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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 107 001L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 5.3 A 17 29.8 Sophomore 36 63.2 B 10 17.5 Junior 13 22.8 C 25 43.9 Senior 4 7.0 D 4 7.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 1.8 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 1.8 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 5.5 Studies Program 9 15.8 2 hours 10 18.2 Required by my major 42 73.7 3 hours 14 25.5 Other (e.g. elective) 6 10.5 4 - 5 hours 15 27.3 6 - 7 hours 9 16.4 8 or more hours 4 7.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 67 3.0 1.5 62.7 32.8 3.3 0.64 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 67 4.5 13.4 49.3 32.8 3.1 0.80 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 67 6.0 0.0 55.2 38.8 3.3 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 67 4.5 6.0 62.7 26.9 3.1 0.71 5. Grading was fair and consistent 67 3.0 6.0 62.7 28.4 3.2 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 67 0.0 6.0 64.2 29.9 3.2 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 60 1.7 1.7 50.0 46.7 3.4 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 38 18.4 28.9 26.3 26.3 2.6 1.08 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 66 6.1 12.1 48.5 33.3 3.1 0.84 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 66 3.0 3.0 45.5 48.5 3.4 0.70 11. Was available for consultation 67 1.5 1.5 59.7 37.3 3.3 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 67 7.5 9.0 46.3 37.3 3.1 0.87 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 65 13.8 26.2 43.1 16.9 2.6 0.93 14. Encouraged class participation 61 8.2 27.9 42.6 21.3 2.8 0.88 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 50 2.0 20.0 58.0 20.0 3.0 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 62 0.0 8.1 58.1 33.9 3.3 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 64 1.6 3.1 60.9 34.4 3.3 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 64 1.6 7.8 67.2 23.4 3.1 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 61 11.5 37.7 39.3 11.5 2.5 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 65 3.1 18.5 63.1 15.4 2.9 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 64 7.8 14.1 42.2 35.9 3.1 0.91 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 107 001L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet F % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 8 12.5 0.0 62.5 25.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 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 = 147 Number of forms scanned = 137 Number of forms with at least one student response = 67 Percent completed = 45.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 232 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anthony, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 15.1 Sophomore 4 7.3 B 20 37.7 Junior 31 56.4 C 16 30.2 Senior 20 36.4 D 8 15.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 1.9 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 10 18.5 Required by my major 53 96.4 3 hours 12 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 3.6 4 - 5 hours 14 25.9 6 - 7 hours 12 22.2 8 or more hours 6 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 57 0.0 0.0 50.9 49.1 3.5 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 58 1.7 5.2 48.3 44.8 3.4 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 47 2.1 6.4 53.2 38.3 3.3 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 58 0.0 5.2 56.9 37.9 3.3 0.57 5. Grading was fair and consistent 58 0.0 6.9 55.2 37.9 3.3 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 39 2.6 0.0 48.7 48.7 3.4 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 55 0.0 1.8 38.2 60.0 3.6 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 47 0.0 31.9 48.9 19.1 2.9 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 58 0.0 3.4 41.4 55.2 3.5 0.57 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 57 0.0 0.0 17.5 82.5 3.8 0.38 11. Was available for consultation 55 0.0 1.8 40.0 58.2 3.6 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 55 0.0 7.3 41.8 50.9 3.4 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 56 3.6 23.2 33.9 39.3 3.1 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 58 1.7 6.9 37.9 53.4 3.4 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 41 12.2 9.8 58.5 19.5 2.9 0.88 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 58 0.0 1.7 55.2 43.1 3.4 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 58 0.0 5.2 55.2 39.7 3.3 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 58 1.7 5.2 53.4 39.7 3.3 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 55 9.1 38.2 29.1 23.6 2.7 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 58 0.0 15.5 36.2 48.3 3.3 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 57 0.0 5.3 24.6 70.2 3.6 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 232 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anthony, John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 112 Number of forms scanned = 111 Number of forms with at least one student response = 58 Percent completed = 51.8 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 001L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 57.1 Sophomore 3 42.9 B 3 42.9 Junior 2 28.6 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 28.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 14.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 28.6 Required by my major 7 100.0 3 hours 3 42.9 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 14.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 55.6 44.4 0.0 2.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 37.5 62.5 0.0 2.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 44.4 55.6 0.0 2.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 33.3 55.6 11.1 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 001L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 56.3 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 002L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 16.7 Sophomore 1 14.3 B 3 50.0 Junior 3 42.9 C 2 33.3 Senior 3 42.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 14.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 6 85.7 3 hours 4 57.1 Other (e.g. elective) 1 14.3 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 2.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 14.3 0.0 57.1 28.6 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 14.3 0.0 57.1 28.6 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.0 2.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 14.3 14.3 42.9 28.6 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 28.6 28.6 42.9 0.0 2.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 16.7 33.3 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 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 7 14.3 0.0 57.1 28.6 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 14.3 0.0 57.1 28.6 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 16.7 33.3 33.3 16.7 2.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 226 002L1 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G % % 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 = 8 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 87.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 115 001A2 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Botha, Francois SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 3.4 A 14 24.1 Sophomore 43 74.1 B 27 46.6 Junior 10 17.2 C 15 25.9 Senior 3 5.2 D 2 3.4 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 5.3 Studies Program 5 8.8 2 hours 9 15.8 Required by my major 48 84.2 3 hours 18 31.6 Other (e.g. elective) 4 7.0 4 - 5 hours 13 22.8 6 - 7 hours 11 19.3 8 or more hours 3 5.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 62 0.0 9.7 67.7 22.6 3.1 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 62 1.6 6.5 61.3 30.6 3.2 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 62 3.2 8.1 64.5 24.2 3.1 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 62 11.3 21.0 54.8 12.9 2.7 0.84 5. Grading was fair and consistent 62 6.5 14.5 67.7 11.3 2.8 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 62 0.0 11.3 64.5 24.2 3.1 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 61 0.0 0.0 65.6 34.4 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 47 2.1 34.0 57.4 6.4 2.7 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 62 6.5 30.6 53.2 9.7 2.7 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 61 0.0 4.9 60.7 34.4 3.3 0.56 11. Was available for consultation 59 1.7 1.7 72.9 23.7 3.2 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 62 1.6 21.0 54.8 22.6 3.0 0.71 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 61 18.0 36.1 36.1 9.8 2.4 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 62 11.3 29.0 43.5 16.1 2.6 0.89 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 43 9.3 37.2 44.2 9.3 2.5 0.80 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 62 6.5 9.7 67.7 16.1 2.9 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 62 3.2 12.9 66.1 17.7 3.0 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 62 4.8 9.7 69.4 16.1 3.0 0.68 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 61 19.7 42.6 34.4 3.3 2.2 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 62 6.5 21.0 59.7 12.9 2.8 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 61 19.7 19.7 45.9 14.8 2.6 0.98 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 115 001A2 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Botha, Francois % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 14 0.0 28.6 64.3 7.1 2.8 0.58 33. Amount of work appropriate 14 0.0 21.4 71.4 7.1 2.9 0.53 34. Instructor explained expectations 13 7.7 7.7 69.2 15.4 2.9 0.76 35. Instructor helped with my problems 12 8.3 8.3 66.7 16.7 2.9 0.79 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 90 Number of forms scanned = 90 Number of forms with at least one student response = 62 Percent completed = 68.9 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 115 002A2 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Botha, Francois SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 9.4 A 8 25.0 Sophomore 15 46.9 B 15 46.9 Junior 8 25.0 C 6 18.8 Senior 4 12.5 D 1 3.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 2 6.3 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 6.3 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 2 6.3 2 hours 5 15.6 Required by my major 25 78.1 3 hours 10 31.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 12.5 4 - 5 hours 9 28.1 6 - 7 hours 4 12.5 8 or more hours 3 9.4 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 35 2.9 8.6 65.7 22.9 3.1 0.66 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 35 8.6 11.4 62.9 17.1 2.9 0.80 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 34 8.8 8.8 64.7 17.6 2.9 0.79 4. Exams reflected what was taught 35 11.4 25.7 57.1 5.7 2.6 0.78 5. Grading was fair and consistent 35 0.0 22.9 68.6 8.6 2.9 0.55 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 34 0.0 8.8 73.5 17.6 3.1 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 35 2.9 0.0 71.4 25.7 3.2 0.58 8. Graded assignments included comments 29 10.3 44.8 37.9 6.9 2.4 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 34 8.8 20.6 55.9 14.7 2.8 0.82 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 35 0.0 0.0 65.7 34.3 3.3 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 34 0.0 11.8 73.5 14.7 3.0 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 35 2.9 8.6 62.9 25.7 3.1 0.68 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 35 17.1 28.6 42.9 11.4 2.5 0.92 14. Encouraged class participation 33 6.1 27.3 48.5 18.2 2.8 0.82 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 27 3.7 40.7 48.1 7.4 2.6 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 35 2.9 20.0 62.9 14.3 2.9 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 34 5.9 20.6 50.0 23.5 2.9 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 35 11.4 8.6 62.9 17.1 2.9 0.85 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 34 14.7 47.1 32.4 5.9 2.3 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 35 14.3 11.4 60.0 14.3 2.7 0.89 21. Overall quality of teaching 34 8.8 26.5 47.1 17.6 2.7 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 115 002A2 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Botha, Francois % % 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 58 Number of forms scanned = 58 Number of forms with at least one student response = 35 Percent completed = 60.3 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 115 003A2 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Botha, Francois SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 8 15.7 A 6 11.8 Sophomore 29 56.9 B 25 49.0 Junior 9 17.6 C 14 27.5 Senior 5 9.8 D 6 11.8 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 11.8 Studies Program 5 9.8 2 hours 4 7.8 Required by my major 45 88.2 3 hours 19 37.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.0 4 - 5 hours 11 21.6 6 - 7 hours 8 15.7 8 or more hours 3 5.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 54 1.9 3.7 66.7 27.8 3.2 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 54 9.3 22.2 44.4 24.1 2.8 0.91 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 53 1.9 17.0 66.0 15.1 2.9 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 54 22.2 33.3 38.9 5.6 2.3 0.88 5. Grading was fair and consistent 54 5.6 18.5 61.1 14.8 2.9 0.74 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 54 3.7 11.1 70.4 14.8 3.0 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 53 0.0 0.0 66.0 34.0 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 49 18.4 36.7 36.7 8.2 2.3 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 54 9.3 44.4 37.0 9.3 2.5 0.79 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 54 0.0 0.0 59.3 40.7 3.4 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 54 5.6 7.4 68.5 18.5 3.0 0.70 12. Satisfact answered class questions 54 5.6 11.1 66.7 16.7 2.9 0.71 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 53 24.5 41.5 28.3 5.7 2.2 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 51 11.8 29.4 51.0 7.8 2.5 0.81 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 42 7.1 42.9 45.2 4.8 2.5 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 53 3.8 20.8 60.4 15.1 2.9 0.71 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 53 5.7 13.2 69.8 11.3 2.9 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 53 5.7 24.5 60.4 9.4 2.7 0.71 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 50 30.0 48.0 20.0 2.0 1.9 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 54 16.7 33.3 42.6 7.4 2.4 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 53 18.9 39.6 32.1 9.4 2.3 0.89 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 115 003A2 GENERAL CHEMISTRY LAB INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Botha, Francois % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 8 0.0 37.5 62.5 0.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 6 16.7 16.7 66.7 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 8 25.0 12.5 37.5 25.0 2.6 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 9 11.1 11.1 77.8 0.0 2.7 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 9 11.1 33.3 44.4 11.1 2.6 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 8 25.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 9 11.1 0.0 88.9 0.0 2.8 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 71 Number of forms scanned = 70 Number of forms with at least one student response = 54 Percent completed = 76.1 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 532 001L1 SPECTROMET ID-ORG COMPND INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cammers-Goodwin, Arthur SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 48.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 36.0 Junior 8 32.0 C 3 12.0 Senior 6 24.0 D 1 4.0 Graduate 11 44.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 8.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 16.0 Required by my major 17 68.0 3 hours 6 24.0 Other (e.g. elective) 8 32.0 4 - 5 hours 11 44.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 8.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 4.0 72.0 24.0 3.2 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 4.0 20.0 64.0 12.0 2.8 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 4.0 8.0 60.0 28.0 3.1 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 4.0 16.0 64.0 16.0 2.9 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 4.0 24.0 48.0 24.0 2.9 0.81 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 0.0 4.2 54.2 41.7 3.4 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 8.0 68.0 24.0 3.2 0.55 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 16.7 29.2 45.8 8.3 2.5 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 4.0 40.0 44.0 12.0 2.6 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 4.0 36.0 60.0 3.6 0.58 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 16.0 60.0 24.0 3.1 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 12.5 16.7 41.7 29.2 2.9 0.99 14. Encouraged class participation 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 11.8 76.5 11.8 3.0 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 4.2 54.2 41.7 3.4 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.61 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 18.2 4.5 45.5 31.8 2.9 1.06 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 28.0 44.0 28.0 3.0 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 12.0 36.0 28.0 24.0 2.6 0.99 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 532 001L1 SPECTROMET ID-ORG COMPND INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cammers-Goodwin, Arthur % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 32 Number of forms scanned = 32 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 001L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 57.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 7 100.0 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 1 14.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 14.3 Required by my major 6 85.7 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 14.3 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 8 or more hours 1 14.3 % % 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 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 37.5 25.0 37.5 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 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 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 522 001L1 INSTRUMENTAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 580 001L1 TOPICS IN CHEMISTRY: CHEMICAL SAFETY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Enoch, Harry SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 90.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 9.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 27.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 72.7 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 72.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 18.2 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 11 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 9.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 28.6 35.7 35.7 3.1 0.83 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 28.6 0.0 57.1 14.3 2.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 7.1 14.3 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.77 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.73 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 21.4 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 7.1 7.1 64.3 21.4 3.0 0.78 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 7.1 42.9 35.7 14.3 2.6 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 42.9 35.7 21.4 2.8 0.80 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 8.3 83.3 8.3 3.0 0.43 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 8.3 16.7 66.7 8.3 2.8 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 7.1 28.6 42.9 21.4 2.8 0.89 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 7.1 28.6 57.1 7.1 2.6 0.74 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 580 001L1 TOPICS IN CHEMISTRY: CHEMICAL SAFETY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Enoch, Harry % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 87.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 538 001L1 PRIN OF ORGANIC CHE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, Robert SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 46.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 6.7 Senior 1 6.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 14 93.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 6.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 6.7 2 hours 1 6.7 Required by my major 13 86.7 3 hours 2 13.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.7 4 - 5 hours 6 40.0 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 5 33.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 6.3 6.3 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.77 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 6.3 12.5 56.3 25.0 3.0 0.82 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 20.0 53.3 26.7 3.1 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 6.7 13.3 60.0 20.0 2.9 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 16 6.3 0.0 81.3 12.5 3.0 0.63 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 8.3 0.0 75.0 16.7 3.0 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 6.7 13.3 73.3 6.7 2.8 0.68 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 6.7 13.3 20.0 60.0 3.3 0.98 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 538 001L1 PRIN OF ORGANIC CHE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, 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 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 59.3 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Haddon, Robert C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 3.3 A 12 40.0 Sophomore 16 53.3 B 9 30.0 Junior 8 26.7 C 6 20.0 Senior 2 6.7 D 1 3.3 Graduate 1 3.3 E/Fail 1 3.3 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 6.7 Pass or Audit 1 3.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 3.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 13.3 Required by my major 26 86.7 3 hours 8 26.7 Other (e.g. elective) 4 13.3 4 - 5 hours 7 23.3 6 - 7 hours 6 20.0 8 or more hours 3 10.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 33 0.0 0.0 51.5 48.5 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 33 0.0 3.0 30.3 66.7 3.6 0.55 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 4.3 13.0 47.8 34.8 3.1 0.81 4. Exams reflected what was taught 34 0.0 8.8 64.7 26.5 3.2 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 33 0.0 3.0 66.7 30.3 3.3 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 7.1 14.3 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.77 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 34 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 25.0 45.0 20.0 10.0 2.2 0.93 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 34 5.9 26.5 55.9 11.8 2.7 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 34 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 29 0.0 3.4 58.6 37.9 3.3 0.55 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 0.0 18.2 51.5 30.3 3.1 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 33 9.1 39.4 39.4 12.1 2.5 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 32 6.3 31.3 53.1 9.4 2.7 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 21.1 52.6 21.1 2.9 0.81 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 33 6.1 6.1 63.6 24.2 3.1 0.75 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 32 6.3 3.1 65.6 25.0 3.1 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 34 2.9 5.9 73.5 17.6 3.1 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 34 14.7 47.1 29.4 8.8 2.3 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 34 2.9 17.6 61.8 17.6 2.9 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 33 9.1 27.3 42.4 21.2 2.8 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Haddon, Robert C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 = 128 Number of forms scanned = 128 Number of forms with at least one student response = 34 Percent completed = 26.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 003L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, F. James SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 56 80.0 A 12 17.1 Sophomore 8 11.4 B 28 40.0 Junior 4 5.7 C 21 30.0 Senior 1 1.4 D 6 8.6 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 3 4.3 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 1.4 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 4.3 Studies Program 7 10.1 2 hours 17 24.3 Required by my major 60 87.0 3 hours 20 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 1.4 4 - 5 hours 19 27.1 6 - 7 hours 5 7.1 8 or more hours 5 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 71 1.4 0.0 56.3 42.3 3.4 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 71 2.8 9.9 67.6 19.7 3.0 0.64 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 71 1.4 8.5 63.4 26.8 3.2 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 70 4.3 20.0 55.7 20.0 2.9 0.76 5. Grading was fair and consistent 71 1.4 5.6 62.0 31.0 3.2 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 69 0.0 0.0 60.9 39.1 3.4 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 64 0.0 0.0 48.4 51.6 3.5 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 40 27.5 37.5 27.5 7.5 2.2 0.92 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 71 4.2 18.3 54.9 22.5 3.0 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 71 0.0 4.2 52.1 43.7 3.4 0.57 11. Was available for consultation 64 3.1 6.3 56.3 34.4 3.2 0.70 12. Satisfact answered class questions 71 8.5 11.3 53.5 26.8 3.0 0.85 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 70 8.6 27.1 45.7 18.6 2.7 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 70 1.4 5.7 51.4 41.4 3.3 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 54 3.7 27.8 55.6 13.0 2.8 0.72 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 68 0.0 19.1 58.8 22.1 3.0 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 70 0.0 18.6 54.3 27.1 3.1 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 71 1.4 14.1 62.0 22.5 3.1 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 68 11.8 45.6 32.4 10.3 2.4 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 70 4.3 20.0 57.1 18.6 2.9 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 69 7.2 24.6 39.1 29.0 2.9 0.91 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 003L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, F. James % % 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 34 2.9 11.8 70.6 14.7 3.0 0.63 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 32 3.1 25.0 62.5 9.4 2.8 0.66 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 16.7 16.7 33.3 33.3 2.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 16.7 33.3 16.7 33.3 2.7 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 170 Number of forms scanned = 164 Number of forms with at least one student response = 71 Percent completed = 41.8 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, F. James SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 93 86.1 A 26 24.1 Sophomore 12 11.1 B 47 43.5 Junior 1 0.9 C 28 25.9 Senior 1 0.9 D 3 2.8 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 4 3.7 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 0.9 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 11 10.2 Studies Program 22 20.4 2 hours 33 30.6 Required by my major 80 74.1 3 hours 35 32.4 Other (e.g. elective) 5 4.6 4 - 5 hours 24 22.2 6 - 7 hours 1 0.9 8 or more hours 4 3.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 117 0.9 0.0 62.4 36.8 3.4 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 117 5.1 6.8 60.7 27.4 3.1 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 117 0.9 8.5 49.6 41.0 3.3 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 117 3.4 11.1 60.7 24.8 3.1 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 117 0.0 5.1 59.0 35.9 3.3 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 117 0.0 1.7 59.0 39.3 3.4 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 106 0.9 0.9 41.5 56.6 3.5 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 58 22.4 44.8 20.7 12.1 2.2 0.94 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 117 1.7 12.8 52.1 33.3 3.2 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 117 0.0 0.9 41.9 57.3 3.6 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 112 0.9 4.5 60.7 33.9 3.3 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 117 2.6 18.8 47.9 30.8 3.1 0.77 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 115 3.5 29.6 44.3 22.6 2.9 0.80 14. Encouraged class participation 117 0.9 12.0 58.1 29.1 3.2 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 84 3.6 32.1 50.0 14.3 2.8 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 114 0.9 9.6 68.4 21.1 3.1 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 116 0.9 9.5 67.2 22.4 3.1 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 115 0.9 7.8 68.7 22.6 3.1 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 113 10.6 49.6 30.1 9.7 2.4 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 116 1.7 16.4 59.5 22.4 3.0 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 115 1.7 20.9 37.4 40.0 3.2 0.81 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 105 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, F. James % % 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 58 1.7 15.5 69.0 13.8 2.9 0.60 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 53 3.8 20.8 66.0 9.4 2.8 0.65 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 30 3.3 26.7 56.7 13.3 2.8 0.71 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 9 11.1 77.8 11.1 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 9 11.1 33.3 55.6 0.0 2.4 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 186 Number of forms scanned = 181 Number of forms with at least one student response = 118 Percent completed = 63.4 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 002L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meier, Mark S SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 0.8 A 77 58.8 Sophomore 86 65.6 B 38 29.0 Junior 30 22.9 C 16 12.2 Senior 14 10.7 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 12 9.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 33 25.2 Required by my major 118 90.8 3 hours 42 32.1 Other (e.g. elective) 12 9.2 4 - 5 hours 24 18.3 6 - 7 hours 12 9.2 8 or more hours 8 6.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 136 0.0 0.0 27.9 72.1 3.7 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 136 0.0 2.2 40.4 57.4 3.6 0.54 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 78 0.0 10.3 51.3 38.5 3.3 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 135 0.0 3.0 40.7 56.3 3.5 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 136 0.0 6.6 41.2 52.2 3.5 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 84 0.0 3.6 38.1 58.3 3.5 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 132 0.0 0.8 14.4 84.8 3.8 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 103 4.9 27.2 43.7 24.3 2.9 0.84 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 136 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.38 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 136 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.33 11. Was available for consultation 125 1.6 0.8 28.8 68.8 3.6 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 136 0.0 2.2 23.5 74.3 3.7 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 136 0.0 5.1 32.4 62.5 3.6 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 134 0.0 5.2 35.8 59.0 3.5 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 85 0.0 12.9 60.0 27.1 3.1 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 134 0.0 1.5 41.8 56.7 3.6 0.53 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 136 0.0 5.1 40.4 54.4 3.5 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 135 0.0 2.2 39.3 58.5 3.6 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 129 3.9 30.2 43.4 22.5 2.8 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 136 0.7 1.5 39.7 58.1 3.6 0.57 21. Overall quality of teaching 134 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.25 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 002L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Meier, Mark 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 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 199 Number of forms scanned = 197 Number of forms with at least one student response = 136 Percent completed = 68.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 231 001A2 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY LAB I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Patwardhan, Manjiri SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 36 59.0 Sophomore 35 58.3 B 21 34.4 Junior 20 33.3 C 4 6.6 Senior 4 6.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 1.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 10.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 16 26.7 Required by my major 57 95.0 3 hours 20 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 3 5.0 4 - 5 hours 13 21.7 6 - 7 hours 4 6.7 8 or more hours 1 1.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 68 0.0 1.5 63.2 35.3 3.3 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 68 2.9 11.8 57.4 27.9 3.1 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 67 0.0 9.0 67.2 23.9 3.1 0.56 4. Exams reflected what was taught 64 3.1 15.6 65.6 15.6 2.9 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 63 3.2 12.7 61.9 22.2 3.0 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 66 0.0 4.5 71.2 24.2 3.2 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 57 1.8 3.5 70.2 24.6 3.2 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 55 1.8 34.5 47.3 16.4 2.8 0.74 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 68 1.5 7.4 60.3 30.9 3.2 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 68 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 65 0.0 6.2 63.1 30.8 3.2 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 67 0.0 4.5 62.7 32.8 3.3 0.55 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 67 4.5 31.3 53.7 10.4 2.7 0.72 14. Encouraged class participation 65 3.1 29.2 60.0 7.7 2.7 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 43 2.3 16.3 67.4 14.0 2.9 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 68 0.0 4.4 63.2 32.4 3.3 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 68 0.0 8.8 61.8 29.4 3.2 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 68 0.0 2.9 63.2 33.8 3.3 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 66 10.6 43.9 34.8 10.6 2.5 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 68 0.0 19.1 52.9 27.9 3.1 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 68 1.5 16.2 44.1 38.2 3.2 0.76 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 231 001A2 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY LAB I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Patwardhan, Manjiri % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 53 3.8 11.3 62.3 22.6 3.0 0.71 33. Amount of work appropriate 53 3.8 13.2 62.3 20.8 3.0 0.71 34. Instructor explained expectations 52 1.9 0.0 69.2 28.8 3.3 0.56 35. Instructor helped with my problems 52 0.0 23.1 59.6 17.3 2.9 0.64 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 53 0.0 18.9 62.3 18.9 3.0 0.62 % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 74 Number of forms scanned = 74 Number of forms with at least one student response = 68 Percent completed = 91.9 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 231 003A2 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY LAB I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Patwardhan, Manjiri SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 2.3 A 25 58.1 Sophomore 21 48.8 B 15 34.9 Junior 11 25.6 C 2 4.7 Senior 9 20.9 D 1 2.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 2.3 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 9.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 9 20.9 Required by my major 41 97.6 3 hours 20 46.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.4 4 - 5 hours 7 16.3 6 - 7 hours 3 7.0 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 50 0.0 2.0 60.0 38.0 3.4 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 49 4.1 10.2 59.2 26.5 3.1 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 48 2.1 4.2 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 49 0.0 6.1 71.4 22.4 3.2 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 50 0.0 4.0 72.0 24.0 3.2 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 50 2.0 0.0 72.0 26.0 3.2 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 48 2.1 8.3 60.4 29.2 3.2 0.66 8. Graded assignments included comments 45 0.0 28.9 51.1 20.0 2.9 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 50 2.0 2.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 50 2.0 0.0 48.0 50.0 3.5 0.61 11. Was available for consultation 42 2.4 2.4 57.1 38.1 3.3 0.64 12. Satisfact answered class questions 50 2.0 4.0 62.0 32.0 3.2 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 49 2.0 32.7 51.0 14.3 2.8 0.71 14. Encouraged class participation 46 2.2 15.2 58.7 23.9 3.0 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 39 2.6 23.1 56.4 17.9 2.9 0.72 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 50 0.0 2.0 76.0 22.0 3.2 0.45 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 49 0.0 4.1 75.5 20.4 3.2 0.47 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 50 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.46 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 48 8.3 41.7 37.5 12.5 2.5 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 50 0.0 10.0 68.0 22.0 3.1 0.56 21. Overall quality of teaching 50 2.0 2.0 52.0 44.0 3.4 0.64 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 231 003A2 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY LAB I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Patwardhan, Manjiri % % 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 42 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.56 33. Amount of work appropriate 42 4.8 7.1 66.7 21.4 3.0 0.70 34. Instructor explained expectations 42 2.4 4.8 54.8 38.1 3.3 0.67 35. Instructor helped with my problems 41 2.4 4.9 70.7 22.0 3.1 0.60 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 42 4.8 26.2 52.4 16.7 2.8 0.77 % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 58 Number of forms scanned = 58 Number of forms with at least one student response = 50 Percent completed = 86.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 231 004A2 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY LAB I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Patwardhan, Manjiri SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 1.9 A 29 54.7 Sophomore 28 52.8 B 15 28.3 Junior 16 30.2 C 9 17.0 Senior 7 13.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 1.9 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 7.5 Studies Program 2 3.8 2 hours 21 39.6 Required by my major 49 92.5 3 hours 19 35.8 Other (e.g. elective) 2 3.8 4 - 5 hours 5 9.4 6 - 7 hours 3 5.7 8 or more hours 1 1.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 56 0.0 1.8 66.1 32.1 3.3 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 57 0.0 14.0 61.4 24.6 3.1 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 55 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 54 1.9 18.5 57.4 22.2 3.0 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 56 3.6 10.7 67.9 17.9 3.0 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 56 0.0 0.0 78.6 21.4 3.2 0.41 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 49 0.0 8.2 71.4 20.4 3.1 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 48 6.3 33.3 45.8 14.6 2.7 0.80 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 57 1.8 7.0 59.6 31.6 3.2 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 57 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 54 0.0 3.7 70.4 25.9 3.2 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 57 0.0 5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.53 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 55 0.0 41.8 45.5 12.7 2.7 0.69 14. Encouraged class participation 56 0.0 39.3 46.4 14.3 2.8 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 35 0.0 22.9 68.6 8.6 2.9 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 54 0.0 5.6 74.1 20.4 3.1 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 55 0.0 9.1 70.9 20.0 3.1 0.53 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 55 0.0 9.1 69.1 21.8 3.1 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 53 7.5 43.4 39.6 9.4 2.5 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 56 0.0 16.1 69.6 14.3 3.0 0.56 21. Overall quality of teaching 56 1.8 14.3 55.4 28.6 3.1 0.71 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 231 004A2 ORG