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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 331 001L2 TRANSPORTATION ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 21.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 24 63.2 Junior 22 56.4 C 6 15.8 Senior 17 43.6 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 3 7.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 21.1 Required by my major 37 97.4 3 hours 15 39.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.6 4 - 5 hours 10 26.3 6 - 7 hours 1 2.6 8 or more hours 1 2.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 45 0.0 6.7 73.3 20.0 3.1 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 40 10.0 32.5 50.0 7.5 2.6 0.78 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 45 4.4 22.2 57.8 15.6 2.8 0.74 4. Exams reflected what was taught 45 4.4 20.0 57.8 17.8 2.9 0.75 5. Grading was fair and consistent 45 15.6 20.0 51.1 13.3 2.6 0.91 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 45 2.2 2.2 77.8 17.8 3.1 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 45 2.2 11.1 60.0 26.7 3.1 0.68 8. Graded assignments included comments 45 4.4 17.8 62.2 15.6 2.9 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 45 17.8 26.7 48.9 6.7 2.4 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 45 4.4 4.4 73.3 17.8 3.0 0.64 11. Was available for consultation 39 2.6 15.4 64.1 17.9 3.0 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 45 4.4 24.4 57.8 13.3 2.8 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 45 8.9 51.1 33.3 6.7 2.4 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 45 6.7 20.0 64.4 8.9 2.8 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 37 5.4 16.2 67.6 10.8 2.8 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 44 4.5 6.8 75.0 13.6 3.0 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 44 4.5 6.8 77.3 11.4 3.0 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 44 2.3 9.1 75.0 13.6 3.0 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 43 9.3 37.2 44.2 9.3 2.5 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 45 4.4 22.2 53.3 20.0 2.9 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 45 20.0 37.8 28.9 13.3 2.4 0.96 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 331 001L2 TRANSPORTATION ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 = 56 Number of forms scanned = 45 Number of forms with at least one student response = 45 Percent completed = 80.4 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 599 002L1 TOPS IN CE: TRANSPORTA- TION & LAND USE PLANNING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 55.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 11.1 Senior 1 11.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 88.9 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 2 22.2 Required by my major 3 33.3 3 hours 5 55.6 Other (e.g. elective) 6 66.7 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 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 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 2.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 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 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 9 11.1 0.0 44.4 44.4 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 11.1 11.1 44.4 33.3 3.0 . % % % % 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 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 599 002L1 TOPS IN CE: TRANSPORTA- TION & LAND USE PLANNING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M % % 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 = 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 699 001L2 TOPS IN CE: TRANSPORTA- TION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 100.0 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 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 2 22.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 55.6 Required by my major 4 44.4 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 5 55.6 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 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 22.2 66.7 11.1 2.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 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 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 699 001L2 TOPS IN CE: TRANSPORTA- TION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aultman-Hall, Lisa M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 13 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 69.2 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 582 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 45.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 54.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 10 90.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 9.1 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 9 81.8 3 hours 6 54.5 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 8 or more hours 3 27.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 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 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 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 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 % % % % 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 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 582 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E % % 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 = 13 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 84.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 682 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E 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 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 2 28.6 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 4 - 5 hours 3 42.9 6 - 7 hours 2 28.6 8 or more hours 2 28.6 % % 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 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 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 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 682 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E % % 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 = 7 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 599 001L1 TOPS IN CE:ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 40.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 60.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 5 100.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 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 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 599 001L1 TOPS IN CE:ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail % % 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 = 7 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 71.4 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 401S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 25.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 25 92.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 7.4 E/Fail 2 7.4 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 15 55.6 Studies Program 1 3.7 2 hours 6 22.2 Required by my major 26 96.3 3 hours 2 7.4 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 3.7 6 - 7 hours 1 3.7 8 or more hours 2 7.4 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 28 7.1 3.6 53.6 35.7 3.2 0.82 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 11.1 11.1 66.7 11.1 2.8 0.80 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 10.7 10.7 64.3 14.3 2.8 0.82 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 7.7 0.0 80.8 11.5 3.0 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 14.3 17.9 50.0 17.9 2.7 0.94 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 3.6 0.0 75.0 21.4 3.1 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 7.1 3.6 64.3 25.0 3.1 0.77 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 14.3 14.3 60.7 10.7 2.7 0.86 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 7.1 3.6 67.9 21.4 3.0 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 3.7 0.0 66.7 29.6 3.2 0.64 11. Was available for consultation 27 11.1 7.4 70.4 11.1 2.8 0.79 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 7.1 7.1 64.3 21.4 3.0 0.77 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 14.3 3.6 67.9 14.3 2.8 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 28 7.1 7.1 60.7 25.0 3.0 0.79 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 4.2 4.2 79.2 12.5 3.0 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 3.8 15.4 61.5 19.2 3.0 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 4.0 16.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 3.8 11.5 65.4 19.2 3.0 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 3.8 23.1 53.8 19.2 2.9 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 14.8 18.5 44.4 22.2 2.7 0.98 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 14.8 11.1 59.3 14.8 2.7 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 401S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 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 = 29 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 96.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 402S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 19 76.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 24.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 24 96.0 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 10 40.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 11 44.0 Required by my major 25 100.0 3 hours 4 16.0 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 26 0.0 7.7 65.4 26.9 3.2 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 0.0 18.2 68.2 13.6 3.0 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 4.3 4.3 78.3 13.0 3.0 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 2.9 0.81 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 7.7 7.7 73.1 11.5 2.9 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 7.7 65.4 26.9 3.2 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 3.8 7.7 69.2 19.2 3.0 0.66 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 12.0 32.0 44.0 12.0 2.6 0.87 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 3.8 0.0 65.4 30.8 3.2 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 3.8 0.0 46.2 50.0 3.4 0.70 11. Was available for consultation 20 5.0 10.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.76 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 3.8 0.0 65.4 30.8 3.2 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 7.7 11.5 65.4 15.4 2.9 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 26 3.8 0.0 65.4 30.8 3.2 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 3.8 7.7 65.4 23.1 3.1 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 4.0 8.0 76.0 12.0 3.0 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 7.7 0.0 84.6 7.7 2.9 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 3.8 0.0 73.1 23.1 3.2 0.61 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 12.0 16.0 68.0 4.0 2.6 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 32.0 52.0 16.0 2.8 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 401 402S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, 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 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 14.3 0.0 85.7 0.0 2.7 . 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 = 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 351 002L1 INTRO ENVIRONMENTAL EGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Deitsch, James SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 54.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 14 42.4 Junior 11 33.3 C 1 3.0 Senior 21 63.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 3.0 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 6.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 12 36.4 Required by my major 30 90.9 3 hours 10 30.3 Other (e.g. elective) 3 9.1 4 - 5 hours 6 18.2 6 - 7 hours 3 9.1 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 33 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 33 0.0 24.2 63.6 12.1 2.9 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 33 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 33 0.0 0.0 39.4 60.6 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 33 0.0 0.0 51.5 48.5 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 33 0.0 3.0 57.6 39.4 3.4 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 33 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 32 0.0 9.4 68.8 21.9 3.1 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 33 0.0 0.0 51.5 48.5 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 33 0.0 3.0 33.3 63.6 3.6 0.56 11. Was available for consultation 32 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 32 0.0 9.4 65.6 25.0 3.2 0.57 14. Encouraged class participation 32 0.0 9.4 68.8 21.9 3.1 0.55 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 16.0 68.0 16.0 3.0 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 33 0.0 3.0 75.8 21.2 3.2 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 33 0.0 6.1 72.7 21.2 3.2 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 33 0.0 3.0 66.7 30.3 3.3 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 33 0.0 42.4 39.4 18.2 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 33 0.0 9.1 66.7 24.2 3.2 0.57 21. Overall quality of teaching 33 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 351 002L1 INTRO ENVIRONMENTAL EGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Deitsch, 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 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 = 35 Number of forms scanned = 33 Number of forms with at least one student response = 33 Percent completed = 94.3 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 002L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 0 0.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 75.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 12.5 Senior 7 87.5 D 1 12.5 Graduate 1 12.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 7 87.5 3 hours 2 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 1 12.5 6 - 7 hours 2 25.0 8 or more hours 3 37.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 28.6 42.9 14.3 14.3 2.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 12.5 25.0 50.0 12.5 2.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 37.5 62.5 0.0 2.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 25.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 2.9 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 25.0 12.5 62.5 0.0 2.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 25.0 25.0 37.5 12.5 2.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 25.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 2.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . 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 8 25.0 0.0 62.5 12.5 2.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 12.5 25.0 50.0 12.5 2.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 002L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans % % 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 = 16 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 50.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 486G001L1 REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 38.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 4 22.2 Senior 18 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 5.6 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 5.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 16 88.9 3 hours 4 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 11.1 4 - 5 hours 7 38.9 6 - 7 hours 4 22.2 8 or more hours 2 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 18 0.0 16.7 72.2 11.1 2.9 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 30.8 61.5 7.7 2.8 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 5.6 22.2 61.1 11.1 2.8 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 5.6 5.6 77.8 11.1 2.9 0.64 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 11.1 27.8 38.9 22.2 2.7 0.96 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 5.6 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 17.6 35.3 41.2 5.9 2.4 0.86 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 55.6 33.3 11.1 2.6 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 5.6 77.8 16.7 3.1 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 5.6 5.6 55.6 33.3 3.2 0.79 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 11.1 27.8 50.0 11.1 2.6 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 17 11.8 5.9 64.7 17.6 2.9 0.86 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 7.1 28.6 57.1 7.1 2.6 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 22.2 66.7 11.1 2.9 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 29.4 58.8 11.8 2.8 0.64 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 17.6 76.5 5.9 2.9 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 6.3 31.3 50.0 12.5 2.7 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 5.9 52.9 35.3 5.9 2.4 0.71 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 12.5 50.0 31.3 6.3 2.3 0.79 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 486G001L1 REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans % % 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 = 24 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 381 001L1 CIVIL ENGR MATERIALS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 40.0 Junior 1 6.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 13 86.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 6.7 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 3 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 13.3 Required by my major 15 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 9 60.0 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 7.1 7.1 28.6 57.1 3.4 0.93 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 6.7 0.0 60.0 33.3 3.2 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 13.3 46.7 40.0 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 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 381 001L1 CIVIL ENGR MATERIALS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine % % 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 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 60.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 381 002L1 CIVIL ENGR MATERIALS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 63.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 31.8 Junior 2 8.7 C 1 4.5 Senior 21 91.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 13.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 30.4 Required by my major 23 100.0 3 hours 10 43.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 13.0 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 24 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 0.0 16.7 45.8 37.5 3.2 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 4.2 66.7 29.2 3.3 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 0.0 4.2 83.3 12.5 3.1 0.41 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 0.0 8.7 69.6 21.7 3.1 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 8.3 75.0 16.7 3.1 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 0.34 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 0.0 8.3 87.5 4.2 3.0 0.36 14. Encouraged class participation 24 4.2 29.2 58.3 8.3 2.7 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 21.1 63.2 15.8 2.9 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 8.7 78.3 13.0 3.0 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 13.0 73.9 13.0 3.0 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 0.0 26.1 60.9 13.0 2.9 0.63 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 4.3 73.9 21.7 3.2 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 4.3 65.2 30.4 3.3 0.54 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 381 002L1 CIVIL ENGR MATERIALS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine % % 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 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 26 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 92.3 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 381 003L1 CIVIL ENGR MATERIALS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine 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 1 12.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 12.5 Required by my major 8 100.0 3 hours 6 75.0 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 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 12.5 0.0 62.5 25.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . % % % % 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 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 381 003L1 CIVIL ENGR MATERIALS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine % % 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 40.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 16 59.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 26 96.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 3.7 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 1 3.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 18.5 Required by my major 26 96.3 3 hours 9 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.7 4 - 5 hours 10 37.0 6 - 7 hours 2 7.4 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 3.6 0.0 64.3 32.1 3.3 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 17.4 69.6 13.0 3.0 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 3.6 0.0 57.1 39.3 3.3 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 3.6 0.0 46.4 50.0 3.4 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 3.6 0.0 50.0 46.4 3.4 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 3.6 3.6 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.67 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 11.1 18.5 55.6 14.8 2.7 0.86 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 17.9 50.0 32.1 3.1 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 3.6 7.1 53.6 35.7 3.2 0.74 11. Was available for consultation 28 3.6 3.6 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 7.1 46.4 46.4 3.4 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 3.6 21.4 46.4 28.6 3.0 0.82 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 7.1 67.9 25.0 3.2 0.55 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 5.0 5.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.69 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 3.6 0.0 82.1 14.3 3.1 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 3.6 0.0 78.6 17.9 3.1 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 3.6 0.0 78.6 17.9 3.1 0.57 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 14.3 14.3 53.6 17.9 2.8 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 0.0 10.7 64.3 25.0 3.1 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.71 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goble, Christine % % 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 = 34 Number of forms scanned = 28 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 699 001L1 TOPS IN CE: TRANSPORTA- TION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossardt, Ted SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 100.0 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 5 55.6 Required by my major 2 22.2 3 hours 4 44.4 Other (e.g. elective) 7 77.8 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 3.0 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 27.3 27.3 45.5 3.2 0.87 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 699 001L1 TOPS IN CE: TRANSPORTA- TION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossardt, Ted % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 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 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 = 13 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 84.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 120 001A1 INTRO TO CIVIL ENGINEER INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 21 41.2 A 46 92.0 Sophomore 12 23.5 B 3 6.0 Junior 14 27.5 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 7.8 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 1 2.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 39 78.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 12.0 Required by my major 51 100.0 3 hours 5 10.0 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 53 0.0 1.9 56.6 41.5 3.4 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 52 1.9 23.1 57.7 17.3 2.9 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 53 0.0 1.9 66.0 32.1 3.3 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 31 0.0 3.2 71.0 25.8 3.2 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 53 0.0 0.0 52.8 47.2 3.5 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 53 0.0 0.0 56.6 43.4 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 53 0.0 1.9 41.5 56.6 3.5 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 49 0.0 8.2 69.4 22.4 3.1 0.54 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 53 0.0 1.9 60.4 37.7 3.4 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 53 0.0 0.0 43.4 56.6 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 48 0.0 2.1 72.9 25.0 3.2 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 52 0.0 1.9 57.7 40.4 3.4 0.53 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 53 0.0 0.0 54.7 45.3 3.5 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 52 0.0 1.9 53.8 44.2 3.4 0.54 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 48 0.0 4.2 70.8 25.0 3.2 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 51 0.0 2.0 72.5 25.5 3.2 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 51 0.0 5.9 66.7 27.5 3.2 0.54 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 53 0.0 1.9 50.9 47.2 3.5 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 51 0.0 7.8 56.9 35.3 3.3 0.60 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 53 0.0 1.9 50.9 47.2 3.5 0.54 21. Overall quality of teaching 52 0.0 0.0 40.4 59.6 3.6 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 120 001A1 INTRO TO CIVIL ENGINEER INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 59 Number of forms scanned = 54 Number of forms with at least one student response = 53 Percent completed = 89.8 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 120 002A1 INTRO TO CIVIL ENGINEER INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 17 43.6 A 30 76.9 Sophomore 5 12.8 B 5 12.8 Junior 10 25.6 C 2 5.1 Senior 7 17.9 D 1 2.6 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 2.6 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 34 87.2 Studies Program 2 5.1 2 hours 4 10.3 Required by my major 36 92.3 3 hours 1 2.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.6 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 42 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 39 0.0 15.4 48.7 35.9 3.2 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 39 0.0 2.6 51.3 46.2 3.4 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 3.6 42.9 53.6 3.5 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 42 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 40 0.0 0.0 32.5 67.5 3.7 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 42 0.0 0.0 40.5 59.5 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 38 0.0 13.2 44.7 42.1 3.3 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 42 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 42 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 40 0.0 0.0 47.5 52.5 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 42 0.0 0.0 40.5 59.5 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 42 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.48 14. Encouraged class participation 41 0.0 0.0 53.7 46.3 3.5 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 37 0.0 2.7 45.9 51.4 3.5 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 41 0.0 4.9 56.1 39.0 3.3 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 41 0.0 4.9 56.1 39.0 3.3 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 42 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 42 0.0 4.8 50.0 45.2 3.4 0.59 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 42 0.0 4.8 40.5 54.8 3.5 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 41 0.0 2.4 31.7 65.9 3.6 0.54 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 120 002A1 INTRO TO CIVIL ENGINEER INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5