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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 651 001L1 COMMUNICATIONS THEORY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 54.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 36.4 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 9.1 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 8 66.7 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 33.3 4 - 5 hours 5 41.7 6 - 7 hours 2 16.7 8 or more hours 5 41.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9 0.27 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 16.7 75.0 3.7 0.65 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 7.7 0.0 38.5 53.8 3.4 0.87 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 21.4 7.1 71.4 3.5 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 651 001L1 COMMUNICATIONS THEORY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 29. Students free to express opinions 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS 37. Question 37 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 38. Question 38 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 39. Question 39 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . 40. Question 40 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . 41. Question 41 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . 42. Question 42 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.0 . 43. Question 43 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 44. Question 44 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . 45. Question 45 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 46. Question 46 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 47. Question 47 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 48. Question 48 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 5.0 . 49. Question 49 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 . Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 87.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 731 001S1 SEM IN INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James L 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 1 20.0 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 4 80.0 4 - 5 hours 4 66.7 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 12.5 25.0 25.0 37.5 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 2.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 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 37.5 12.5 50.0 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 37.5 37.5 25.0 2.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . % % % % 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 12.5 12.5 50.0 25.0 2.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 731 001S1 SEM IN INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Applegate, James 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 6 0.0 50.0 16.7 33.3 2.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 767 001S1 QUALITA METHS COM RES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Knuf, Joachim M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 83.3 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 1 16.7 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 0 0.0 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 6 100.0 4 - 5 hours 4 66.7 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 33.3 16.7 50.0 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 25.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 2.8 . 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 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 20.0 0.0 60.0 20.0 2.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 33.3 16.7 50.0 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 767 001S1 QUALITA METHS COM RES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Knuf, Joachim M % % 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 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 16.7 0.0 50.0 33.3 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 7 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 85.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 665 001L1 COM RES METHODS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Palmgreen, Philip C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 70.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 30.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 20 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 5.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 20.0 Required by my major 10 52.6 3 hours 5 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 9 47.4 4 - 5 hours 8 40.0 6 - 7 hours 1 5.0 8 or more hours 1 5.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 21 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 9.5 61.9 28.6 3.2 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 9.5 42.9 47.6 3.4 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 0.0 4.8 19.0 76.2 3.7 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.2 3.8 0.44 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 5.0 10.0 85.0 3.8 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.2 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 4.0 0.22 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 4.0 0.22 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 5.9 0.0 58.8 35.3 3.2 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 20 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 25.0 35.0 40.0 3.2 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 0.0 5.0 25.0 70.0 3.7 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 665 001L1 COM RES METHODS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Palmgreen, Philip 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 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 = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 719 001L1 SP TOP/ISS INTERNATIONL/ INTERCULTURAL COMM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rush, Ramona R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 80.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 40.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 60.0 4 - 5 hours 2 40.0 6 - 7 hours 2 40.0 8 or more hours 1 20.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication/Graduate FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CJT 719 001L1 SP TOP/ISS INTERNATIONL/ INTERCULTURAL COMM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rush, Ramona R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 29. Students free to express opinions 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 8 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 62.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 252 202L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 4.5 A 3 13.6 Sophomore 10 45.5 B 9 40.9 Junior 3 13.6 C 8 36.4 Senior 8 36.4 D 2 9.1 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 9.1 Studies Program 15 68.2 2 hours 12 54.5 Required by my major 7 31.8 3 hours 6 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 9.