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 - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 001L1 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anschel, Kurt R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 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 3 30.0 Studies Program 2 20.0 2 hours 1 10.0 Required by my major 6 60.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 20.0 4 - 5 hours 5 50.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 3.0 0.94 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 11.1 0.0 33.3 55.6 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 10.0 20.0 60.0 10.0 2.7 0.82 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 9.1 0.0 63.6 27.3 3.1 0.83 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 2.8 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 36.4 36.4 27.3 2.9 0.83 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 27.3 36.4 36.4 3.1 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 27.3 36.4 36.4 3.1 0.83 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 9.1 36.4 36.4 18.2 2.6 0.92 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 001L1 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Anschel, Kurt R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 73.3 % 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 606 001L1 ADV AGRICULTURAL MKT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bobst, Barry W 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 1 20.0 Studies Program 1 20.0 2 hours 1 20.0 Required by my major 3 60.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 20.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 606 001L1 ADV AGRICULTURAL MKT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bobst, Barry W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 422 001L1 AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crank, David SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 42.9 Junior 1 14.3 C 1 14.3 Senior 6 85.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 14.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 14.3 Required by my major 7 100.0 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 28.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 12.5 50.0 37.5 0.0 2.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 37.5 50.0 0.0 12.5 1.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 50.0 37.5 12.5 2.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 12.5 12.5 62.5 12.5 2.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 62.5 25.0 12.5 0.0 1.5 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 12.5 75.0 12.5 0.0 2.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 37.5 50.0 12.5 2.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 83.3 16.7 0.0 2.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 2.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 16.7 66.7 16.7 0.0 2.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 25.0 37.5 37.5 0.0 2.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 25.0 62.5 12.5 0.0 1.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 37.5 25.0 37.5 0.0 2.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 1.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 422 001L1 AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crank, David % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 321 001L1 AG FUTURES MARKETS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Joe T SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 22.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 40.7 Junior 11 40.7 C 10 37.0 Senior 15 55.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 3.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 23.1 Studies Program 1 3.7 2 hours 10 38.5 Required by my major 18 66.7 3 hours 9 34.6 Other (e.g. elective) 8 29.6 4 - 5 hours 1 3.8 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 29 0.0 10.3 58.6 31.0 3.2 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 17.9 50.0 28.6 3.6 2.2 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 7.4 11.1 74.1 7.4 2.8 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 29 3.4 10.3 48.3 37.9 3.2 0.77 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 0.0 3.4 65.5 31.0 3.3 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 27 3.7 0.0 66.7 29.6 3.2 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 0.0 0.0 46.4 53.6 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 0.0 17.9 64.3 17.9 3.0 0.61 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 0.0 3.4 65.5 31.0 3.3 0.53 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 0.0 41.4 58.6 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 26 0.0 3.8 57.7 38.5 3.3 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 0.0 0.0 65.5 34.5 3.3 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 29 0.0 10.3 62.1 27.6 3.2 0.60 14. Encouraged class participation 29 0.0 3.4 58.6 37.9 3.3 0.55 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 4.5 27.3 59.1 9.1 2.7 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 29 0.0 6.9 58.6 34.5 3.3 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 29 0.0 6.9 58.6 34.5 3.3 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 0.0 6.9 41.4 51.7 3.4 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 29 0.0 17.2 48.3 34.5 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 29 6.9 6.9 44.8 41.4 3.2 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 29 6.9 3.4 44.8 44.8 3.3 0.84 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 321 001L1 AG FUTURES MARKETS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Joe T % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 38 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 29 Percent completed = 76.3 % 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 001L2 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 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 3 30.0 Studies Program 2 20.0 2 hours 1 10.0 Required by my major 6 60.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 20.0 4 - 5 hours 5 50.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 27.3 36.4 36.4 3.1 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 27.3 36.4 36.4 3.1 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 626 001L2 AG & ECO DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goetz, Stephan % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 73.3 % 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 303 001L1 MICROECONOMIC CONCEPTS IN AG ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hall, Harry H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 25.8 Sophomore 2 6.3 B 14 45.2 Junior 15 46.9 C 8 25.8 Senior 15 46.9 D 1 3.2 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 12.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 15 48.4 Required by my major 26 83.9 3 hours 8 25.8 Other (e.g. elective) 5 16.1 4 - 5 hours 1 3.2 6 - 7 hours 1 3.2 8 or more hours 2 6.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 34 0.0 17.6 67.6 14.7 3.0 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 34 23.5 41.2 35.3 0.0 2.1 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 34 8.8 11.8 64.7 14.7 2.9 0.78 4. Exams reflected what was taught 34 5.9 8.8 70.6 14.7 2.9 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 34 2.9 23.5 61.8 11.8 2.8 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 34 0.0 2.9 79.4 17.6 3.1 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 34 0.0 2.9 64.7 32.4 3.3 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 34 5.9 26.5 55.9 11.8 2.7 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 34 11.8 32.4 52.9 2.9 2.5 0.75 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 34 0.0 0.0 79.4 20.6 3.2 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 34 0.0 2.9 67.6 29.4 3.3 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 33 3.0 21.2 66.7 9.1 2.8 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 34 14.7 41.2 38.2 5.9 2.4 0.81 14. Encouraged class participation 34 0.0 23.5 61.8 14.7 2.9 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 8.0 28.0 60.0 4.0 2.6 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 34 5.9 14.7 58.8 20.6 2.9 0.78 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 33 6.1 12.1 66.7 15.2 2.9 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 34 8.8 17.6 55.9 17.6 2.8 0.83 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 32 12.5 53.1 28.1 6.3 2.3 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 34 14.7 35.3 41.2 8.8 2.4 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 34 11.8 35.3 50.0 2.9 2.4 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 303 001L1 MICROECONOMIC CONCEPTS IN AG ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hall, Harry 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 = 49 Number of forms scanned = 34 Number of forms with at least one student response = 34 Percent completed = 69.4 % 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 445G001L1 INTRO RESOURCE/ENVIR ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Infanger, Craig L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 35.5 Sophomore 1 3.2 B 20 64.5 Junior 13 41.9 C 0 0.0 Senior 16 51.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 3.2 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 9.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 25.8 Required by my major 29 93.5 3 hours 6 19.4 Other (e.g. elective) 2 6.5 4 - 5 hours 11 35.5 6 - 7 hours 2 6.5 8 or more hours 1 3.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 31 0.0 0.0 38.7 61.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 0.0 6.5 48.4 45.2 3.4 0.62 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 31 0.0 0.0 41.9 58.1 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 31 0.0 0.0 51.6 48.4 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 0.0 0.0 35.5 64.5 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 31 0.0 3.2 48.4 48.4 3.5 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 31 0.0 0.0 38.7 61.3 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 31 0.0 6.5 35.5 58.1 3.5 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 31 0.0 3.2 32.3 64.5 3.6 0.56 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 31 0.0 0.0 19.4 80.6 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 30 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 31 0.0 0.0 45.2 54.8 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 31 0.0 0.0 38.7 61.3 3.6 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 31 0.0 6.5 25.8 67.7 3.6 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 30 0.0 3.3 50.0 46.7 3.4 0.57 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 31 0.0 6.5 41.9 51.6 3.5 0.62 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 29 0.0 10.3 34.5 55.2 3.4 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 0.0 0.0 29.0 71.0 3.7 0.46 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 0.0 6.7 50.0 43.3 3.4 0.61 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 31 0.0 0.0 35.5 64.5 3.6 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 31 0.0 0.0 19.4 80.6 3.8 0.40 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 445G001L1 INTRO RESOURCE/ENVIR ECO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Infanger, Craig L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 41 Number of forms scanned = 32 Number of forms with at least one student response = 32 Percent completed = 78.0 % 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 502 001L1 ADVANCED FARM MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Joerger, Paul J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 Junior 1 16.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 83.3 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 2 33.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 33.3 Required by my major 3 50.0 3 hours 2 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 3 50.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 2.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 502 001L1 ADVANCED FARM MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Joerger, Paul 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 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 = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 300 401L1 TOPS AEC:ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & REGULATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kolanz, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 8.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 66.7 Junior 1 8.3 C 3 25.0 Senior 11 91.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 5 41.7 Required by my major 1 8.3 3 hours 6 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 11 91.7 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 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 8 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 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 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 % % % % 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 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = AEC 300 401L1 TOPS AEC:ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & REGULATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kolanz, John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD & AG MARKET PRIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 29.3 Sophomore 10 23.8 B 23 56.1 Junior 19 45.2 C 5 12.2 Senior 13 31.0 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 1 2.4 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 12 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 15 35.7 Required by my major 26 61.9 3 hours 11 26.2 Other (e.g. elective) 16 38.1 4 - 5 hours 2 4.8 6 - 7 hours 2 4.8 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 45 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 44 4.5 20.5 54.5 20.5 2.9 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 45 0.0 6.7 42.2 51.1 3.4 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 45 0.0 4.4 46.7 48.9 3.4 0.59 5. Grading was fair and consistent 45 0.0 4.4 60.0 35.6 3.3 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 45 0.0 17.8 53.3 28.9 3.1 0.68 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 45 2.2 35.6 40.0 22.2 2.8 0.81 8. Graded assignments included comments 45 2.2 15.6 44.4 37.8 3.2 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 45 0.0 4.4 37.8 57.8 3.5 0.59 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 45 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 43 0.0 0.0 37.2 62.8 3.6 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 45 0.0 0.0 37.8 62.2 3.6 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 45 2.2 2.2 40.0 55.6 3.5 0.66 14. Encouraged class participation 45 0.0 2.2 24.4 73.3 3.7 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 40 0.0 2.5 55.0 42.5 3.4 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 44 0.0 0.0 43.2 56.8 3.6 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 44 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 45 0.0 0.0 51.1 48.9 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 44 2.3 18.2 38.6 40.9 3.2 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 45 0.0 4.4 57.8 37.8 3.3 0.56 21. Overall quality of teaching 45 0.0 4.4 31.1 64.4 3.6 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 305 001L1 FOOD & AG MARKET PRIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Mather, Loys L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 51 Number of forms scanned = 45 Number of forms with at least one student response = 45 Percent completed = 88.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 627 001L1 PROJECT ANALYSIS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pagoulatos, Angelos SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 80.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 20.0 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 1 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 40.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 60.0 4 - 5 hours 2 40.0 6 - 7 hours 1 20.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 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 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 20.0 40.0 0.0 40.0 2.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 40.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 2.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 627 001L1 PROJECT ANALYSIS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Pagoulatos, Angelos % % 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 = 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 from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 532 001L1 AGRICULT & FOOD POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Skees, Jerry R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 61.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 28.6 Junior 2 9.5 C 1 4.8 Senior 17 81.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.8 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 4.8 Pass or Audit 1 4.8 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 25.0 Required by my major 14 66.7 3 hours 11 55.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 33.3 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 24 0.0 4.2 62.5 33.3 3.3 0.55 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 0.0 31.6 57.9 10.5 2.8 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 8.3 54.2 37.5 3.3 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 8.3 62.5 29.2 3.2 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 13.0 69.6 17.4 3.0 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.70 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 0.0 4.2 70.8 25.0 3.2 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 0.0 8.3 45.8 45.8 3.4 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 0.0 29.2 70.8 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 14. Encouraged class participation 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 0.0 8.3 45.8 45.8 3.4 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 0.0 8.3 54.2 37.5 3.3 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 532 001L1 AGRICULT & FOOD POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Skees, Jerry R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 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 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 85.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 640 001L1 ADV AGRICULTURAL POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Skees, Jerry R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 80.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 7 70.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 30.0 4 - 5 hours 3 30.0 6 - 7 hours 1 10.0 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 10 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 2.9 0.57 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 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 3.0 0.94 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 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 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 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 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 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 11.1 0.0 55.6 33.3 3.1 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Agriculture DEPARTMENT = Agricultural Economics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AEC 640 001L1 ADV AGRICULTURAL POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Skees, Jerry R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students