33.3 4 - 5 hours 2 66.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 33.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 16.7 0.0 83.3 3.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 613 001L1 SPA EPIC&LONG NARR POETR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal 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 = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 311 005L1 ADV SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Branche, Jerome SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 100.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 50.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 50.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 16.7 0.0 83.3 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . % % % % 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 311 005L1 ADV SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Branche, Jerome % % 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 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 = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 644 001L1 SP AMER POETRY:1910-PRES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Branche, Jerome SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 87.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 12.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 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 66.7 3 hours 2 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 33.3 4 - 5 hours 2 25.0 6 - 7 hours 2 25.0 8 or more hours 2 25.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 12.5 12.5 50.0 25.0 2.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 33.3 11.1 55.6 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 33.3 11.1 11.1 44.4 2.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 33.3 44.4 0.0 22.2 2.1 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 11.1 11.1 33.3 44.4 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 11.1 0.0 33.3 55.6 3.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 12.5 0.0 37.5 50.0 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 22.2 22.2 55.6 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 22.2 33.3 44.4 3.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 11.1 0.0 55.6 33.3 3.1 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 12.5 12.5 37.5 37.5 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 644 001L1 SP AMER POETRY:1910-PRES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Branche, Jerome % % 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 = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 401L2 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Buck, Patrick L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 25.0 A 7 43.8 Sophomore 3 18.8 B 7 43.8 Junior 1 6.3 C 2 12.5 Senior 7 43.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 6.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 18.8 Studies Program 7 43.8 2 hours 1 6.3 Required by my major 6 37.5 3 hours 3 18.8 Other (e.g. elective) 3 18.8 4 - 5 hours 4 25.0 6 - 7 hours 4 25.0 8 or more hours 1 6.3 % % 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 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 3.3 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 7.1 7.1 50.0 35.7 3.1 0.86 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 9.1 18.2 27.3 45.5 3.1 1.04 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.73 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 14.3 7.1 42.9 35.7 3.0 1.04 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 401L2 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Buck, Patrick 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 6 16.7 66.7 0.0 16.7 2.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 8 12.5 12.5 62.5 12.5 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 64.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 002L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 13.3 A 7 46.7 Sophomore 5 33.3 B 6 40.0 Junior 4 26.7 C 2 13.3 Senior 4 26.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 20.0 Studies Program 4 28.6 2 hours 4 26.7 Required by my major 3 21.4 3 hours 2 13.3 Other (e.g. elective) 7 50.0 4 - 5 hours 3 20.0 6 - 7 hours 2 13.3 8 or more hours 1 6.7 % % 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 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 5.9 11.8 35.3 47.1 3.2 0.90 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3 3.2 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 5.9 23.5 70.6 3.6 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 29.4 41.2 29.4 3.0 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 17.6 47.1 35.3 3.2 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 12.5 12.5 56.3 18.8 2.8 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 11.8 0.0 58.8 29.4 3.1 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 002L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa % % 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 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 2.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . 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 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 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 23 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 73.9 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 015L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 7.1 A 9 64.3 Sophomore 5 35.7 B 5 35.7 Junior 6 42.9 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 14.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 50.0 Studies Program 2 16.7 2 hours 2 14.3 Required by my major 8 66.7 3 hours 3 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 2 16.7 4 - 5 hours 2 14.3 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 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 5.3 21.1 42.1 31.6 3.0 0.88 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 21.1 63.2 15.8 2.9 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 5.0 10.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.76 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 5.0 0.0 65.0 30.0 3.2 0.70 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 10.0 65.0 25.0 3.2 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 3.4 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 15.8 52.6 31.6 3.2 0.69 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3 3.2 0.66 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 17.6 52.9 29.4 3.1 0.70 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 6.3 18.8 56.3 18.8 2.9 0.81 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 5.6 5.6 61.1 27.8 3.1 0.76 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 5.9 23.5 47.1 23.5 2.9 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 10.0 5.0 65.0 20.0 3.0 0.83 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 10.0 45.0 45.0 3.4 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 015L3 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa % % 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 6 16.7 0.0 33.3 50.0 3.2 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 102 009L3 ELEM SPAN II (SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 26.7 A 7 46.7 Sophomore 2 13.3 B 5 33.3 Junior 3 20.0 C 3 20.0 Senior 6 40.0 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 10 66.7 Studies Program 4 26.7 2 hours 3 20.0 Required by my major 9 60.0 3 hours 2 13.3 Other (e.g. elective) 2 13.3 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 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 14.3 78.6 7.1 2.9 0.47 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 6.7 86.7 6.7 3.0 0.38 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 86.7 13.3 3.1 0.35 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 6.7 6.7 73.3 13.3 2.9 0.70 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 13.3 73.3 13.3 3.0 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 6.7 40.0 46.7 6.7 2.5 0.74 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 6.7 26.7 60.0 6.7 2.7 0.72 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 90.9 9.1 3.1 0.30 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 73.3 20.0 3.1 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 13.3 26.7 46.7 13.3 2.6 0.91 14. Encouraged class participation 15 6.7 6.7 80.0 6.7 2.9 0.64 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 3.0 0.45 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 33.3 55.6 11.1 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 92.3 7.7 3.1 0.28 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 46.2 46.2 7.7 2.6 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 6.7 26.7 66.7 0.0 2.6 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 6.7 40.0 46.7 6.7 2.5 0.74 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 102 009L3 ELEM SPAN II (SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 6 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 2.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 6 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 2.7 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 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 = 23 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 69.6 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 411G001L1 ADV SPANISH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = De Carvalho, Susan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 55.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 44.4 Junior 1 10.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 9 90.0 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 3 30.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 7 70.0 3 hours 3 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 30.0 4 - 5 hours 1 10.0 6 - 7 hours 1 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 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 8.3 8.3 83.3 3.8 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 9.1 45.5 36.4 3.1 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 8.3 0.0 91.7 3.8 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 411G001L1 ADV SPANISH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = De Carvalho, Susan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Di