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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 003L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderson, Clelia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 76.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 23.5 Junior 9 52.9 C 0 0.0 Senior 8 47.1 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 2 11.8 Studies Program 1 5.9 2 hours 6 35.3 Required by my major 9 52.9 3 hours 8 47.1 Other (e.g. elective) 7 41.2 4 - 5 hours 1 5.9 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 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 5.9 0.0 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 5.9 11.8 41.2 41.2 3.2 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 6.3 31.3 50.0 12.5 2.7 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 6.3 0.0 31.3 62.5 3.5 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 330 003L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anderson, Clelia % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 60.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 503 001L1 TOPS ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bradshaw, David H. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 16.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 33.3 Senior 3 50.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 50.0 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 16.7 Required by my major 2 33.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 66.7 4 - 5 hours 3 50.0 6 - 7 hours 2 33.3 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 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 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 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 14.3 0.0 28.6 57.1 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 14.3 14.3 14.3 57.1 3.1 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 33.3 16.7 50.0 3.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 14.3 0.0 28.6 57.1 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 503 001L1 TOPS ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bradshaw, David H. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 710 001S1 SEM IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 57.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 10.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 90.0 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 10.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 9 90.0 4 - 5 hours 1 10.0 6 - 7 hours 5 50.0 8 or more hours 4 40.0 % % 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 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 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 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 9.1 81.8 3.7 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 % % % % 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 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 710 001S1 SEM IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D % % 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 10 10.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 3.2 1.03 28. Guided student report preparation 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 29. Students free to express opinions 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 31. Developed abil to conduct research 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 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 = 11 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 343 001L1 ASIAN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bruzina, Ronald C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 6.5 A 18 42.9 Sophomore 17 37.0 B 22 52.4 Junior 10 21.7 C 1 2.4 Senior 16 34.8 D 1 2.4 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 8 17.4 Studies Program 21 46.7 2 hours 14 30.4 Required by my major 4 8.9 3 hours 14 30.4 Other (e.g. elective) 20 44.4 4 - 5 hours 7 15.2 6 - 7 hours 1 2.2 8 or more hours 2 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 50 2.0 4.0 64.0 30.0 3.2 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 49 0.0 4.1 44.9 51.0 3.5 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 47 2.1 6.4 53.2 38.3 3.3 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 5. Grading was fair and consistent 33 0.0 6.1 60.6 33.3 3.3 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 48 0.0 4.2 60.4 35.4 3.3 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 42 0.0 2.4 73.8 23.8 3.2 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 46 2.2 6.5 54.3 37.0 3.3 0.68 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 49 2.0 14.3 46.9 36.7 3.2 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 50 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 45 0.0 0.0 51.1 48.9 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 50 0.0 16.0 46.0 38.0 3.2 0.71 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 50 2.0 8.0 52.0 38.0 3.3 0.69 14. Encouraged class participation 50 2.0 0.0 48.0 50.0 3.5 0.61 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 49 0.0 2.0 42.9 55.1 3.5 0.54 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 49 0.0 6.1 61.2 32.7 3.3 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 42 0.0 11.9 59.5 28.6 3.2 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 48 0.0 2.1 62.5 35.4 3.3 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 49 2.0 10.2 53.1 34.7 3.2 0.71 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 47 2.1 4.3 46.8 46.8 3.4 0.68 21. Overall quality of teaching 47 0.0 17.0 40.4 42.6 3.3 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 343 001L1 ASIAN PHILOSOPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bruzina, Ronald 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 9 0.0 55.6 33.3 11.1 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 17 0.0 17.6 70.6 11.8 2.9 0.56 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 18 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 64 Number of forms scanned = 50 Number of forms with at least one student response = 50 Percent completed = 78.1 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 46.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 46.2 Junior 2 7.4 C 0 0.0 Senior 25 92.6 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 2 7.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 14.8 Studies Program 2 7.7 2 hours 11 40.7 Required by my major 14 53.8 3 hours 10 37.0 Other (e.g. elective) 10 38.5 4 - 5 hours 2 7.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 28 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 7.1 10.7 25.0 57.1 3.3 0.94 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 0.0 3.6 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 3.6 10.7 14.3 71.4 3.5 0.84 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 3.6 25.0 71.4 3.7 0.55 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 3.6 21.4 75.0 3.7 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 3.6 17.9 78.6 3.8 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 10.7 89.3 3.9 0.31 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 3.6 17.9 78.6 3.8 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 7.1 3.6 25.0 64.3 3.5 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 0.0 17.9 82.1 3.8 0.39 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 0.0 3.6 35.7 60.7 3.6 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 7.1 0.0 25.0 67.9 3.5 0.84 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 10.7 17.9 39.3 32.1 2.9 0.98 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 3.7 0.0 33.3 63.0 3.6 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 3.7 11.1 85.2 3.8 0.48 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan 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 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 33 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 84.8 % 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 260 001L1 HIS PHI I:GRK BEGINNINGS TO THE MIDDLE AGES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 10 40.0 A 15 60.0 Sophomore 7 28.0 B 10 40.0 Junior 4 16.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 16.0 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 11 44.0 Studies Program 11 44.0 2 hours 9 36.0 Required by my major 7 28.0 3 hours 2 8.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 28.0 4 - 5 hours 1 4.0 6 - 7 hours 2 8.0 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 29 0.0 0.0 55.2 44.8 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 29 0.0 13.8 44.8 41.4 3.3 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 19.2 57.7 23.1 3.0 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 29 3.4 0.0 48.3 48.3 3.4 0.68 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 0.0 0.0 58.6 41.4 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 5.0 15.0 45.0 35.0 3.1 0.85 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 3.4 0.0 58.6 37.9 3.3 0.66 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 8.0 64.0 28.0 3.2 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 6.9 10.3 51.7 31.0 3.1 0.84 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 0.0 34.5 65.5 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 3.6 3.6 46.4 46.4 3.4 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 29 3.4 34.5 37.9 24.1 2.8 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 29 0.0 10.3 58.6 31.0 3.2 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 10.7 53.6 35.7 3.3 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 25.9 48.1 25.9 3.0 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 0.0 34.6 42.3 23.1 2.9 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 0.0 13.8 58.6 27.6 3.1 0.64 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 29 13.8 34.5 17.2 34.5 2.7 1.10 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 29 0.0 24.1 44.8 31.0 3.1 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 29 3.4 17.2 34.5 44.8 3.2 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 260 001L1 HIS PHI I:GRK BEGINNINGS TO THE MIDDLE AGES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel % % 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 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 66 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 29 Percent completed = 43.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 335 001L1 THE INDIVIDUAL & SOCIETY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 38.1 Sophomore 3 14.3 B 11 52.4 Junior 9 42.9 C 2 9.5 Senior 9 42.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 11 52.4 Required by my major 1 4.8 3 hours 2 9.5 Other (e.g. elective) 20 95.2 4 - 5 hours 2 9.5 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 23 0.0 0.0 60.9 39.1 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 4.3 4.3 52.2 39.1 3.3 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 21.1 31.6 47.4 3.3 0.81 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 9.5 52.4 38.1 3.3 0.64 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 17.4 39.1 43.5 3.3 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 13.0 56.5 30.4 3.2 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 4.8 23.8 38.1 33.3 3.0 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 4.3 56.5 39.1 3.3 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 4.5 22.7 40.9 31.8 3.0 0.87 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 13.0 60.9 26.1 3.1 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 8.7 47.8 43.5 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 335 001L1 THE INDIVIDUAL & SOCIETY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel % % 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 = 66 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 34.8 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 014L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 33.3 A 8 72.7 Sophomore 4 33.3 B 3 27.3 Junior 1 8.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 25.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 36.4 Studies Program 10 90.9 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 9.1 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 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 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 7.1 28.6 28.6 35.7 2.9 1.00 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 14.3 21.4 64.3 3.5 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 014L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 0.0 42.9 14.3 42.9 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 017L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 7 33.3 A 13 68.4 Sophomore 9 42.9 B 6 31.6 Junior 1 4.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 19.0 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 6 30.0 Studies Program 19 90.5 2 hours 8 40.0 Required by my major 1 4.8 3 hours 2 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.8 4 - 5 hours 2 10.0 6 - 7 hours 2 10.0 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 23 0.0 0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 4.5 31.8 63.6 3.6 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 4.8 9.5 85.7 3.8 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 9.1 22.7 68.2 3.6 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 4.5 22.7 72.7 3.7 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2 3.5 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 8.7 13.0 43.5 34.8 3.0 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 4.5 4.5 40.9 50.0 3.4 0.79 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 4.0 0.22 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 017L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goff-Yates, Amy % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 11 0.0 36.4 36.4 27.3 2.9 0.83 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 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 = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 82.1 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 320 001L1 SYMBOLIC LOGIC I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gregory, Paul SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 6.7 A 11 73.3 Sophomore 6 40.0 B 4 26.7 Junior 5 33.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 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 7 46.7 Studies Program 10 66.7 2 hours 2 13.3 Required by my major 2 13.3 3 hours 5 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 3 20.0 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 17.6 29.4 52.9 3.4 0.79 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 5.9 35.3 58.8 3.5 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 5.9 23.5 47.1 23.5 2.9 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 17.6 47.1 35.3 3.2 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 320 001L1 SYMBOLIC LOGIC I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gregory, Paul % % 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 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 14.3 28.6 28.6 28.6 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 32 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 53.1 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 320 002L1 SYMBOLIC LOGIC I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gregory, Paul SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 55.0 Sophomore 3 15.0 B 8 40.0 Junior 7 35.0 C 1 5.0 Senior 10 50.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 40.0 Studies Program 12 60.0 2 hours 4 20.0 Required by my major 2 10.0 3 hours 4 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 30.0 4 - 5 hours 3 15.0 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 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 15.0 60.0 25.0 3.1 0.64 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 61.1 38.9 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 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 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 5.6 50.0 44.4 3.4 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 18 0.0 50.0 44.4 5.6 2.6 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 320 002L1 SYMBOLIC LOGIC I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gregory, Paul % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 32 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 62.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 009L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Heiner, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 29.4 A 6 35.3 Sophomore 9 52.9 B 3 17.6 Junior 3 17.6 C 5 29.4 Senior 0 0.0 D 2 11.8 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 5.9 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 23.5 Studies Program 8 47.1 2 hours 4 23.5 Required by my major 6 35.3 3 hours 7 41.2 Other (e.g. elective) 3 17.6 4 - 5 hours 1 5.9 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 5.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 35.3 35.3 29.4 2.9 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 5.9 17.6 35.3 41.2 3.1 0.93 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 11.8 11.8 47.1 29.4 2.9 0.97 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 5.9 58.8 35.3 3.3 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 17.6 41.2 41.2 3.2 0.75 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 17.6 41.2 41.2 3.2 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 7.1 78.6 14.3 3.1 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 0.0 17.6 47.1 35.3 3.2 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 17 0.0 11.8 47.1 41.2 3.3 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 5.9 5.9 41.2 47.1 3.3 0.85 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 47.1 41.2 11.8 2.6 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 23.5 35.3 41.2 3.2 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 17.6 35.3 47.1 3.3 0.77 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 009L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Heiner, Steven % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 7 0.0 28.6 14.3 57.1 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 22.2 22.2 44.4 11.1 2.4 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 0.0 2.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 28 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 60.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 305 001L1 HEALTH CARE ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Heiner, Steven SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 7.7 A 8 61.5 Sophomore 2 15.4 B 4 30.8 Junior 4 30.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 6 46.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 7.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 30.8 Studies Program 4 30.8 2 hours 4 30.8 Required by my major 4 30.8 3 hours 2 15.4 Other (e.g. elective) 5 38.5 4 - 5 hours 3 23.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 14.3 35.7 50.0 3.4 0.74 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 7.1 14.3 78.6 3.7 0.61 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 30.8 30.8 38.5 3.1 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 7.1 14.3 78.6 3.7 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 7.1 85.7 3.8 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 305 001L1 HEALTH CARE ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Heiner, Steven % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 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 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 = 24 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 130 005L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holbrook Jr, Paul E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 10.0 A 17 85.0 Sophomore 15 75.0 B 3 15.0 Junior 2 10.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 5.0 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 11 55.0 Studies Program 18 90.0 2 hours 5 25.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 15.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 10.0 4 - 5 hours 1 5.0 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 23 0.0 8.7 30.4 60.9 3.5 0.67 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 8.7 21.7 43.5 26.1 2.9 0.92 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 4.3 4.3 43.5 47.8 3.3 0.78 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2 3.5 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 0.0 13.0 43.5 43.5 3.3 0.70 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 22.7 40.9 36.4 3.1 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 10.5 47.4 42.1 3.3 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 0.0 60.9 39.1 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 4.3 26.1 34.8 34.8 3.0 0.90 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 8.7 65.2 26.1 3.2 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2 3.5 0.59 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 130 005L1 INTRO PHI:MORALIT/SOCIET INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holbrook Jr, Paul 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 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 32 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 71.9 % 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 545 001L1 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holbrook Jr, Paul E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 37.5 Sophomore 2 22.2 B 5 62.5 Junior 3 33.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 11.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 33.3 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 2 22.2 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 7 77.8 4 - 5 hours 4 44.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 11.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 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 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 545 001L1 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holbrook Jr, Paul 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 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 47.4 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 560 001L1 PHI OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holcomb III, Harmon R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 50.0 Junior 1 12.5 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 12.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 62.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 12.5 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 12.5 Required by my major 7 87.5 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 3 37.5 6 - 7 hours 3 37.5 8 or more hours 1 12.5 % % 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 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 11.1 22.2 66.7 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 44.4 55.6 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 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 62.5 37.5 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 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 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 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . % % % % 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 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 560 001L1 PHI OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holcomb III, Harmon 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 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 = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 75.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 317 001L1 EXISTENTIALIST THGT/LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Janairo, Edward SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 45.5 Sophomore 3 25.0 B 5 45.5 Junior 3 25.0 C 1 9.1 Senior 6 50.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 41.7 Required by my major 2 16.7 3 hours 4 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 10 83.3 4 - 5 hours 2 16.7 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 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 8.3 0.0 25.0 66.7 3.5 0.90 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 7.7 0.0 23.1 69.2 3.5 0.88 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 38.5 53.8 3.4 0.87 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 7.7 0.0 23.1 69.2 3.5 0.88 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 7.7 0.0 15.4 76.9 3.6 0.87 11. Was available for consultation 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 13 7.7 0.0 46.2 46.2 3.3 0.85 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 8.3 0.0 33.3 58.3 3.4 0.90 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 8.3 0.0 8.3 83.3 3.7 0.89 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 8.3 0.0 25.0 66.7 3.5 0.90 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 7.7 0.0 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.88 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 8.3 8.3 83.3 3.8 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 317 001L1 EXISTENTIALIST THGT/LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Janairo, Edward % % 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 = 23 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 56.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 251 001L1 PHI & CLASSICAL PHYSICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jankovic, Vladimir SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 21.1 Sophomore 13 33.3 B 18 47.4 Junior 14 35.9 C 12 31.6 Senior 12 30.8 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 15 38.5 Studies Program 32 82.1 2 hours 11 28.2 Required by my major 1 2.6 3 hours 9 23.1 Other (e.g. elective) 6 15.4 4 - 5 hours 4 10.3 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 41 2.4 2.4 75.6 19.5 3.1 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 41 12.2 12.2 73.2 2.4 2.7 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 41 7.3 17.1 53.7 22.0 2.9 0.83 4. Exams reflected what was taught 41 0.0 7.3 65.9 26.8 3.2 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 41 2.4 19.5 65.9 12.2 2.9 0.64 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 41 0.0 12.2 63.4 24.4 3.1 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 41 0.0 4.9 70.7 24.4 3.2 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 41 0.0 36.6 56.1 7.3 2.7 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 41 2.4 17.1 56.1 24.4 3.0 0.72 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 41 0.0 0.0 41.5 58.5 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 36 0.0 5.6 50.0 44.4 3.4 0.60 12. Satisfact answered class questions 41 0.0 2.4 56.1 41.5 3.4 0.54 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 41 9.8 24.4 46.3 19.5 2.8 0.89 14. Encouraged class participation 40 5.0 12.5 67.5 15.0 2.9 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 37 2.7 13.5 67.6 16.2 3.0 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 39 0.0 30.8 59.0 10.3 2.8 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 37 0.0 35.1 56.8 8.1 2.7 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 40 2.5 5.0 72.5 20.0 3.1 0.59 19. Cours