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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 007L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Adams, David R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 11.5 A 8 30.8 Sophomore 18 69.2 B 9 34.6 Junior 3 11.5 C 8 30.8 Senior 2 7.7 D 1 3.8 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 3.8 Studies Program 1 3.8 2 hours 5 19.2 Required by my major 24 92.3 3 hours 7 26.9 Other (e.g. elective) 1 3.8 4 - 5 hours 6 23.1 6 - 7 hours 4 15.4 8 or more hours 3 11.5 % % 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 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 7.7 7.7 65.4 19.2 3.0 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 3.8 7.7 65.4 23.1 3.1 0.69 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 16.0 68.0 16.0 3.0 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 3.8 15.4 65.4 15.4 2.9 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 0.0 73.1 26.9 3.3 0.45 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 9.1 36.4 40.9 13.6 2.6 0.85 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 7.4 7.4 66.7 18.5 3.0 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 3.8 57.7 38.5 3.3 0.56 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 9.5 81.0 9.5 3.0 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 3.7 11.1 63.0 22.2 3.0 0.71 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 53.8 42.3 3.8 2.5 0.58 14. Encouraged class participation 23 4.3 47.8 43.5 4.3 2.5 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 6.3 18.8 75.0 0.0 2.7 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 0.0 12.0 84.0 4.0 2.9 0.40 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 0.0 20.0 72.0 8.0 2.9 0.53 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 3.8 80.8 15.4 3.1 0.43 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 16.0 44.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 7.7 0.0 76.9 15.4 3.0 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 7.7 15.4 53.8 23.1 2.9 0.84 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 007L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Adams, David 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 96.4 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 432G001L1 METHODS APPLIED MATH I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Adams, David R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 57.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 42.9 Junior 1 14.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 57.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 28.6 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 14.3 Required by my major 2 28.6 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 4 - 5 hours 3 42.9 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 8 or more hours 1 14.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 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 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 432G001L1 METHODS APPLIED MATH I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Adams, David 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 = 12 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 58.3 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 013L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bai, Zhaojun SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 13 65.0 A 7 35.0 Sophomore 4 20.0 B 5 25.0 Junior 2 10.0 C 6 30.0 Senior 1 5.0 D 2 10.0 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 5.0 Studies Program 7 36.8 2 hours 5 25.0 Required by my major 11 57.9 3 hours 8 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.3 4 - 5 hours 5 25.0 6 - 7 hours 1 5.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 5.0 10.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.76 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 3.4 0.59 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 5.3 21.1 57.9 15.8 2.8 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 20.0 45.0 35.0 3.2 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 20.0 55.0 25.0 3.1 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 20.0 66.7 13.3 2.9 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 3.4 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 5.0 0.0 55.0 40.0 3.3 0.73 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 15.8 47.4 31.6 5.3 2.3 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 15.0 45.0 40.0 3.3 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 10.0 35.0 55.0 3.5 0.69 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 013L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bai, Zhaojun % % 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 11 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 3.0 0.63 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 13 15.4 15.4 53.8 15.4 2.7 0.95 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 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 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 37. Question 37 15 6.7 6.7 0.0 26.7 60.0 4.3 1.22 38. Question 38 15 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 4.6 0.51 39. Question 39 15 0.0 13.3 0.0 20.0 66.7 4.4 1.06 40. Question 40 15 0.0 6.7 6.7 40.0 46.7 4.3 0.88 Number of forms preslugged = 29 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 69.0 % 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 522 001L1 MATRIC THEORY & NUMERIC LINEAR ALGEBRA I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bai, Zhaojun SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 71.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 19.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 4.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 20 95.2 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 9.5 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 5.