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 = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 342 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES IV, AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crawford, Brian L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 16.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 6 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 66.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 16.7 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 6 100.0 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 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 342 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES IV, AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crawford, Brian 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 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 = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 112 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES I AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grupe, Dale J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 10 83.3 A 11 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 1 8.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 8.3 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 9 75.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 2 16.7 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 10 83.3 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 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 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 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 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 10 0.0 0.0 70.0 30.0 3.3 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 0.84 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 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 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 112 001L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES I AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grupe, Dale 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 112 002L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES I AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grupe, Dale J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 7 63.6 A 9 81.8 Sophomore 1 9.1 B 2 18.2 Junior 3 27.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 63.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 18.2 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 11 100.0 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 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 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 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 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 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 25.0 33.3 41.7 3.2 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 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 112 002L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES I AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grupe, Dale 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 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 13 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 92.3 % 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 = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 332 401L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES III, AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koontz, Craig L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 68.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 25.0 Junior 13 81.3 C 1 6.3 Senior 3 18.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 31.3 Studies Program 2 12.5 2 hours 8 50.0 Required by my major 1 6.3 3 hours 1 6.3 Other (e.g. elective) 13 81.3 4 - 5 hours 2 12.5 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 6.3 37.5 43.8 12.5 2.6 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 37.5 43.8 18.8 2.8 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 15.4 61.5 23.1 3.1 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 14.3 64.3 21.4 3.1 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 14.3 64.3 21.4 3.1 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 6.7 66.7 26.7 3.2 0.56 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 6.7 6.7 86.7 3.8 0.56 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 332 401L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES III, AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koontz, 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 88.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 212 002L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES II AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, Kelly SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 3 60.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 2 40.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 100.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 100.0 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 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Aerospace Studies DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = AS 212 002L1 AEROSPACE STUDIES II AFROTC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, Kelly % % 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 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 = 13 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 53.8 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO".