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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 400 001S1 SPEC TOPS HISP LIT/LANG: DON QUIJOTE DE LA MANCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allen, John J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 44.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 55.6 Junior 1 11.1 C 0 0.0 Senior 8 88.9 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 7 77.8 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 2 22.2 4 - 5 hours 4 44.4 6 - 7 hours 2 22.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . % % % % 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 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 400 001S1 SPEC TOPS HISP LIT/LANG: DON QUIJOTE DE LA MANCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allen, John J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 81.8 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 770 001S1 SEM IN SPANISH STUDIES: QUIJOTE,THEORY & CRITICI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allen, John J 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 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 100.0 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 3 33.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 66.7 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 6 - 7 hours 3 33.3 8 or more hours 4 44.4 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 9.1 9.1 45.5 36.4 3.1 0.94 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 27.3 36.4 36.4 3.1 0.83 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 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 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 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 11.1 77.8 3.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 770 001S1 SEM IN SPANISH STUDIES: QUIJOTE,THEORY & CRITICI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Allen, John J % % 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 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 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 = 12 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 91.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 211 001L1 SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 13.3 A 11 73.3 Sophomore 5 33.3 B 4 26.7 Junior 3 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 26.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 6.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 33.3 Required by my major 11 73.3 3 hours 5 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 26.7 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 6.7 13.3 33.3 46.7 3.2 0.94 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 6.7 6.7 33.3 53.3 3.3 0.90 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 13.3 26.7 60.0 3.5 0.74 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 6.7 0.0 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.83 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 6.7 0.0 26.7 66.7 3.5 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 7.1 0.0 50.0 42.9 3.3 0.83 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 7.1 0.0 35.7 57.1 3.4 0.85 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 7.1 7.1 35.7 50.0 3.3 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 6.7 6.7 33.3 53.3 3.3 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 7.1 0.0 14.3 78.6 3.6 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 211 001L1 SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 18 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 83.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 603 001L1 CRIT/HIS PERSPECT MEDIEV RENAIS/GOLD AGE SPAN LI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 43.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 56.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 18 100.0 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 1 5.6 Studies Program 1 5.6 2 hours 1 5.6 Required by my major 16 88.9 3 hours 5 27.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 5.6 4 - 5 hours 6 33.3 6 - 7 hours 5 27.8 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 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 11.8 52.9 35.3 3.2 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 5.6 11.1 27.8 55.6 3.3 0.91 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 5.6 38.9 55.6 3.5 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 5.6 94.4 3.9 0.24 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 5.6 5.6 38.9 50.0 3.3 0.84 14. Encouraged class participation 17 5.9 0.0 64.7 29.4 3.2 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 17.6 52.9 29.4 3.1 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 6.3 12.5 81.3 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 603 001L1 CRIT/HIS PERSPECT MEDIEV RENAIS/GOLD AGE SPAN LI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Biglieri, Anibal A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 Percent completed = 94.7 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 401L1 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 5.6 A 9 50.0 Sophomore 2 11.1 B 6 33.3 Junior 3 16.7 C 2 11.1 Senior 7 38.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 5.6 I 0 0.0 Other 4 22.2 Pass or Audit 1 5.6 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 16.7 Studies Program 5 29.4 2 hours 4 22.2 Required by my major 5 29.4 3 hours 2 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 7 41.2 4 - 5 hours 2 11.1 6 - 7 hours 4 22.2 8 or more hours 3 16.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 5.3 21.1 73.7 3.7 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 5.3 0.0 52.6 42.1 3.3 0.75 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 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 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 6.7 6.7 33.3 53.3 3.3 0.90 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 15.8 26.3 57.9 3.4 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 5.3 94.7 3.9 0.23 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 401L1 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Contreras, Lisa % % 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 76.0 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 411G001L1 ADV SPANISH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = De Carvalho, Susan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 9.1 A 6 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 41.7 Junior 2 18.2 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 45.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 3 27.3 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 0 0.0 2 hours 2 16.7 Required by my major 8 72.7 3 hours 6 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 27.3 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 1 8.