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 5.0 Required by my major 9 45.0 3 hours 5 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 11 55.0 4 - 5 hours 7 35.0 6 - 7 hours 2 10.0 8 or more hours 4 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 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 23.8 52.4 23.8 3.0 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 9.1 59.1 31.8 3.2 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 5.6 44.4 50.0 3.4 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 4.5 40.9 54.5 3.5 0.60 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 19.0 33.3 47.6 3.3 0.78 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 11.8 35.3 52.9 3.4 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 15.0 30.0 55.0 3.4 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 522 001L1 MATRIC THEORY & NUMERIC LINEAR ALGEBRA I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bai, Zhaojun % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % 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 = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 012L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beidleman, James C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 10 76.9 A 5 38.5 Sophomore 1 7.7 B 2 15.4 Junior 2 15.4 C 4 30.8 Senior 0 0.0 D 2 15.4 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 15.4 Studies Program 4 30.8 2 hours 2 15.4 Required by my major 8 61.5 3 hours 2 15.4 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.7 4 - 5 hours 5 38.5 6 - 7 hours 2 15.4 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 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 7.7 38.5 46.2 7.7 2.5 0.78 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 30.8 38.5 30.8 3.0 0.82 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 7.7 46.2 23.1 23.1 2.6 0.96 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 84.6 15.4 3.2 0.38 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 27.3 36.4 36.4 0.0 2.1 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 46.2 23.1 30.8 2.8 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 7.7 30.8 38.5 23.1 2.8 0.93 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 012L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beidleman, James 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 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 46.4 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 561 001L1 MODERN ALGEBRA I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beidleman, James C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 77.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 22.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 62.5 3 hours 1 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 3 37.5 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 6 - 7 hours 1 11.1 8 or more hours 5 55.6 % % 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 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 3.3 0.82 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 3.6 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 3.6 0.70 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 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 3.6 0.70 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 3.6 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 561 001L1 MODERN ALGEBRA I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Beidleman, James 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 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 = 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 004L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brennan, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 12 60.0 A 8 42.1 Sophomore 4 20.0 B 5 26.3 Junior 3 15.0 C 5 26.3 Senior 1 5.0 D 1 5.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 25.0 Studies Program 12 63.2 2 hours 4 20.0 Required by my major 7 36.8 3 hours 8 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 10.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 5.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 21 14.3 23.8 52.4 9.5 2.6 0.87 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 4.8 23.8 52.4 19.0 2.9 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 9.5 23.8 42.9 23.8 2.8 0.93 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 9.5 28.6 47.6 14.3 2.7 0.86 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 9.5 23.8 57.1 9.5 2.7 0.80 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 14.3 23.8 57.1 4.8 2.5 0.81 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 4.8 28.6 66.7 0.0 2.6 0.59 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 15.0 35.0 45.0 5.0 2.4 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 14.3 52.4 33.3 0.0 2.2 0.68 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 9.5 9.5 52.4 28.6 3.0 0.89 11. Was available for consultation 19 10.5 31.6 52.6 5.3 2.5 0.77 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 19.0 42.9 38.1 0.0 2.2 0.75 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 15.0 60.0 25.0 0.0 2.1 0.64 14. Encouraged class participation 21 9.5 19.0 66.7 4.8 2.7 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 6.7 26.7 66.7 0.0 2.6 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 4.8 28.6 57.1 9.5 2.7 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 5.0 25.0 55.0 15.0 2.8 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 4.8 33.3 52.4 9.5 2.7 0.73 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 9.5 76.2 14.3 0.0 2.0 0.50 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 23.8 14.3 61.9 0.0 2.4 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 30.0 25.0 45.0 0.0 2.2 0.88 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 004L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brennan, James 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 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 31 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 67.7 % 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 001L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brennan, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 40.0 A 2 40.0 Sophomore 1 20.0 B 2 40.0 Junior 1 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 20.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 20.0 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 2 40.0 Required by my major 4 80.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 20.0 4 - 5 hours 2 40.0 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 25.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . % % % % 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 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 001L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brennan, James 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 23 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 21.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 002L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brennan, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 4.3 A 5 22.7 Sophomore 14 60.9 B 8 36.4 Junior 8 34.8 C 8 36.4 Senior 0 0.0 D 1 4.5 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 9.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 22.7 Required by my major 23 100.0 3 hours 3 13.