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 13.0 17.4 43.5 26.1 2.8 0.98 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 8.7 8.7 52.2 30.4 3.0 0.88 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 22.7 36.4 31.8 9.1 2.3 0.94 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 34.8 39.1 26.1 0.0 1.9 0.79 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 36.4 36.4 22.7 4.5 2.0 0.90 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 19.0 23.8 47.6 9.5 2.5 0.93 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 4.3 4.3 56.5 34.8 3.2 0.74 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 36.8 42.1 15.8 5.3 1.9 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 45.5 27.3 27.3 0.0 1.8 0.85 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 21.7 26.1 34.8 17.4 2.5 1.04 11. Was available for consultation 20 15.0 10.0 45.0 30.0 2.9 1.02 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 26.1 26.1 39.1 8.7 2.3 0.97 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 39.1 34.8 21.7 4.3 1.9 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 23 17.4 30.4 39.1 13.0 2.5 0.95 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 9.5 23.8 52.4 14.3 2.7 0.85 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 18.2 40.9 31.8 9.1 2.3 0.89 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 18.2 36.4 31.8 13.6 2.4 0.96 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 22.7 13.6 54.5 9.1 2.5 0.96 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 40.9 40.9 13.6 4.5 1.8 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 34.8 34.8 30.4 0.0 2.0 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 52.2 21.7 17.4 8.7 1.8 1.03 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 252 202L1 INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 11 18.2 54.5 27.3 0.0 2.1 0.70 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 13 23.1 46.2 30.8 0.0 2.1 0.76 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 13 53.8 38.5 7.7 0.0 1.5 0.66 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 40.0 20.0 40.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 92.0 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 482 001L1 PERSUASION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 7 46.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 46.7 Junior 2 13.3 C 1 6.7 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 4 26.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 20.0 Required by my major 10 66.7 3 hours 6 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 33.3 4 - 5 hours 2 13.3 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 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 6.7 20.0 73.3 3.7 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 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 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 6.7 26.7 66.7 3.6 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 482 001L1 PERSUASION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baseheart, John R % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 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 = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 71.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 419 001L1 INTERNATL/INTERCULT COMM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Boyd, Douglas A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 1 12.5 B 3 37.5 Junior 1 12.5 C 1 12.5 Senior 5 62.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 12.5 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 2 25.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 12.5 Required by my major 4 50.0 3 hours 1 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 50.0 4 - 5 hours 4 50.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5 2.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 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 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 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 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 14.3 14.3 71.4 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . % % % % 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 12.5 75.0 3.6 . 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 419 001L1 INTERNATL/INTERCULT COMM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Boyd, Douglas A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 13 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 61.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 325 001L1 BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bronson, Harold SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 20 80.0 Sophomore 3 12.0 B 5 20.0 Junior 7 28.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 15 60.0 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 10 41.7 Studies Program 6 24.0 2 hours 10 41.7 Required by my major 9 36.0 3 hours 3 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 10 40.0 4 - 5 hours 1 4.2 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 26 0.0 15.4 65.4 19.2 3.0 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 0.0 7.7 57.7 34.6 3.3 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 7.7 57.7 34.6 3.3 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 19.2 65.4 15.4 3.0 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 30.8 53.8 15.4 2.8 0.67 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 7.7 53.8 23.1 15.4 2.5 0.86 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 3.8 3.8 57.7 34.6 3.2 0.71 11. Was available for consultation 25 8.0 4.0 60.0 28.0 3.1 0.81 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 8.0 8.0 56.0 28.0 3.0 0.84 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 11.5 38.5 34.6 15.4 2.5 0.90 14. Encouraged class participation 26 3.8 7.7 53.8 34.6 3.2 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 0.0 30.8 50.0 19.2 2.9 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 0.0 20.0 48.0 32.0 3.1 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 0.0 24.0 52.0 24.0 3.0 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 4.0 8.0 64.0 24.0 3.1 0.70 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 7.7 46.2 38.5 7.7 2.5 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 7.7 19.2 57.7 15.4 2.8 0.80 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 16.0 32.0 32.0 20.0 2.6 1.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 325 001L1 BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bronson, Harold % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 96.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 325 002L1 BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bronson, Harold SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 71.4 Sophomore 2 9.1 B 4 19.0 Junior 9 40.9 C 1 4.8 Senior 11 50.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 13.6 Studies Program 4 18.2 2 hours 11 50.0 Required by my major 14 63.6 3 hours 8 36.4 Other (e.g. elective) 4 18.2 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 23 0.0 8.7 56.5 34.8 3.3 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 17.4 52.2 30.4 3.1 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 4.3 4.3 78.3 13.0 3.0 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 69.6 30.4 3.3 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 4.3 4.3 65.2 26.1 3.1 0.69 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 4.3 69.6 26.1 3.2 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 8.7 13.0 60.9 17.4 2.9 0.81 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 13.6 68.2 18.2 3.0 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 8.7 21.7 56.5 13.0 2.7 0.81 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 8.7 69.6 21.7 3.1 0.55 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 4.3 26.1 47.8 21.7 2.9 0.81 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 13.0 21.7 43.5 21.7 2.7 0.96 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 23 0.0 8.7 73.9 17.4 3.1 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 4.3 4.3 73.9 17.4 3.0 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 0.0 8.7 65.2 26.1 3.2 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 4.3 4.3 65.2 26.1 3.1 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 13.0 17.4 52.2 17.4 2.7 0.92 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 4.3 21.7 56.5 17.4 2.9 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 23 13.0 17.4 52.2 17.4 2.7 0.92 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 325 002L1 BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL COM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bronson, Harold % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 29 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 79.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 001L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 34 64.2 A 14 26.9 Sophomore 12 22.6 B 27 51.9 Junior 4 7.5 C 10 19.2 Senior 3 5.7 D 1 1.9 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 17 32.1 Studies Program 26 49.1 2 hours 19 35.8 Required by my major 12 22.6 3 hours 11 20.8 Other (e.g. elective) 15 28.3 4 - 5 hours 5 9.4 6 - 7 hours 1 1.9 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 56 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 56 1.8 7.1 48.2 42.9 3.3 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 55 0.0 1.8 43.6 54.5 3.5 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 56 0.0 0.0 39.3 60.7 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 55 0.0 5.5 52.7 41.8 3.4 0.59 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 56 0.0 1.8 46.4 51.8 3.5 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 55 0.0 9.1 56.4 34.5 3.3 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 55 3.6 23.6 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 56 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.41 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 56 0.0 0.0 16.1 83.9 3.8 0.37 11. Was available for consultation 45 2.2 0.0 46.7 51.1 3.5 0.63 12. Satisfact answered class questions 56 0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 56 0.0 3.6 26.8 69.6 3.7 0.55 14. Encouraged class participation 56 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 54 0.0 3.7 31.5 64.8 3.6 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 53 0.0 1.9 39.6 58.5 3.6 0.54 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 48 0.0 14.6 41.7 43.8 3.3 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 55 0.0 1.8 29.1 69.1 3.7 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 54 0.0 14.8 40.7 44.4 3.3 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 56 0.0 3.6 25.0 71.4 3.7 0.54 21. Overall quality of teaching 56 0.0 0.0 5.4 94.6 3.9 0.23 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 001L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 75 Number of forms scanned = 56 Number of forms with at least one student response = 56 Percent completed = 74.7 % 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 002L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 23 51.1 A 14 32.6 Sophomore 12 26.7 B 21 48.8 Junior 6 13.3 C 8 18.6 Senior 4 8.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 19 42.2 Studies Program 23 51.1 2 hours 10 22.2 Required by my major 12 26.7 3 hours 11 24.4 Other (e.g. elective) 10 22.2 4 - 5 hours 4 8.9 6 - 7 hours 1 2.2 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 53 0.0 0.0 45.3 54.7 3.5 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 51 0.0 13.7 51.0 35.3 3.2 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 53 0.0 1.9 49.1 49.1 3.5 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 52 0.0 3.8 40.4 55.8 3.5 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 51 2.0 7.8 47.1 43.1 3.3 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 53 0.0 1.9 52.8 45.3 3.4 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 53 1.9 1.9 49.1 47.2 3.4 0.63 8. Graded assignments included comments 51 2.0 11.8 47.1 39.2 3.2 0.74 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 53 0.0 1.9 13.2 84.9 3.8 0.43 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 53 0.0 0.0 15.1 84.9 3.8 0.36 11. Was available for consultation 48 0.0 2.1 41.7 56.3 3.5 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 53 0.0 0.0 24.5 75.5 3.8 0.43 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 53 0.0 1.9 22.6 75.5 3.7 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 52 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 53 0.0 1.9 41.5 56.6 3.5 0.54 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 51 0.0 5.9 35.3 58.8 3.5 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 46 0.0 4.3 45.7 50.0 3.5 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 53 0.0 3.8 30.2 66.0 3.6 0.56 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 51 2.0 13.7 31.4 52.9 3.4 0.80 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 49 0.0 4.1 20.4 75.5 3.7 0.54 21. Overall quality of teaching 48 0.0 0.0 10.4 89.6 3.9 0.31 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 002L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan % % 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 16.7 8.3 75.0 3.6 0.79 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 19 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.61 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 19 0.0 0.0 42.1 57.9 3.6 0.51 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 6 0.0 16.7 0.0 83.3 3.7 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 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 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 2 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 = 73 Number of forms scanned = 53 Number of forms with at least one student response = 53 Percent completed = 72.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available 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 = Communications & Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = COM 101 003L1 INTRO TO COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = DeSantis, Alan SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 25 47.2 A 23 45.1 Sophomore 19 35.8 B 22 43.1 Junior 6 11.3 C 6 11.8 Senior 3 5.7 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 18 34.0 Studies Program 20 38.5 2 hours 19 35.8 Required by my major 14 26.9 3 hours 12 22.6 Other (e.g. elective) 18 34.6 4 - 5 hours 3 5.7 6 - 7 hours 1 1.9 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 62 0.0 0.0 24.2 75.8 3.8 0.43 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 61 0.0 4.9 39.3 55.7 3.5 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 61 0.0 1.6 36.1 62.3 3.6 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 62 0.0 1.6 24.2 74.2 3.7 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 62 0.0 3.2 25.8 71.0 3.7 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 62 0.0 1.6 25.8 72.6 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 62 0.0 1.6 29.0 69.4 3.7 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 61 1.6 19.7 32.8 45.9 3.2 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 61 0.0 0.0 11.5 88.5 3.9 0.32 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 62 0.0 0.0 8.1 91.9 3.9 0.27 11. Was available for consultation 56 0.0 3.6 25.0 71.4 3.7 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 62 0.0 3.2 12.9 83.9 3.8 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 62 0.0 1.6 17.7 80.6 3.8 0.45 14. Encouraged class participation 62 0.0 1.6 21.0 77.4 3.8 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 60 0.0 1.7 33.3 65.0 3.6 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 58 1.7 3.4 22.4 72.4 3.7 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 54 1.9 11.1 25.9 61.1 3.5 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 62 0.0 0.0 22.6 77.4 3.8 0.42 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 60 0.0 8.3 26.7 65.0 3.6 0.65 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall v