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 = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 101 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Glenn B SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 20 80.0 A 24 100.0 Sophomore 4 16.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 4.0 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 24 96.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 4.0 Required by my major 23 92.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 8.0 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 27 0.0 0.0 18.5 81.5 3.8 0.40 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 77.3 22.7 3.2 0.43 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 3.8 53.8 42.3 3.4 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 0.0 0.0 40.7 59.3 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 14.8 85.2 3.9 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 27 0.0 0.0 18.5 81.5 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 27 0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45 14. Encouraged class participation 27 0.0 0.0 7.4 92.6 3.9 0.27 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 8.3 54.2 37.5 3.3 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 22.7 50.0 27.3 3.0 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 27 0.0 3.7 25.9 70.4 3.7 0.55 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 3.7 40.7 55.6 3.5 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 0.0 14.8 85.2 3.9 0.36 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 101 001L1 INTRODUCTION TO BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Collins, Glenn B % % 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 = 33 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 81.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 201 001L1 SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dawson, Karl A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 16 84.2 Sophomore 12 63.2 B 3 15.8 Junior 4 21.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 15.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 17 89.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 10.5 Required by my major 19 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 37.5 12.5 37.5 12.5 2.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 16.7 0.0 33.3 50.0 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 16.7 55.6 22.2 2.9 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 20 5.0 0.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 12.5 56.3 31.3 3.2 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 3.4 0.59 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 15.8 57.9 26.3 3.1 0.66 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 15.0 55.0 30.0 3.2 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 3.4 0.59 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 201 001L1 SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Dawson, Karl 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 = 31 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 64.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 201 001L2 SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Houtz, Robert L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 17 85.0 Sophomore 13 65.0 B 3 15.0 Junior 4 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 15.0 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 19 95.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 5.0 Required by my major 20 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 37.5 25.0 25.0 12.5 2.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 6.7 13.3 46.7 33.3 3.1 0.88 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 15.8 57.9 26.3 3.1 0.66 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 15.0 55.0 30.0 3.2 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 201 001L2 SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Houtz, Robert L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 31 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 64.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 101 001L2 INTRODUCTION TO BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mcdowell, Karen J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 16 76.2 A 20 100.0 Sophomore 4 19.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 4.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 20 95.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 4.8 Required by my major 19 90.5 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 9.5 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 27 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 0.0 37.0 63.0 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 0.0 42.3 57.7 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.42 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 0.0 3.7 44.4 51.9 3.5 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 18.5 81.5 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 27 0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 3.8 15.4 80.8 3.8 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 0.0 3.8 46.2 50.0 3.5 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 8.3 54.2 37.5 3.3 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.76 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 27 0.0 3.7 29.6 66.7 3.6 0.56 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 3.7 40.7 55.6 3.5 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 0.0 18.5 81.5 3.8 0.40 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 101 001L2 INTRODUCTION TO BIOTECHNOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mcdowell, Karen 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 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 = 33 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 81.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 401 001L1 TECHNICAL WRITING AND PRESENTATIONS IN BIOTECH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Schardl, Christopher L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 75.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 25.0 Junior 2 25.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 6 75.0 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 50.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 37.5 Required by my major 8 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 12.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 37.5 25.0 37.5 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 28.6 28.6 14.3 28.6 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 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 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Biotechnology FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = ABT 401 001L1 TECHNICAL WRITING AND PRESENTATIONS IN BIOTECH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Schardl, Christopher L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 9 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 88.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 201 001L1 INTRO TO FARM & NATURAL RESOURCE FINANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 34.6 Sophomore 6 22.2 B 13 50.0 Junior 10 37.0 C 4 15.4 Senior 11 40.7 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 13 48.1 Studies Program 2 7.4 2 hours 9 33.3 Required by my major 17 63.0 3 hours 3 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 8 29.6 4 - 5 hours 1 3.7 6 - 7 hours 1 3.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 28 0.0 7.1 82.1 10.7 3.0 0.43 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 11.5 46.2 26.9 15.4 2.5 0.90 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 3.6 67.9 28.6 3.3 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 10.7 3.6 67.9 17.9 2.9 0.81 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 0.0 82.1 17.9 3.2 0.39 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 0.0 7.1 75.0 17.9 3.1 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 3.6 28.6 53.6 14.3 2.8 0.74 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 21.4 57.1 21.4 3.0 0.67 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 60.7 39.3 3.4 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 0.0 78.6 21.4 3.2 0.42 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 3.6 25.0 57.1 14.3 2.8 0.72 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 21.4 60.7 17.9 3.0 0.64 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 10.7 78.6 10.7 3.0 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 0.0 17.9 60.7 21.4 3.0 0.64 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 0.0 32.1 53.6 14.3 2.8 0.67 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 0.0 39.3 39.3 21.4 2.8 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 29.6 51.9 18.5 2.9 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 201 001L1 INTRO TO FARM & NATURAL RESOURCE FINANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 38 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 73.7 % 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 at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 620 001L1 ADV PRODUCTION ECO I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 100.0 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 8 88.9 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 11.1 4 - 5 hours 4 44.4 6 - 7 hours 1 11.1 8 or more hours 1 11.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 12.5 0.0 50.0 37.5 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 620 001L1 ADV PRODUCTION ECO I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Debertin, David L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 9 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 445G001L1 INTRO RESOURCE/ENVIR ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fleming, Ronald SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 20.0 Junior 5 50.0 C 2 20.0 Senior 5 50.0 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 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 60.0 Required by my major 7 70.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 30.0 4 - 5 hours 2 20.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 45.5 36.4 18.2 0.0 1.7 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 445G001L1 INTRO RESOURCE/ENVIR ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fleming, Ronald % % 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 73.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 624 001L1 ADV QUANT METHS IN AEC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fleming, Ronald SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 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 6 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 33.3 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 3 50.0 % % 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 16.7 0.0 66.7 16.7 2.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 16.7 0.0 83.3 0.0 2.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 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 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 16.7 33.3 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 624 001L1 ADV QUANT METHS IN AEC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fleming, Ronald % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 75.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 324 001L1 AGRICULTURAL LAW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Foree, Robert SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 44.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 13 44.8 Junior 11 35.5 C 3 10.3 Senior 20 64.5 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 8 25.8 Studies Program 1 3.2 2 hours 7 22.6 Required by my major 12 38.7 3 hours 10 32.3 Other (e.g. elective) 18 58.1 4 - 5 hours 5 16.1 6 - 7 hours 1 3.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 31 0.0 0.0 61.3 38.7 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 6.5 16.1 54.8 22.6 2.9 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 3.8 23.1 53.8 19.2 2.9 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 30 0.0 6.7 50.0 43.3 3.4 0.61 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 0.0 0.0 61.3 38.7 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 8.3 16.7 58.3 16.7 2.8 0.82 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 30 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 30 0.0 13.3 50.0 36.7 3.2 0.68 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 31 0.0 6.5 54.8 38.7 3.3 0.60 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 31 0.0 0.0 38.7 61.3 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 29 0.0 20.7 58.6 20.7 3.0 0.65 12. Satisfact answered class questions 30 0.0 0.0 56.7 43.3 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 31 3.2 12.9 41.9 41.9 3.2 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 31 0.0 0.0 54.8 45.2 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 31 0.0 3.2 64.5 32.3 3.3 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 31 0.0 9.7 71.0 19.4 3.1 0.54 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 3.2 3.2 51.6 41.9 3.3 0.70 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 31 3.2 16.1 51.6 29.0 3.1 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 31 3.2 9.7 45.2 41.9 3.3 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 30 3.3 6.7 43.3 46.7 3.3 0.76 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 324 001L1 AGRICULTURAL LAW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Foree, Robert % % 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 = 33 Number of forms scanned = 31 Number of forms with at least one student response = 31 Percent completed = 93.9 % 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 at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 304 001L1 MACROECONOMIC CONCEPTS IN AG ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 22 62.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 34.3 Junior 18 51.4 C 0 0.0 Senior 17 48.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 2.9 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 16 45.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 25.7 Required by my major 34 97.1 3 hours 5 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.9 4 - 5 hours 4 11.4 6 - 7 hours 1 2.9 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 36 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 36 0.0 2.8 52.8 44.4 3.4 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 37 0.0 2.7 40.5 56.8 3.5 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 37 0.0 0.0 37.8 62.2 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 37 0.0 2.7 40.5 56.8 3.5 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 37 0.0 0.0 32.4 67.6 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 37 0.0 2.7 51.4 45.9 3.4 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 37 0.0 10.8 43.2 45.9 3.4 0.68 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 37 0.0 0.0 45.9 54.1 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 35 0.0 0.0 45.7 54.3 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 37 0.0 0.0 51.4 48.6 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 37 2.7 16.2 45.9 35.1 3.1 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 37 0.0 10.8 45.9 43.2 3.3 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 34 0.0 11.8 64.7 23.5 3.1 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 37 5.4 5.4 54.1 35.1 3.2 0.78 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 37 5.4 8.1 45.9 40.5 3.2 0.82 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 37 0.0 8.1 51.4 40.5 3.3 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 37 5.4 21.6 48.6 24.3 2.9 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 36 5.6 5.6 41.7 47.2 3.3 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 35 2.9 8.6 25.7 62.9 3.5 0.78 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 304 001L1 MACROECONOMIC CONCEPTS IN AG ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan % % 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 = 48 Number of forms scanned = 37 Number of forms with at least one student response = 37 Percent completed = 77.1 % 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 = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 401L1 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 11 100.0 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 1 9.1 Required by my major 5 45.5 3 hours 1 9.1 Other (e.g. elective) 6 54.5 4 - 5 hours 4 36.4 6 - 7 hours 5 45.5 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 7.7 7.7 38.5 46.2 3.2 0.93 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 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 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 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 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 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 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 14.3 14.3 71.4 3.6 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 401L1 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan % % 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 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 93.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 001L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 48.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 48.0 Junior 2 8.0 C 1 4.0 Senior 22 88.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.0 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 28.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 32.0 Required by my major 20 80.0 3 hours 7 28.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 20.0 4 - 5 hours 2 8.0 6 - 7 hours 1 4.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 26 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 8.3 20.8 54.2 16.7 2.8 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 0.0 42.3 57.7 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 3.8 50.0 46.2 3.4 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 7.7 34.6 57.7 3.5 0.65 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 0.0 19.2 80.8 3.8 0.40 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 0.0 3.8 96.2 4.0 0.20 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.43 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 26 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 0.0 57.7 42.3 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 3.8 7.7 46.2 42.3 3.3 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.43 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 0.0 0.0 3.8 96.2 4.0 0.20 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 001L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven % % 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 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 33. Amount of work appropriate 19 0.0 5.3 21.1 73.7 3.7 0.58 34. Instructor explained expectations 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 35. Instructor helped with my problems 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 29 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 89.7 % 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 at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 002L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 30.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 61.5 Junior 1 7.7 C 1 7.7 Senior 11 84.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 7.7 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 53.8 Studies Program 1 7.7 2 hours 2 15.4 Required by my major 7 53.8 3 hours 3 23.1 Other (e.g. elective) 5 38.5 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 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 53.8 46.2 0.0 2.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 302 002L1 AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Isaacs, Steven % % 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 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 33. Amount of work appropriate 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 34. Instructor explained expectations 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 35. Instructor helped with my problems 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 29 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 44.8 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 001L1 TOPS AEC:SENIOR SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 69.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 23.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 3.8 Senior 27 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 3.8 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 30.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 23.1 Required by my major 27 100.0 3 hours 8 30.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 15.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 28 0.0 0.0 46.4 53.6 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 3.8 76.9 19.2 3.2 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 0.0 67.9 32.1 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 3.7 14.8 55.6 25.9 3.0 0.76 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 0.0 0.0 48.1 51.9 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 0.0 0.0 37.0 63.0 3.6 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 28 0.0 0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 0.0 46.4 53.6 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 4.0 36.0 60.0 3.6 0.58 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 27 0.0 7.4 51.9 40.7 3.3 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 3.6 42.9 53.6 3.5 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 0.0 3.6 46.4 50.0 3.5 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 0.0 3.7 40.7 55.6 3.5 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 0.0 12.5 41.7 45.8 3.3 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 0.0 3.6 50.0 46.4 3.4 0.57 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 300 001L1 TOPS AEC:SENIOR SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 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 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 28. Guided student report preparation 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 29. Students free to express opinions 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 31. Developed abil to conduct research 14 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 34 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 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 at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL MARKETING PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 2.4 A 6 14.0 Sophomore 8 19.0 B 29 67.4 Junior 16 38.1 C 7 16.3 Senior 17 40.5 D 1 2.3 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 5 11.6 Studies Program 1 2.3 2 hours 15 34.9 Required by my major 32 74.4 3 hours 15 34.9 Other (e.g. elective) 9 20.9 4 - 5 hours 7 16.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 2.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 48 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 48 2.1 2.1 64.6 31.3 3.3 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 48 0.0 2.1 58.3 39.6 3.4 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 48 0.0 4.2 52.1 43.8 3.4 0.57 5. Grading was fair and consistent 48 0.0 10.4 50.0 39.6 3.3 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 48 0.0 8.3 54.2 37.5 3.3 0.62 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 48 8.3 33.3 37.5 20.8 2.7 0.90 8. Graded assignments included comments 48 0.0 8.3 56.3 35.4 3.3 0.61 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 48 0.0 2.1 45.8 52.1 3.5 0.55 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 48 0.0 0.0 27.1 72.9 3.7 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 48 0.0 0.0 35.4 64.6 3.6 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 48 0.0 2.1 39.6 58.3 3.6 0.54 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 48 0.0 4.2 50.0 45.8 3.4 0.58 14. Encouraged class participation 48 0.0 0.0 35.4 64.6 3.6 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 47 0.0 2.1 61.7 36.2 3.3 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 48 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 48 0.0 2.1 62.5 35.4 3.3 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 48 0.0 2.1 58.3 39.6 3.4 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 46 4.3 13.0 50.0 32.6 3.1 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 47 0.0 2.1 40.4 57.4 3.6 0.54 21. Overall quality of teaching 46 0.0 2.2 26.1 71.7 3.7 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL MARKETING PRINCIPLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 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 = 54 Number of forms scanned = 48 Number of forms with at least one student response = 48 Percent completed = 88.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 321 001L1 AG FUTURES MARKETS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Maynard, Leigh J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 45.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 45.8 Junior 9 37.5 C 1 4.2 Senior 14 58.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.2 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.2 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 20.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 13 54.2 Required by my major 10 41.7 3 hours 6 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 14 58.3 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 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 16.0 56.0 24.0 4.0 2.2 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 4.0 36.0 60.0 3.6 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 4.0 0.0 32.0 64.0 3.6 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 4.0 20.0 76.0 3.7 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 4.0 40.0 56.0 3.5 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 4.0 48.0 48.0 3.4 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 4.0 40.0 56.0 3.5 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 4.0 52.0 44.0 3.4 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 0.0 0.0 79.2 20.8 3.2 0.41 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 3.5 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 0.0 4.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.56 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 321 001L1 AG FUTURES MARKETS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Maynard, Leigh 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 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 = 32 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 78.1 % 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 = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 645 001L1 NATURAL RESOURCE ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pagoulatos, Angelos SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 85.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 14.3 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 16.7 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 83.3 3 hours 2 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 50.0 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 645 001L1 NATURAL RESOURCE ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pagoulatos, Angelos % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 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. Amo