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 7 31.8 6 - 7 hours 2 9.1 8 or more hours 3 13.6 % % 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 20.8 62.5 16.7 3.0 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 8.3 8.3 54.2 29.2 3.0 0.86 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 9.1 18.2 68.2 4.5 2.7 0.72 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 12.5 33.3 41.7 12.5 2.5 0.88 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 12.5 45.8 37.5 4.2 2.3 0.76 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 4.2 25.0 62.5 8.3 2.8 0.68 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 13.0 73.9 13.0 3.0 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 13.0 39.1 43.5 4.3 2.4 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 25.0 50.0 20.8 4.2 2.0 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 4.2 8.3 54.2 33.3 3.2 0.76 11. Was available for consultation 20 10.0 10.0 70.0 10.0 2.8 0.77 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 12.5 20.8 62.5 4.2 2.6 0.78 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 20.8 41.7 33.3 4.2 2.2 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 23 4.3 21.7 65.2 8.7 2.8 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 5.9 35.3 52.9 5.9 2.6 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 4.3 26.1 52.2 17.4 2.8 0.78 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 30.4 52.2 17.4 2.9 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 4.3 30.4 52.2 13.0 2.7 0.75 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 30.0 35.0 35.0 0.0 2.1 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 12.5 37.5 33.3 16.7 2.5 0.93 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 37.5 20.8 37.5 4.2 2.1 0.97 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 002L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brennan, James 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 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 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 96.0 % 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 113 004L1 CALCULUS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brown, Russell SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 23 95.8 A 8 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 45.8 Junior 1 4.2 C 5 20.8 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 0 0.0 2 hours 6 25.0 Required by my major 23 95.8 3 hours 8 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.2 4 - 5 hours 9 37.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 4.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 8.0 68.0 24.0 3.2 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 8.0 64.0 28.0 3.2 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 4.0 20.0 60.0 16.0 2.9 0.73 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 8.0 20.0 64.0 8.0 2.7 0.74 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 8.0 32.0 60.0 0.0 2.5 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 20.0 76.0 4.0 2.8 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 4.0 8.0 64.0 24.0 3.1 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 8.3 33.3 41.7 16.7 2.7 0.87 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 20.0 52.0 20.0 8.0 2.2 0.85 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 4.0 4.0 64.0 28.0 3.2 0.69 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 70.8 29.2 3.3 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 8.0 20.0 60.0 12.0 2.8 0.78 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 20.8 66.7 12.5 0.0 1.9 0.58 14. Encouraged class participation 25 8.0 36.0 52.0 4.0 2.5 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 5.0 30.0 55.0 10.0 2.7 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 4.0 24.0 68.0 4.0 2.7 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 4.0 24.0 68.0 4.0 2.7 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 4.0 16.0 72.0 8.0 2.8 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 36.4 50.0 9.1 4.5 1.8 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 12.0 48.0 32.0 8.0 2.4 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 16.0 64.0 16.0 4.0 2.1 0.70 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 113 004L1 CALCULUS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brown, Russell % % 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 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 33.3 33.3 0.0 33.3 2.3 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS 37. Question 37 22 0.0 18.2 0.0 50.0 31.8 4.0 1.05 38. Question 38 22 0.0 4.5 4.5 22.7 68.2 4.5 0.80 39. Question 39 22 4.5 18.2 18.2 27.3 31.8 3.6 1.26 40. Question 40 21 9.5 4.8 14.3 19.0 52.4 4.0 1.34 Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 113 005L1 CALCULUS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brown, Russell SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 80.0 A 1 20.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 1 20.0 C 3 60.0 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 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 100.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 60.0 6 - 7 hours 1 20.0 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 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 80.0 20.0 0.0 2.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 80.0 20.0 0.0 2.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 113 005L1 CALCULUS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brown, Russell % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 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 37. Question 37 5 20.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 3.6 . 38. Question 38 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 3.2 . 39. Question 39 5 20.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 2.6 . 40. Question 40 5 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 3.0 . Number of forms preslugged = 27 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 18.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 113 006L1 CALCULUS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brown, Russell SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 18 78.3 A 2 8.7 Sophomore 2 8.7 B 8 34.8 Junior 1 4.3 C 12 52.2 Senior 2 8.7 D 1 4.3 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 1 4.3 Studies Program 6 26.1 2 hours 3 13.0 Required by my major 15 65.2 3 hours 6 26.1 Other (e.g. elective) 2 8.7 4 - 5 hours 8 34.8 6 - 7 hours 2 8.7 8 or more hours 3 13.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 4.3 69.6 26.1 3.2 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 26.1 56.5 17.4 2.9 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 8.7 43.5 30.4 17.4 2.6 0.90 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 13.0 30.4 39.1 17.4 2.6 0.94 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 13.0 30.4 52.2 4.3 2.5 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 4.3 87.0 8.7 3.0 0.37 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 82.6 17.4 3.2 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 13.0 43.5 39.1 4.3 2.3 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 21.7 52.2 17.4 8.7 2.1 0.87 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 4.3 69.6 26.1 3.2 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 4.3 73.9 21.7 3.2 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 8.7 21.7 60.9 8.7 2.7 0.76 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 30.4 43.5 21.7 4.3 2.0 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 23 8.7 34.8 47.8 8.7 2.6 0.79 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 25.0 68.8 6.3 2.8 0.54 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 9.1 22.7 59.1 9.1 2.7 0.78 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 13.0 26.1 52.2 8.7 2.6 0.84 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 8.7 30.4 43.5 17.4 2.7 0.88 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 21.7 52.2 21.7 4.3 2.1 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 17.4 39.1 30.4 13.0 2.4 0.94 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 30.4 43.5 17.4 8.7 2.0 0.93 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 113 006L1 CALCULUS I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brown, Russell % % 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 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.0 2.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 37. Question 37 21 9.5 14.3 23.8 23.8 28.6 3.5 1.33 38. Question 38 21 9.5 4.8 0.0 38.1 47.6 4.1 1.26 39. Question 39 21 4.8 19.0 9.5 52.4 14.3 3.5 1.12 40. Question 40 21 4.8 14.3 14.3 38.1 28.6 3.7 1.19 Number of forms preslugged = 23 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = MA 123 404L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Campbell, Bruce SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 50.0 A 3 33.3 Sophomore 3 30.0 B 3 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 3 33.3 Senior 2 20.0 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 10.0 Studies Program 4 40.0 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 6 60.0 3 hours 3 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 40.0 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 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 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 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 3.1 0.32 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 10 40.0 10.0 30.0 20.0 2.3 1.25 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 45.5 45.5 9.1 2.6 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 2.7 0.67 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 9.1 18.2 45.5 27.3 2.9 0.94 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.77 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 54.5 36.4 0.0 2.3 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = MA 123 404L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Campbell, Bruce % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 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 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 37. Question 37 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 4.6 . 38. Question 38 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 4.7 . 39. Question 39 9 22.2 0.0 0.0 22.2 55.6 3.9 . 40. Question 40 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 4.7 . Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 39.3 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = MA 123 405L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Campbell, Bruce SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 6 50.0 A 7 58.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 8.3 Junior 1 8.3 C 2 16.7 Senior 2 16.7 D 1 8.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 3 25.0 Pass or Audit 1 8.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 16.7 Studies Program 7 58.3 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 3 25.0 3 hours 2 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 2 16.7 4 - 5 hours 4 33.3 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 7.7 0.0 46.2 46.2 3.3 0.85 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 7.7 15.4 53.8 23.1 2.9 0.86 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 15.4 0.0 53.8 30.8 3.0 1.00 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 7.7 7.7 38.5 46.2 3.2 0.93 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 16.7 0.0 25.0 58.3 3.3 1.14 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 7.7 0.0 23.1 69.2 3.5 0.88 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 7.7 7.7 30.8 53.8 3.3 0.95 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 9 33.3 22.2 33.3 11.1 2.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 8.3 25.0 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 2.8 0.87 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 7.7 7.7 53.8 30.8 3.1 0.86 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 16.7 41.7 33.3 8.3 2.3 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 15.4 15.4 61.5 7.7 2.6 0.87 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 7.7 15.4 46.2 30.8 3.0 0.91 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = MA 123 405L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Campbell, Bruce % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS 37. Question 37 9 11.1 0.0 0.0 33.3 55.6 4.2 . 38. Question 38 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 4.7 . 39. Question 39 9 0.0 11.1 0.0 22.2 66.7 4.4 . 40. Question 40 9 0.0 11.1 0.0 44.4 44.4 4.2 . Number of forms preslugged = 32 Number of forms scanned = 32 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 40.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 010L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Carey, Richard W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 9 52.9 A 6 35.3 Sophomore 4 23.5 B 6 35.3 Junior 2 11.8 C 5 29.4 Senior 2 11.8 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 4 23.5 Studies Program 4 25.0 2 hours 7 41.2 Required by my major 9 56.3 3 hours 1 5.9 Other (e.g. elective) 3 18.8 4 - 5 hours 3 17.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 11.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 11.8 29.4 52.9 5.9 2.5 0.80 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 5.9 82.4 11.8 3.1 0.43 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 41.2 47.1 11.8 2.7 0.69 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 29.4 41.2 29.4 3.0 0.79 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 17.6 64.7 17.6 3.0 0.61 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 12.5 43.8 43.8 0.0 2.3 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 5.9 47.1 41.2 5.9 2.5 0.72 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 18.8 62.5 18.8 3.0 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 17.6 64.7 17.6 3.0 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 20.0 53.3 20.0 6.7 2.1 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 56.3 37.5 6.3 2.5 0.63 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 44.4 55.6 0.0 2.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 31.3 62.5 6.3 2.8 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 6.3 25.0 56.3 12.5 2.8 0.77 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 31.3 56.3 12.5 0.0 1.8 0.66 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 35.3 58.8 5.9 2.7 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 11.8 35.3 47.1 5.9 2.5 0.80 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 010L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Carey, Richard W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 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 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 37. Question 37 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 53.3 6.7 3.6 0.74 38. Question 38 16 0.0 6.3 0.0 43.8 50.0 4.4 0.81 39. Question 39 15 0.0 33.3 20.0 46.7 0.0 3.1 0.92 40. Question 40 15 6.7 20.0 13.3 40.0 20.0 3.5 1.25 Number of forms preslugged = 30 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 56.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 027L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Carey, Richard W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 9 69.2 A 3 23.1 Sophomore 3 23.1 B 3 23.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 5 38.5 Senior 0 0.0 D 2 15.4 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 7.7 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 23.1 Studies Program 8 61.5 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 5 38.5 3 hours 3 23.1 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 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 14 28.6 35.7 14.3 21.4 2.3 1.14 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 7.1 14.3 35.7 42.9 3.1 0.95 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 7.1 78.6 14.3 3.1 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 14.3 14.3 50.0 21.4 2.8 0.97 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 14.3 64.3 21.4 3.1 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 76.9 15.4 3.1 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 0.36 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 8.3 50.0 33.3 8.3 2.4 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 28.6 7.1 64.3 0.0 2.4 0.93 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 7.1 0.0 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.73 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 3.1 0.32 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 14.3 14.3 64.3 7.1 2.6 0.84 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 42.9 42.9 14.3 0.0 1.7 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 14 7.1 42.9 50.0 0.0 2.4 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 22.2 44.4 33.3 0.0 2.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 7.7 30.8 53.8 7.7 2.6 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 7.1 14.3 71.4 7.1 2.8 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 14.3 14.3 64.3 7.1 2.6 0.84 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 42.9 50.0 7.1 0.0 1.6 0.63 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 21.4 35.7 35.7 7.1 2.3 0.91 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 28.6 35.7 35.7 0.0 2.1 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 123 027L1 ELEM CALC & ITS APPLICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Carey, Richard W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 7 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.0 2.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 40.0 10.0 50.0 0.0 2.1 0.99 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 37. Question 37 11 9.1 36.4 18.2 27.3 9.1 2.9 1.22 38. Question 38 12 0.0 16.7 0.0 41.7 41.7 4.1 1.08 39. Question 39 10 10.0 40.0 10.0 40.0 0.0 2.8 1.14 40. Question 40 11 9.1 27.3 27.3 27.3 9.1 3.0 1.18 Number of forms preslugged = 29 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 48.3 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 003L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Carey, Richard W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 13.0 A 15 65.2 Sophomore 11 47.8 B 6 26.1 Junior 6 26.1 C 2 8.7 Senior 3 13.0 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 13 56.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 26.1 Required by my major 22 95.7 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.3 4 - 5 hours 2 8.7 6 - 7 hours 1 4.3 8 or more hours 1 4.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 27 22.2 7.4 48.1 22.2 2.7 1.07 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 3.7 7.4 48.1 40.7 3.3 0.76 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 4.2 16.7 66.7 12.5 2.9 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 27 0.0 14.8 59.3 25.9 3.1 0.64 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 7.4 74.1 18.5 3.1 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 4.0 16.0 64.0 16.0 2.9 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 0.0 7.4 77.8 14.8 3.1 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 12.0 44.0 32.0 12.0 2.4 0.87 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 25.9 48.1 14.8 11.1 2.1 0.93 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 7.4 55.6 37.0 3.3 0.61 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 26.3 57.9 15.8 2.9 0.66 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 17.4 73.9 8.7 2.9 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 27 29.6 51.9 7.4 11.1 2.0 0.92 14. Encouraged class participation 26 23.1 53.8 11.5 11.5 2.1 0.91 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 26.3 42.1 21.1 10.5 2.2 0.96 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 8.0 28.0 40.0 24.0 2.8 0.91 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 8.0 24.0 48.0 20.0 2.8 0.87 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 8.0 32.0 44.0 16.0 2.7 0.85 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 30.8 42.3 15.4 11.5 2.1 0.98 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 22.2 37.0 29.6 11.1 2.3 0.95 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 25.9 55.6 7.4 11.1 2.0 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 = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 003L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Carey, Richard W % % 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 = 33 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 79.4 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Mathematics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MA 213 004L1 CALCULUS III INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Carey, Richard W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 62.5 Sophomore 13 76.5 B 4 25.0 Junior 2 11.8 C 1 6.3 Senior 2 11.8 D 1 6.3 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 7 43.8 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 37.5 Required by my major 15 93.8 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.3 4 - 5 hours 3 18.8 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 18 27.8 27.8 38.9 5.6 2.2 0.94 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 5.6 16.7 50.0 27.8 3.0 0.84 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 13.3 40.0 33.3 13.3 2.5 0.92 4. Exams re