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 - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AFS 411 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES IV, AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Morgan, Cheryl SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 100.0 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 4 80.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 20.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 100.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 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 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 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 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 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 - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AFS 411 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES IV, AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Morgan, Cheryl % % 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 at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AFS 311 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Parker, James S SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 14.3 Junior 14 87.5 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 12.5 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 13 86.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 13.3 Required by my major 1 6.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 15 93.8 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 5.9 23.5 70.6 3.6 0.61 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 11.8 11.8 76.5 3.6 0.70 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 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 5.9 5.9 88.2 3.8 0.53 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 5.9 5.9 88.2 3.8 0.53 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 11.8 88.2 3.9 0.33 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 % % % % 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 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AFS 311 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Parker, James S % % 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 94.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AFS 211 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Perry, Peter K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 75.0 Sophomore 3 75.0 B 1 25.0 Junior 1 25.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 50.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 25.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 1 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 100.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . % % % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AFS 211 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Perry, Peter K % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 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 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 = 8 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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 at our UK web page for Assessment & Instituttional Data.