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 = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 235 401L1 CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chapman, James P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 Junior 2 28.6 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 71.4 D 1 16.7 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 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 28.6 Required by my major 1 14.3 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 6 85.7 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 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 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.71 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 2.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 11.1 0.0 44.4 44.4 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 235 401L1 CLASSICAL MYTHOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Chapman, James P % % 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 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 = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 Percent completed = 37.0 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 202 001L1 INTERMEDIATE LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Guindon, Lynn Della SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 11.1 A 5 27.8 Sophomore 3 16.7 B 8 44.4 Junior 4 22.2 C 3 16.7 Senior 9 50.0 D 2 11.1 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 9 50.0 2 hours 1 5.6 Required by my major 9 50.0 3 hours 1 5.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 8 44.4 6 - 7 hours 5 27.8 8 or more hours 3 16.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 18 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 18 0.0 0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 18 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 18 0.0 0.0 27.8 72.2 3.7 0.46 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 18 0.0 0.0 5.6 94.4 3.9 0.24 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 12. Satisfact answered class questions 18 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 18 0.0 5.6 33.3 61.1 3.6 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 18 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 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 18 0.0 5.6 38.9 55.6 3.5 0.62 21. Overall quality of teaching 18 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 0.32 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 202 001L1 INTERMEDIATE LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Guindon, Lynn Della % % 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 27 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 18 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 = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 450G401L1 TOP EURO HIS BEFOR 1789: CHRISTIANS IN ROMAN EMP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holle, Bruce F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 30.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 70.0 Junior 2 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 40.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 40.0 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 3 30.0 Required by my major 3 30.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 7 70.0 4 - 5 hours 3 30.0 6 - 7 hours 2 20.0 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 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.71 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 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 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 450G401L1 TOP EURO HIS BEFOR 1789: CHRISTIANS IN ROMAN EMP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Holle, Bruce 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 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 2 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 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 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 252 001L1 INTERMEDIATE GREEK INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Martin Jr, Hubert M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 42.9 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 14.3 Junior 1 14.3 C 2 28.6 Senior 3 42.9 D 1 14.3 Graduate 2 28.6 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 14.3 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 14.3 Studies Program 1 14.3 2 hours 1 14.3 Required by my major 4 57.1 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 2 28.6 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 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 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 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 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 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 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 252 001L1 INTERMEDIATE GREEK INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Martin Jr, Hubert 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 261 001L1 LIT MSTRPCS GREECE&ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rabel, Robert J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 9.1 A 4 36.4 Sophomore 3 27.3 B 6 54.5 Junior 3 27.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 27.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 9.1 Pass or Audit 1 9.1 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 3 27.3 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 4 36.4 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 4 36.4 4 - 5 hours 4 36.4 6 - 7 hours 2 18.2 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 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.79 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 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 12 8.3 8.3 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.97 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 261 001L1 LIT MSTRPCS GREECE&ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rabel, Robert 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 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.5 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 18 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 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 = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 152 001L1 ELEMENTARY GREEK INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Scaife, A Ross SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 1 16.7 B 2 33.3 Junior 2 33.3 C 1 16.7 Senior 2 33.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 16.7 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 1 16.7 2 hours 1 16.7 Required by my major 1 16.7 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 4 66.7 4 - 5 hours 3 50.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 16.7 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 12.5 0.0 0.0 87.5 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 12.5 0.0 37.5 50.0 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 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 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 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 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . % % % % 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 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 152 001L1 ELEMENTARY GREEK INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Scaife, A Ross % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 = 10 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 80.0 % 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 = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 210 001L1 THE ART OF GREECE & ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Scaife, A Ross SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 16.7 A 4 66.7 Sophomore 2 33.3 B 2 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 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 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 16.7 Studies Program 3 50.0 2 hours 2 33.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 50.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 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 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 33.3 33.3 16.7 16.7 2.2 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CLA 210 001L1 THE ART OF GREECE & ROME INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Scaife, A Ross % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 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 = 9 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 88.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 131 201L1 MED TERMINOL GREEK/LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, David J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 10.0 A 15 75.0 Sophomore 5 25.0 B 5 25.0 Junior 10 50.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 10.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 5.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 9 45.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 40.0 Required by my major 10 50.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 10 50.0 4 - 5 hours 2 10.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 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 23 0.0 0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9 0.29 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9 0.29 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9 0.30 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9 0.29 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 0.32 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 6.7 93.3 3.9 0.26 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2 4.0 0.22 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 5.3 10.5 84.2 3.8 0.54 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0 0.21 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 4.5 95.5 4.0 0.21 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Classics FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CLA 131 201L1 MED TERMINOL GREEK/LATIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wilson, David 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 = 29 Number of forms scanned = 25 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".