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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 107 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 10 55.6 A 1 5.6 Sophomore 5 27.8 B 8 44.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 8 44.4 Senior 2 11.1 D 1 5.6 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 5.6 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 5.3 Studies Program 1 5.3 2 hours 4 21.1 Required by my major 16 84.2 3 hours 4 21.1 Other (e.g. elective) 2 10.5 4 - 5 hours 4 21.1 6 - 7 hours 3 15.8 8 or more hours 3 15.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 0.0 0.0 59.1 40.9 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 26.1 47.8 26.1 3.0 0.74 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 4.3 21.7 52.2 21.7 2.9 0.79 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 17.4 21.7 52.2 8.7 2.5 0.90 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 4.3 26.1 56.5 13.0 2.8 0.74 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 0.0 77.3 22.7 3.2 0.43 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 4.8 61.9 33.3 3.3 0.56 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 18.2 63.6 9.1 9.1 2.1 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 8.7 21.7 47.8 21.7 2.8 0.89 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 13.0 52.2 34.8 3.2 0.67 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.59 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 13.0 30.4 47.8 8.7 2.5 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 22 4.5 22.7 59.1 13.6 2.8 0.73 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 11.1 11.1 72.2 5.6 2.7 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 4.3 17.4 60.9 17.4 2.9 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 4.3 17.4 56.5 21.7 3.0 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 4.3 8.7 69.6 17.4 3.0 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 13.0 47.8 34.8 4.3 2.3 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 9.1 36.4 40.9 13.6 2.6 0.85 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 13.6 27.3 27.3 31.8 2.8 1.07 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 107 007L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Ades, Harriet F % % 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 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 64 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 35.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 526 001L1 CHEMICAL SEPARATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 57.1 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 28.6 Junior 2 14.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 14.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 71.4 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 14.3 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 28.6 Studies Program 1 7.1 2 hours 2 14.3 Required by my major 5 35.7 3 hours 4 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 8 57.1 4 - 5 hours 3 21.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 14.3 0.0 50.0 35.7 3.1 1.00 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 7.7 0.0 53.8 38.5 3.2 0.83 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 10.0 0.0 80.0 10.0 2.9 0.74 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.72 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 7.1 7.1 35.7 50.0 3.3 0.91 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 526 001L1 CHEMICAL SEPARATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bachas, Leonidas G % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 20 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 643 001L1 SPECTROSCOPY & PHOTOPHYS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Clouthier, Dennis J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 40.0 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 1 20.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 20.0 Required by my major 4 80.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 20.0 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 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . % % % % 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 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 643 001L1 SPECTROSCOPY & PHOTOPHYS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Clouthier, Dennis 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 = 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 003L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 35 71.4 A 8 17.0 Sophomore 11 22.4 B 20 42.6 Junior 1 2.0 C 12 25.5 Senior 2 4.1 D 3 6.4 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 4 8.5 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 8.2 Studies Program 8 16.7 2 hours 12 24.5 Required by my major 38 79.2 3 hours 14 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 2 4.2 4 - 5 hours 10 20.4 6 - 7 hours 2 4.1 8 or more hours 7 14.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 52 0.0 1.9 65.4 32.7 3.3 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 52 5.8 17.3 51.9 25.0 3.0 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 49 12.2 18.4 51.0 18.4 2.8 0.90 4. Exams reflected what was taught 52 17.3 32.7 38.5 11.5 2.4 0.92 5. Grading was fair and consistent 52 3.8 25.0 51.9 19.2 2.9 0.77 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 48 0.0 2.1 75.0 22.9 3.2 0.46 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 47 0.0 0.0 46.8 53.2 3.5 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 41.7 37.5 8.3 12.5 1.9 1.02 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 52 9.6 32.7 44.2 13.5 2.6 0.84 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 52 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 46 2.2 2.2 78.3 17.4 3.1 0.53 12. Satisfact answered class questions 52 5.8 23.1 59.6 11.5 2.8 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 52 13.5 38.5 40.4 7.7 2.4 0.82 14. Encouraged class participation 50 2.0 26.0 58.0 14.0 2.8 0.68 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 32 9.4 34.4 50.0 6.3 2.5 0.76 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 50 8.0 10.0 70.0 12.0 2.9 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 50 4.0 12.0 68.0 16.0 3.0 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 51 9.8 13.7 60.8 15.7 2.8 0.82 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 46 17.4 47.8 30.4 4.3 2.2 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 52 13.5 30.8 50.0 5.8 2.5 0.80 21. Overall quality of teaching 52 11.5 36.5 30.8 21.2 2.6 0.95 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 003L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul 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 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 3.1 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 7 14.3 0.0 71.4 14.3 2.9 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 199 Number of forms scanned = 52 Number of forms with at least one student response = 52 Percent completed = 26.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 548 001L1 PRIN OF PHYSICAL CHEM II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 62.5 Junior 1 12.5 C 1 12.5 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 7 87.5 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 12.5 Studies Program 1 12.5 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 6 75.0 3 hours 4 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 1 12.5 8 or more hours 2 25.0 % % 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 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 2.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 2.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 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 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 25.0 75.0 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 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 12.5 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 548 001L1 PRIN OF PHYSICAL CHEM II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Corio, Paul 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 = 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 106 001L1 INTRO INORG/ORG/BIOCHEM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 12 50.0 A 18 78.3 Sophomore 9 37.5 B 2 8.7 Junior 1 4.2 C 3 13.0 Senior 2 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 7 29.2 Studies Program 6 30.0 2 hours 11 45.8 Required by my major 14 70.0 3 hours 4 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 8.3 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 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 8.7 8.7 60.9 21.7 3.0 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 13.3 0.0 66.7 20.0 2.9 0.88 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 11.1 22.2 33.3 33.3 2.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 0.0 4.2 33.3 62.5 3.6 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 0.0 20.8 79.2 3.8 0.41 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 19.0 38.1 42.9 3.2 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 24 0.0 0.0 45.8 54.2 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 9.5 61.9 28.6 3.2 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 9.1 40.9 31.8 18.2 2.6 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 0.0 4.2 54.2 41.7 3.4 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 0.0 4.2 4.2 91.7 3.9 0.45 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 106 001L1 INTRO INORG/ORG/BIOCHEM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 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 = 43 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 55.8 % *********************************************************************** * 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". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 106 002L1 INTRO INORG/ORG/BIOCHEM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 15 68.2 A 11 50.0 Sophomore 6 27.3 B 8 36.4 Junior 1 4.5 C 3 13.6 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 8 36.4 Studies Program 6 28.6 2 hours 5 22.7 Required by my major 15 71.4 3 hours 6 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 9.1 6 - 7 hours 1 4.5 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 23 0.0 4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 9.1 4.5 45.5 40.9 3.2 0.91 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 3.0 0.94 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 4.3 30.4 65.2 3.6 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 8.7 47.8 43.5 3.3 0.65 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 0.0 0.0 65.2 34.8 3.3 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 0.0 56.5 43.5 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 8.7 47.8 30.4 13.0 2.5 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 0.0 4.3 13.0 82.6 3.8 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 106 002L1 INTRO INORG/ORG/BIOCHEM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % 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 11 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 2.8 0.87 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 11 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 2.8 0.87 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 82.1 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 106 003L1 INTRO INORG/ORG/BIOCHEM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 22 56.4 A 18 47.4 Sophomore 9 23.1 B 13 34.2 Junior 3 7.7 C 4 10.5 Senior 3 7.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 2.6 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 2.6 Pass or Audit 3 7.9 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 9 23.7 Studies Program 5 13.5 2 hours 18 47.4 Required by my major 31 83.8 3 hours 8 21.1 Other (e.g. elective) 1 2.7 4 - 5 hours 3 7.9 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 41 0.0 0.0 41.5 58.5 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 41 12.2 22.0 34.1 31.7 2.9 1.01 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 41 0.0 2.4 26.8 70.7 3.7 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 41 0.0 0.0 29.3 70.7 3.7 0.46 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 3.6 28.6 67.9 3.6 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 38 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 5.3 5.3 31.6 57.9 3.4 0.84 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 41 0.0 0.0 24.4 75.6 3.8 0.43 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 41 0.0 0.0 14.6 85.4 3.9 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 34 0.0 0.0 20.6 79.4 3.8 0.41 12. Satisfact answered class questions 41 0.0 2.4 17.1 80.5 3.8 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 41 0.0 7.3 39.0 53.7 3.5 0.64 14. Encouraged class participation 41 0.0 0.0 34.1 65.9 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 32 0.0 12.5 59.4 28.1 3.2 0.63 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 34 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 33 3.0 3.0 42.4 51.5 3.4 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 40 0.0 0.0 47.5 52.5 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 39 7.7 33.3 35.9 23.1 2.7 0.91 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 40 0.0 5.0 37.5 57.5 3.5 0.60 21. Overall quality of teaching 40 0.0 0.0 7.5 92.5 3.9 0.27 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 106 003L1 INTRO INORG/ORG/BIOCHEM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Daunert, Sylvia % % 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 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 = 90 Number of forms scanned = 41 Number of forms with at least one student response = 41 Percent completed = 45.6 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, Robert SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 1.7 A 17 28.3 Sophomore 24 40.7 B 29 48.3 Junior 20 33.9 C 14 23.3 Senior 10 16.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 4 6.8 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 1.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 12.1 Required by my major 50 84.7 3 hours 17 29.3 Other (e.g. elective) 9 15.3 4 - 5 hours 21 36.2 6 - 7 hours 8 13.8 8 or more hours 4 6.9 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 64 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 63 1.6 7.9 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 62 0.0 3.2 41.9 54.8 3.5 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 64 1.6 9.4 46.9 42.2 3.3 0.71 5. Grading was fair and consistent 64 1.6 14.1 50.0 34.4 3.2 0.72 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 55 1.8 3.6 56.4 38.2 3.3 0.63 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 60 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 51 2.0 45.1 37.3 15.7 2.7 0.77 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 65 0.0 3.1 40.0 56.9 3.5 0.56 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 64 0.0 1.6 26.6 71.9 3.7 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 63 0.0 1.6 33.3 65.1 3.6 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 65 0.0 4.6 47.7 47.7 3.4 0.59 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 65 1.5 16.9 47.7 33.8 3.1 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 65 1.5 6.2 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 35 5.7 22.9 57.1 14.3 2.8 0.76 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 62 0.0 4.8 56.5 38.7 3.3 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 60 0.0 8.3 55.0 36.7 3.3 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 62 0.0 3.2 58.1 38.7 3.4 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 60 5.0 36.7 45.0 13.3 2.7 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 63 0.0 9.5 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 64 0.0 10.9 31.3 57.8 3.5 0.69 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 230 001L1 ORGANIC CHEMISTRY I INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Grossman, Robert % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 11.1 11.1 33.3 44.4 3.1 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 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 = 154 Number of forms scanned = 67 Number of forms with at least one student response = 65 Percent completed = 42.2 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 006L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, Floyd J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 10 100.0 A 1 10.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 30.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 5 50.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 1 10.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 10.0 Studies Program 3 30.0 2 hours 3 30.0 Required by my major 6 60.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 10.0 4 - 5 hours 3 30.0 6 - 7 hours 1 10.0 8 or more hours 1 10.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 10.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 2.8 1.03 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 1.07 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 10.0 10.0 50.0 30.0 3.0 0.94 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 40.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 1.9 0.99 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 37.5 50.0 0.0 12.5 1.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 20.0 50.0 30.0 3.1 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 10.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 3.1 0.88 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 10.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 2.4 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 3.0 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 30.0 30.0 40.0 3.1 0.88 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 006L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holler, Floyd 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 15 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 66.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 001L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 22 51.2 A 8 18.6 Sophomore 16 37.2 B 18 41.9 Junior 2 4.7 C 14 32.6 Senior 2 4.7 D 3 7.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 2.3 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 4.7 Studies Program 6 14.3 2 hours 10 23.3 Required by my major 34 81.0 3 hours 11 25.6 Other (e.g. elective) 2 4.8 4 - 5 hours 9 20.9 6 - 7 hours 5 11.6 8 or more hours 6 14.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 45 2.2 0.0 44.4 53.3 3.5 0.63 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 46 2.2 4.3 54.3 39.1 3.3 0.66 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 44 2.3 15.9 50.0 31.8 3.1 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 46 13.0 28.3 37.0 21.7 2.7 0.97 5. Grading was fair and consistent 46 2.2 15.2 45.7 37.0 3.2 0.77 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 37 2.7 8.1 54.1 35.1 3.2 0.71 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 41 2.4 0.0 46.3 51.2 3.5 0.64 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 4.3 39.1 26.1 30.4 2.8 0.94 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 46 4.3 17.4 43.5 34.8 3.1 0.84 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 46 2.2 0.0 23.9 73.9 3.7 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 42 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 45 2.2 4.4 42.2 51.1 3.4 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 41 17.1 14.6 31.7 36.6 2.9 1.10 14. Encouraged class participation 43 4.7 7.0 62.8 25.6 3.1 0.72 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 32 3.1 18.8 59.4 18.8 2.9 0.72 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 44 2.3 11.4 56.8 29.5 3.1 0.70 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 44 2.3 15.9 52.3 29.5 3.1 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 46 6.5 6.5 56.5 30.4 3.1 0.80 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 44 18.2 31.8 34.1 15.9 2.5 0.98 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 46 2.2 19.6 50.0 28.3 3.0 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 46 6.5 10.9 37.0 45.7 3.2 0.89 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 001L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert 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 15 0.0 6.7 40.0 53.3 3.5 0.64 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 74 Number of forms scanned = 46 Number of forms with at least one student response = 46 Percent completed = 62.2 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 002L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 49 62.0 A 12 15.2 Sophomore 13 16.5 B 30 38.0 Junior 11 13.9 C 26 32.9 Senior 5 6.3 D 10 12.7 Graduate 1 1.3 E/Fail 1 1.3 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 8.9 Studies Program 8 10.1 2 hours 14 17.7 Required by my major 67 84.8 3 hours 19 24.1 Other (e.g. elective) 4 5.1 4 - 5 hours 23 29.1 6 - 7 hours 11 13.9 8 or more hours 5 6.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 82 0.0 0.0 80.5 19.5 3.2 0.40 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 82 1.2 9.8 62.2 26.8 3.1 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 80 0.0 10.0 70.0 20.0 3.1 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 82 15.9 39.0 39.0 6.1 2.4 0.82 5. Grading was fair and consistent 81 1.2 23.5 64.2 11.1 2.9 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 76 0.0 2.6 80.3 17.1 3.1 0.42 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 70 1.4 1.4 71.4 25.7 3.2 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 31 19.4 61.3 16.1 3.2 2.0 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 82 6.1 29.3 52.4 12.2 2.7 0.76 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 82 0.0 0.0 41.5 58.5 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 74 1.4 1.4 77.0 20.3 3.2 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 82 0.0 7.3 74.4 18.3 3.1 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 81 11.1 27.2 55.6 6.2 2.6 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 78 1.3 25.6 64.1 9.0 2.8 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 47 0.0 21.3 76.6 2.1 2.8 0.45 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 78 1.3 19.2 69.2 10.3 2.9 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 80 2.5 15.0 70.0 12.5 2.9 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 82 3.7 13.4 72.0 11.0 2.9 0.62 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 77 9.1 58.4 27.3 5.2 2.3 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 82 11.0 32.9 51.2 4.9 2.5 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 82 9.8 24.4 50.0 15.9 2.7 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CHE 107 002L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kiser, Robert 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 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 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 = 213 Number of forms scanned = 82 Number of forms with at least one student response = 82 Percent completed = 38.5 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Chemistry FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CHE 107 004L1 GEN COLLEGE CHEMISTRY II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Krause, Marge SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 36 50.0 A 9 12.3 Sophomore 18 25.0 B 31 42.5 Junior 7 9.7 C 25 34.2 Senior 7 9.7 D 5 6.8 Graduate 1 1.4 E/Fail 3 4.1 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 3 4.2 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 10 13.7 Studies Program 9 12.3 2 hours 16 21.9 Required by my major 60 82.2 3 hours 21 28.8 Other (e.g. elective) 4 5.5 4 - 5 hours 12 16.4 6 - 7 hours 8 11.0 8 or more hours 6 8.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 75 0.0 2.7 65.3 32.0 3.3 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 74 0.0 14.9 59.5 25.7 3.1 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 76 1.3 1.3 61.8 35.5 3.3 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 75 10.7 33.3 45.3 10.7 2.6 0.83 5. Grading was fair and consistent 75 1.3 10.7 70.7 17.3 3.0 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 73 0.0 4.1 76.7 19.2 3.2 0.46 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 64 0.0 1.6 56.3 42.2 3.4 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 44.0 40.0 12.0 4.0 1.8 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 76 5.3 28.9 42.1 23.7 2.8 0.85 10. Had good kn