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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 406 001L1 PRODUC/INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 93.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 6.7 Junior 2 13.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 13 86.7 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 5 33.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 20.0 Required by my major 15 100.0 3 hours 3 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 6.7 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 2 13.3 % % 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 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 6.3 6.3 68.8 18.8 3.0 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 4. Exams reflected what was taught 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 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 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 406 001L1 PRODUC/INVENTORY CONTROL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 Percent completed = 76.2 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 753 401S1 SEM MANAGEMENT SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen H SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 16.7 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 1 16.7 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 4 57.1 Required by my major 5 71.4 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 2 28.6 4 - 5 hours 1 14.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 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 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 25.0 12.5 62.5 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 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 753 401S1 SEM MANAGEMENT SCIENCE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chung, Chen 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 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 28. Guided student report preparation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 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 = 9 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 450 001L1 DECISION ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 36.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 63.2 Junior 1 5.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 18 94.7 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 26.3 Required by my major 17 89.5 3 hours 7 36.8 Other (e.g. elective) 2 10.5 4 - 5 hours 5 26.3 6 - 7 hours 2 10.5 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 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 5.3 21.1 68.4 5.3 2.7 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 0.0 26.3 73.7 3.7 0.45 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 5.3 57.9 36.8 3.3 0.58 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 10.5 89.5 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 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 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 5.6 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.59 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 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 19 5.3 10.5 63.2 21.1 3.0 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 450 001L1 DECISION ANALYSIS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 33 Number of forms scanned = 19 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 57.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 752 401S1 TOPICS IN OPTIMIZATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 33.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 16.7 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 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 14.3 4 - 5 hours 5 71.4 6 - 7 hours 2 28.6 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 14.3 0.0 42.9 42.9 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 14.3 0.0 28.6 57.1 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 14.3 0.0 42.9 42.9 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 14.3 0.0 42.9 42.9 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 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 752 401S1 TOPICS IN OPTIMIZATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Goh, C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 70.0 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 001L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gonsalves, Gerald 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 5 71.4 C 1 14.3 Senior 2 28.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 42.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 57.1 Required by my major 7 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 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 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 14.3 14.3 57.1 14.3 2.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 16.7 16.7 50.0 16.7 2.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 16.7 50.0 33.3 0.0 2.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 14.3 0.0 71.4 14.3 2.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 001L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gonsalves, Gerald % % 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 = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 38.9 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 002L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Groleau, T SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 40.0 Junior 23 92.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 8.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 32.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 12 48.0 Required by my major 25 100.0 3 hours 4 16.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 4.0 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 27 0.0 0.0 51.9 48.1 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 27 0.0 14.8 59.3 25.9 3.1 0.64 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 27 0.0 3.7 48.1 48.1 3.4 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 27 0.0 7.4 51.9 40.7 3.3 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 27 0.0 3.7 51.9 44.4 3.4 0.57 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 27 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 27 7.4 18.5 63.0 11.1 2.8 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 0.0 7.4 55.6 37.0 3.3 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 3.8 26.9 61.5 7.7 2.7 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 27 0.0 7.4 51.9 40.7 3.3 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 11.8 82.4 5.9 2.9 0.43 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 0.0 3.8 73.1 23.1 3.2 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 8.3 33.3 50.0 8.3 2.6 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 27 0.0 11.1 63.0 25.9 3.1 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 0.0 7.4 51.9 40.7 3.3 0.62 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 002L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Groleau, 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 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 = 38 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 27 Percent completed = 71.1 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 003L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Groleau, T SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 21 87.5 Sophomore 1 4.2 B 3 12.5 Junior 6 25.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 16 66.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 4.2 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 25.0 Studies Program 2 8.3 2 hours 8 33.3 Required by my major 20 83.3 3 hours 9 37.5 Other (e.g. elective) 2 8.3 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 4.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 4.0 48.0 48.0 3.4 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 8.0 80.0 12.0 3.0 0.45 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 0.0 0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 0.0 4.2 33.3 62.5 3.6 0.58 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 24.0 52.0 24.0 3.0 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 56.0 44.0 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 24.0 44.0 32.0 3.1 0.76 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 16.0 40.0 44.0 3.3 0.74 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 0.58 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 4.2 50.0 45.8 3.4 0.58 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 23 0.0 30.4 47.8 21.7 2.9 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 4.5 63.6 31.8 3.3 0.55 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 003L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Groleau, 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 34 Number of forms scanned = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 73.5 % 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 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 004L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Groleau, T SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 25.9 Junior 12 44.4 C 2 7.4 Senior 15 55.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 12 44.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 10 37.0 Required by my major 27 100.0 3 hours 5 18.5 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 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 28 0.0 0.0 60.7 39.3 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 28 0.0 21.4 71.4 7.1 2.9 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 28 3.6 0.0 53.6 42.9 3.4 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.64 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 0.0 0.0 46.4 53.6 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 38.5 42.3 19.2 2.8 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 27 0.0 0.0 51.9 48.1 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 27 0.0 0.0 37.0 63.0 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 26 0.0 0.0 65.4 34.6 3.3 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 27 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 26.9 50.0 23.1 3.0 0.72 14. Encouraged class participation 27 0.0 7.4 51.9 40.7 3.3 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 21.1 63.2 10.5 2.8 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 4.0 0.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.68 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 3.8 0.0 65.4 30.8 3.2 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 0.0 57.7 42.3 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 4.0 64.0 20.0 12.0 2.4 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 3.6 14.3 57.1 25.0 3.0 0.74 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 0.0 3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = DIS 300 004L1 QUANT ANALY IN OPS MGT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Groleau, 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 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 = 38 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 73.7 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 621 001L1 BUSINESS EXPERT SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 22.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 11.1 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 11.1 Required by my major 2 22.2 3 hours 4 44.4 Other (e.g. elective) 7 77.8 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 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 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 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 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 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 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 621 001L1 BUSINESS EXPERT SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 9 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 623 001L1 BUS DECISION SUPPORT SYS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 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 50.0 3 hours 4 66.7 Other (e.g. elective) 3 50.0 4 - 5 hours 1 16.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 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 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 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 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 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 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 623 001L1 BUS DECISION SUPPORT SYS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holsapple, Clyde 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 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 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 = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 624 401L1 MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 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 1 14.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 14.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 42.9 Other (e.g. elective) 7 100.0 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 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 624 401L1 MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lederer, Al % % 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 = 11 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 72.7 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 001L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 69.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 30.8 Junior 1 7.7 C 0 0.0 Senior 12 92.3 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 1 7.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 5 38.5 3 hours 6 46.2 Other (e.g. elective) 8 61.5 4 - 5 hours 1 7.7 6 - 7 hours 2 15.4 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 5.9 5.9 64.7 23.5 3.1 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 5.9 64.7 29.4 3.2 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 82.4 17.6 3.2 0.39 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 70.6 29.4 3.3 0.47 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 88.2 11.8 3.1 0.33 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 11.8 76.5 11.8 3.0 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 76.5 23.5 3.2 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 6.7 93.3 0.0 2.9 0.26 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 86.7 13.3 3.1 0.35 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 6.7 80.0 13.3 3.1 0.46 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 81.3 18.8 3.2 0.40 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 13.3 86.7 0.0 2.9 0.35 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 001L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita % % 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 68.0 % 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 = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 41.7 Junior 3 25.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 8 66.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 8.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 8.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 16.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 6 50.0 3 hours 6 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 50.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 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 0.0 84.6 15.4 3.2 0.38 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 15.4 76.9 7.7 2.9 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 7.7 76.9 15.4 3.1 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 7.7 76.9 15.4 3.1 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 84.6 15.4 3.2 0.38 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 15.4 76.9 7.7 2.9 0.49 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 15.4 76.9 7.7 2.9 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 15.4 61.5 23.1 3.1 0.64 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 22.2 66.7 11.1 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 92.3 7.7 3.1 0.28 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 15.4 46.2 30.8 7.7 2.3 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 15.4 76.9 7.7 2.9 0.49 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Business and Economics DEPARTMENT = Decision Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIS 320 002L1 MANAGEMENT INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee-Post, Anita % % Strongly % % Strongly