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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 001L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 8 42.1 A 11 57.9 Sophomore 4 21.1 B 6 31.6 Junior 4 21.1 C 2 10.5 Senior 3 15.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 26.3 Studies Program 4 21.1 2 hours 4 21.1 Required by my major 12 63.2 3 hours 9 47.4 Other (e.g. elective) 3 15.8 4 - 5 hours 1 5.3 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 21 0.0 4.8 38.1 57.1 3.5 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 4.8 28.6 66.7 3.6 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9 0.30 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.2 3.8 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.2 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.2 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 4.0 0.22 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 23.5 76.5 3.8 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 0.0 19.0 81.0 3.8 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 10.0 55.0 35.0 3.3 0.64 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 001L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 002L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 18.2 A 1 9.1 Sophomore 3 27.3 B 6 54.5 Junior 2 18.2 C 4 36.4 Senior 4 36.4 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 9.1 Studies Program 4 36.4 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 5 45.5 3 hours 4 36.4 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 4 - 5 hours 2 18.2 6 - 7 hours 1 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 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 0.87 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 16.7 25.0 58.3 3.4 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 33.3 41.7 25.0 2.9 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 36.4 36.4 27.3 2.9 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 002L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie 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 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 = 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 003L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 6 50.0 A 7 53.8 Sophomore 3 25.0 B 3 23.1 Junior 1 8.3 C 3 23.1 Senior 2 16.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 23.1 Studies Program 3 23.1 2 hours 1 7.7 Required by my major 6 46.2 3 hours 5 38.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 30.8 4 - 5 hours 4 30.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 30.8 61.5 7.7 2.8 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 23.1 69.2 3.6 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 7.7 23.1 69.2 3.6 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 23.1 15.4 61.5 3.4 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 7.7 7.7 84.6 3.8 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 25.0 41.7 33.3 3.1 0.79 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 15.4 30.8 53.8 3.4 0.77 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 36.4 18.2 45.5 3.1 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 15.4 23.1 61.5 3.5 0.78 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 7.7 15.4 76.9 3.7 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 003L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.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 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 17 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 76.5 % 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 001L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 41.7 A 7 58.3 Sophomore 3 25.0 B 5 41.7 Junior 2 16.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 16.7 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 2 16.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 41.7 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 4 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 12 100.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 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 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 % % % % 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 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 001L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 85.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 310 002L1 FRENCH PHONETICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 60.0 Sophomore 3 21.4 B 6 40.0 Junior 7 50.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 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 6.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 13.3 Required by my major 12 80.0 3 hours 7 46.7 Other (e.g. elective) 3 20.0 4 - 5 hours 4 26.7 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 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 13.3 33.3 53.3 3.4 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 7.1 21.4 71.4 3.6 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 7.1 21.4 71.4 3.6 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 310 002L1 FRENCH PHONETICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fults, J.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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 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 = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 93.8 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 304 001L1 INTRO TO FRENCH LIT I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, Raymond C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 12.5 A 4 26.7 Sophomore 3 18.8 B 9 60.0 Junior 5 31.3 C 2 13.3 Senior 6 37.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 37.5 Required by my major 12 75.0 3 hours 8 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 25.0 4 - 5 hours 2 12.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 6.7 73.3 20.0 3.1 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 26.7 53.3 20.0 2.9 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 12.5 68.8 18.8 3.1 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 13 7.7 7.7 53.8 30.8 3.1 0.86 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 6.3 75.0 18.8 3.1 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 6.3 18.8 50.0 25.0 2.9 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 25.0 56.3 18.8 2.9 0.68 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 26.7 46.7 26.7 3.0 0.76 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 8.3 83.3 8.3 3.0 0.43 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 13.3 33.3 26.7 26.7 2.7 1.05 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 20.0 53.3 26.7 3.1 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 304 001L1 INTRO TO FRENCH LIT I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, Raymond 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 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 20 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 507 001L1 INTERPRETATION & STYLE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, Raymond C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 11.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 77.8 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 1 11.1 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 11.1 Required by my major 8 88.9 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 11.1 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 4 44.4 8 or more hours 3 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 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 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 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . % % % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 507 001L1 INTERPRETATION & STYLE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, Raymond 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 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 306 001L1 INTERMED FR COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 22.2 Sophomore 3 33.3 B 4 44.4 Junior 3 33.3 C 2 22.2 Senior 3 33.3 D 1 11.1 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 22.2 Required by my major 7 77.8 3 hours 1 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 2 22.2 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 6 - 7 hours 4 44.4 8 or more hours 1 11.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 11.1 0.0 44.4 44.4 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 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 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 33.3 11.1 11.1 44.4 2.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 11.1 11.1 77.8 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 87.5 0.0 12.5 2.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 11.1 33.3 44.4 11.1 2.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 11.1 33.3 33.3 22.2 2.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 55.6 33.3 11.1 2.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 22.2 11.1 55.6 11.1 2.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 33.3 55.6 11.1 2.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 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 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 25.0 0.0 62.5 12.5 2.6 . % % % % 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 22.2 55.6 11.1 11.1 2.1 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 306 001L1 INTERMED FR COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 90.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 465G001L1 TOPICS:INTELLECTUAL HIST OF 20TH CENT FRANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 0 0.0 Sophomore 2 28.6 B 5 100.0 Junior 1 14.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 57.1 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 20.0 3 hours 2 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 80.0 4 - 5 hours 3 50.0 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 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 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 . 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 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 465G001L1 TOPICS:INTELLECTUAL HIST OF 20TH CENT FRANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 7 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 350 001L1 CULTURAL PROFILES OF FRANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 1 16.7 B 2 33.3 Junior 1 16.7 C 1 16.7 Senior 4 66.7 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 1 16.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 6 100.0 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 50.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 16.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 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 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 350 001L1 CULTURAL PROFILES OF FRANCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 406 001L1 ADV FRENCH GRAMMAR/COMP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 63.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 27.3 Junior 1 9.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 10 90.9 D 1 9.1 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 9.1 Required by my major 11 100.0 3 hours 5 45.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 18.2 6 - 7 hours 2 18.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 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 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 % % % % 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 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 406 001L1 ADV FRENCH GRAMMAR/COMP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Peters, Jeffrey % % 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 = 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 91.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 002L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pickens, Rupert T SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 20.0 A 4 80.0 Sophomore 2 40.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 40.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 20.0 Required by my major 3 60.0 3 hours 3 60.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 40.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 2.3 . 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 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 002L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pickens, Rupert T % % 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 = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 204 001L1 FR CULTURE: READINGS AND CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pucci, Suzanne R. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 8.3 A 5 41.7 Sophomore 4 33.3 B 6 50.0 Junior 6 50.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 8.3 D 1 8.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 16.7 Required by my major 9 75.0 3 hours 4 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 3 25.0 4 - 5 hours 5 41.7 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 0.00 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 7.7 84.6 7.7 3.0 0.41 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 15.4 30.8 46.2 7.7 2.5 0.88 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 7.7 23.1 46.2 23.1 2.8 0.90 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 7.7 15.4 61.5 15.4 2.8 0.80 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 7.7 23.1 69.2 0.0 2.6 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 3.0 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 23.1 61.5 15.4 2.9 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 23.1 38.5 30.8 7.7 2.2 0.93 14. Encouraged class participation 13 30.8 7.7 30.8 30.8 2.6 1.26 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 7.7 84.6 7.7 3.0 0.41 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 15.4 76.9 7.7 2.9 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 36.4 54.5 9.1 2.7 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 23.1 30.8 38.5 7.7 2.3 0.95 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 25.0 33.3 33.3 8.3 2.3 0.97 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 33.3 25.0 41.7 0.0 2.1 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 204 001L1 FR CULTURE: READINGS AND CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pucci, Suzanne R. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 15 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 86.7 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 504 001L1 TOPICS:MASQUERADE AND PERFORMANCE 18TH CEN LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pucci, Suzanne R. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 10.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 90.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 20.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 80.0 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 10 100.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 6 60.0 6 - 7 hours 1 10.0 8 or more hours 2 20.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 3.1 0.32 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 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 2.9 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 0.79 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 3.0 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 2.7 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 3.1 0.32 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 55.6 33.3 11.1 2.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 14.3 42.9 28.6 14.3 2.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 20.0 0.0 70.0 10.0 2.7 0.95 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 22.2 33.3 44.4 0.0 2.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 30.0 60.0 10.0 2.8 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 504 001L1 TOPICS:MASQUERADE AND PERFORMANCE 18TH CEN LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pucci, Suzanne R. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 9 0.0 66.7 22.2 11.1 2.4 . 28. Guided student report preparation 9 22.2 33.3 33.3 11.1 2.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 8 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 2.5 . 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 = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 011 001L1 FR FOR READING KNOWLEDGE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 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 1 16.7 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 66.7 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 16.7 4 - 5 hours 3 50.0 6 - 7 hours 2 33.3 8 or more hours 1 16.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 011 001L1 FR FOR READING KNOWLEDGE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth 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 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 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 = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 37.5 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 001L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 11.1 A 3 33.3 Sophomore 3 33.3 B 5 55.6 Junior 4 44.4 C 1 11.1 Senior 1 11.1 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 11.1 Studies Program 2 22.2 2 hours 2 22.2 Required by my major 6 66.7 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 11.1 4 - 5 hours 4 44.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 11.1 88.9 0.0 2.9 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . % % % % 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 001L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 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 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 17 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 52.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 007L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 21.4 A 8 57.1 Sophomore 5 35.7 B 3 21.4 Junior 5 35.7 C 1 7.1 Senior 1 7.1 D 1 7.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 7.1 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 4 28.6 2 hours 3 21.4 Required by my major 8 57.1 3 hours 3 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.1 4 - 5 hours 6 42.9 6 - 7 hours 1 7.1 8 or more hours 1 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 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 13.3 46.7 40.0 3.3 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 6.7 13.3 60.0 20.0 2.9 0.80 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 0.0 78.6 21.4 3.2 0.43 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 6.7 6.7 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 10.0 0.0 70.0 20.0 3.0 0.82 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 8.3 0.0 83.3 8.3 2.9 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 2.8 0.92 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 86.7 13.3 3.1 0.35 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 16.7 25.0 41.7 16.7 2.6 1.00 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 6.7 13.3 33.3 46.7 3.2 0.94 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 007L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth 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 2 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 78.9 % 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 = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 102 003L3 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth M. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 20.0 A 2 40.0 Sophomore 2 40.0 B 2 40.0 Junior 2 40.0 C 1 20.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 20.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 3 60.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 20.0 4 - 5 hours 4 80.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 16.7 16.7 66.7 0.0 2.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 16.7 66.7 16.7 0.0 2.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 16.7 50.0 33.3 0.0 2.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 16.7 16.7 66.7 0.0 2.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 16.7 16.7 66.7 3.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 102 003L3 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stone, Elizabeth 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student