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 7.7 7.7 38.5 46.2 3.2 0.93 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 7.7 15.4 76.9 3.7 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 8.3 8.3 83.3 3.8 0.62 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 411G001L1 ADV SPANISH LANGUAGE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = De Carvalho, Susan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 15 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 86.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 641 001L1 SPANISH AMERICAN DRAMA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = De Carvalho, Susan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 14.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 100.0 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 6 85.7 3 hours 3 42.9 Other (e.g. elective) 1 14.3 4 - 5 hours 4 57.1 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 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 641 001L1 SPANISH AMERICAN DRAMA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = De Carvalho, Susan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 202 002L1 INTER SPAN IV(SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Everts, Nancy E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 10.0 A 2 22.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 44.4 Junior 2 20.0 C 2 22.2 Senior 7 70.0 D 1 11.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 10.0 Studies Program 5 50.0 2 hours 3 30.0 Required by my major 5 50.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 40.0 6 - 7 hours 1 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 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 10.0 30.0 20.0 40.0 2.9 1.10 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 22.2 0.0 77.8 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 202 002L1 INTER SPAN IV(SPOKEN AP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Everts, Nancy 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 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 66.7 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 291 001L1 INTERMEDIATE ITALIAN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Impey, Michael H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 44.4 Sophomore 1 11.1 B 3 33.3 Junior 3 33.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 33.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 11.1 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 11.1 Pass or Audit 2 22.2 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 22.2 Studies Program 2 25.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 4 50.0 3 hours 4 44.4 Other (e.g. elective) 2 25.0 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 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 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 9.1 0.0 18.2 72.7 3.5 0.93 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 18.2 18.2 63.6 3.5 0.82 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 8.3 0.0 33.3 58.3 3.4 0.90 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 8.3 0.0 0.0 91.7 3.8 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 18.2 0.0 36.4 45.5 3.1 1.14 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 8.3 0.0 16.7 75.0 3.6 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 291 001L1 INTERMEDIATE ITALIAN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Impey, Michael 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 512 001L1 SPAN CULT THRU 17TH CENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, Joseph R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 28.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 42.9 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 28.6 Senior 2 25.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 75.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 28.6 Required by my major 4 57.1 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 3 42.9 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 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 8 0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5 3.1 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 12.5 25.0 50.0 12.5 2.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 14.3 0.0 71.4 14.3 2.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 512 001L1 SPAN CULT THRU 17TH CENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, Joseph R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 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 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 10 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 532 001L1 THE GENERATION OF 1898 INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, Margaret E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 20.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 80.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 25.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 75.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 3 60.0 8 or more hours 1 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . % % % % 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 532 001L1 THE GENERATION OF 1898 INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, Margaret E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 7 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 71.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 776 001S1 SEM SP AMER LITERATURE: BOUNDARIES OF LITERARY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kuhnheim, Jill SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 25.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 75.0 4 - 5 hours 3 60.0 6 - 7 hours 1 20.0 8 or more hours 1 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 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 776 001S1 SEM SP AMER LITERATURE: BOUNDARIES OF LITERARY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kuhnheim, Jill % % 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 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 28. Guided student report preparation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 = 5 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = SPI 191 003L1 ELEMENTARY ITALIAN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Natale, Marina SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 63.6 Sophomore 2 18.2 B 3 27.3 Junior 5 45.5 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 36.4 D 1 9.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 2 18.2 2 hours 4 36.4 Required by my major 7 63.6 3 hours 3 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 4 - 5 hours 3 27.3 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 33.3 41.7 25.0 2.9 0.79 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 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 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Unknown faculty type COURSE = SPI 191 003L1 ELEMENTARY ITALIAN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Natale, Marina % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 22 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 54.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 210 001L1 SPANISH COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 14.3 A 10 76.9 Sophomore 5 35.7 B 2 15.4 Junior 5 35.7 C 1 7.7 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 2 14.3 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 7.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 21.4 Required by my major 7 50.0 3 hours 1 7.1 Other (e.g. elective) 7 50.0 4 - 5 hours 6 42.9 6 - 7 hours 1 7.1 8 or more hours 2 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 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 13.3 46.7 40.0 3.3 0.70 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 7.1 0.0 57.1 35.7 3.2 0.80 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 13.3 0.0 33.3 53.3 3.3 1.03 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 6.7 0.0 40.0 53.3 3.4 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 6.7 20.0 73.3 3.7 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 13.3 33.3 53.3 3.4 0.74 % % % % 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 15 0.0 6.7 13.3 80.0 3.7 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 210 001L1 SPANISH COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 15 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 210 003L1 SPANISH COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 18.2 A 6 54.5 Sophomore 1 9.1 B 5 45.5 Junior 5 45.5 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 27.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 7 63.6 3 hours 3 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 4 36.4 4 - 5 hours 3 27.3 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 8 or more hours 1 9.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 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 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 210 003L1 SPANISH COMPOSITION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada % % 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 70.6 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 211 002L1 SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 69.2 Sophomore 4 30.8 B 4 30.8 Junior 6 46.2 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 23.1 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 15.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 38.5 Required by my major 6 46.2 3 hours 4 30.8 Other (e.g. elective) 7 53.8 4 - 5 hours 1 7.7 6 - 7 hours 1 7.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 211 002L1 SPANISH CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 87.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available at our UK web page 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 324 001L1 THEATRE SPAIN/SPAN AMER INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada 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 6 30.0 C 1 5.0 Senior 11 55.0 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 30.0 Required by my major 7 35.0 3 hours 10 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 13 65.0 4 - 5 hours 4 20.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 5.0 10.0 45.0 40.0 3.2 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 5.0 55.0 40.0 3.4 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 0.0 5.0 20.0 75.0 3.7 0.57 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37 12. Satisfact answered class questions 20 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 5.6 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 15.0 70.0 15.0 3.0 0.56 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 0.0 55.0 45.0 3.5 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = SPI 324 001L1 THEATRE SPAIN/SPAN AMER INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pertusa, Inmaculada % % 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 = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 87.0 % 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 = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 027L1 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Redd, Margaret G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 10.0 A 1 10.0 Sophomore 4 40.0 B 5 50.0 Junior 5 50.0 C 3 30.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 1 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 2 20.0 Studies Program 3 30.0 2 hours 3 30.0 Required by my major 6 60.0 3 hours 2 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 10.0 4 - 5 hours 1 10.0 6 - 7 hours 2 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 10 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 2.9 0.57 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.4 1.07 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 10.0 40.0 40.0 10.0 2.5 0.85 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 3.0 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 30.0 0.0 60.0 10.0 2.5 1.08 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 10.0 0.0 70.0 20.0 3.0 0.82 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 10.0 10.0 80.0 0.0 2.7 0.67 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 2.4 0.84 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 30.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 2.4 1.17 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 10.0 0.0 70.0 20.0 3.0 0.82 11. Was available for consultation 10 10.0 30.0 60.0 0.0 2.5 0.71 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 20.0 30.0 40.0 10.0 2.4 0.97 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 30.0 50.0 0.0 20.0 2.1 1.10 14. Encouraged class participation 10 30.0 0.0 60.0 10.0 2.5 1.08 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 50.0 12.5 25.0 12.5 2.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 50.0 12.5 25.0 12.5 2.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 50.0 12.5 37.5 0.0 1.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 30.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 2.4 1.17 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 40.0 10.0 30.0 20.0 2.3 1.25 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 40.0 50.0 10.0 0.0 1.7 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 40.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 1.8 0.79 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Spanish and Italian FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = SPI 101 027L1 ELEM SPAN I (SPOKEN APP) INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Redd, Margaret G % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 71.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRE