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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 745 001L1 INTERDISCIP INSTRUCTION IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bliss, Traci SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 90.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 10.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 100.0 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 10.0 Studies Program 1 10.0 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 9 90.0 3 hours 1 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 20.0 6 - 7 hours 1 10.0 8 or more hours 3 30.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 9.1 9.1 36.4 45.5 3.2 0.98 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 18.2 18.2 27.3 36.4 2.8 1.17 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.79 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 9.1 0.0 36.4 54.5 3.4 0.92 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.69 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. 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 9.1 9.1 36.4 45.5 3.2 0.98 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 9.1 0.0 45.5 45.5 3.3 0.90 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 745 001L1 INTERDISCIP INSTRUCTION IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bliss, Traci % % 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 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 33.3 0.0 0.0 66.7 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 33.3 0.0 0.0 66.7 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 84.6 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = EDU 305 401L1 CONTEMP ISSUES FACING AT-RISK SCHL AGE/ADOLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Cecil SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 18 78.3 Sophomore 4 15.4 B 4 17.4 Junior 8 30.8 C 1 4.3 Senior 13 50.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 3.8 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 38.5 Studies Program 4 15.4 2 hours 8 30.8 Required by my major 4 15.4 3 hours 5 19.2 Other (e.g. elective) 18 69.2 4 - 5 hours 2 7.7 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 3.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 32 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 29 0.0 0.0 34.5 65.5 3.7 0.48 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 32 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 32 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 32 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.9 3.7 0.46 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 32 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.9 3.7 0.46 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 32 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 30 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 32 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.9 3.7 0.46 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 32 0.0 0.0 21.9 78.1 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 32 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 32 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.9 3.7 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 32 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.9 3.7 0.46 14. Encouraged class participation 32 0.0 0.0 21.9 78.1 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 31 0.0 0.0 25.8 74.2 3.7 0.44 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 31 0.0 0.0 29.0 71.0 3.7 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 31 0.0 3.2 16.1 80.6 3.8 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 0.0 0.0 29.0 71.0 3.7 0.46 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 32 0.0 0.0 28.1 71.9 3.7 0.46 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 30 0.0 3.3 3.3 93.3 3.9 0.40 21. Overall quality of teaching 30 0.0 3.3 3.3 93.3 3.9 0.40 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = EDU 305 401L1 CONTEMP ISSUES FACING AT-RISK SCHL AGE/ADOLES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harvey, Cecil % % 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 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 38 Number of forms scanned = 32 Number of forms with at least one student response = 32 Percent completed = 84.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 745 002L1 INTERDISCIP INSTRUCTION IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Sandidge, Rosetta F SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 91.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 8.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 11 91.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 8.3 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 25.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 8.3 Required by my major 11 100.0 3 hours 4 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 25.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 8.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 9.1 0.0 63.6 27.3 3.1 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 8.3 16.7 33.3 41.7 3.1 1.00 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 8.3 8.3 41.7 41.7 3.2 0.94 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 12 8.3 0.0 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.87 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 16.7 8.3 25.0 50.0 3.1 1.16 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 16.7 8.3 25.0 50.0 3.1 1.16 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 16.7 0.0 33.3 50.0 3.2 1.11 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 16.7 0.0 58.3 25.0 2.9 1.00 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 16.7 16.7 16.7 50.0 3.0 1.21 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDU 745 002L1 INTERDISCIP INSTRUCTION IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Sandidge, Rosetta 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 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 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = at least 13 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 92.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 610 401L1 CASE MGMT IN REHAB COUN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crystal, Ralph M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 75.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 25.0 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 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 16.7 Studies Program 1 8.3 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 11 91.7 3 hours 6 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 8.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 610 401L1 CASE MGMT IN REHAB COUN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crystal, Ralph 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 72.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 620 401L1 VOC EVAL AND WORK ADJUST FOR SEVERELY DISABLED INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crystal, Ralph M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 7.1 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 13 92.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 7.1 Pass or Audit 1 7.1 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 7.1 2 hours 2 14.3 Required by my major 12 85.7 3 hours 4 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.1 4 - 5 hours 4 28.6 6 - 7 hours 2 14.3 8 or more hours 2 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 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 68.8 31.3 3.3 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 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 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 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 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 620 401L1 VOC EVAL AND WORK ADJUST FOR SEVERELY DISABLED INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Crystal, Ralph 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 = 20 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 550 401L1 SPEC TOPS IN REHAB: CULTURAL DIVERSITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harley, Debra SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 100.0 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 14 100.0 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 6 42.9 Studies Program 2 14.3 2 hours 6 42.9 Required by my major 9 64.3 3 hours 1 7.1 Other (e.g. elective) 3 21.4 4 - 5 hours 1 7.1 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 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 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 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 550 401L1 SPEC TOPS IN REHAB: CULTURAL DIVERSITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harley, Debra % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 88.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 740 401L1 ADMIN, SUPER AND PROGRAM EVAL IN REHAB COUNSEL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harley, Debra SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 83.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 16.7 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 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 3 25.0 Studies Program 2 16.7 2 hours 5 41.7 Required by my major 9 75.0 3 hours 2 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 8.3 4 - 5 hours 1 8.3 6 - 7 hours 1 8.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.60 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = ZMisc. -Education FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = RC 740 401L1 ADMIN, SUPER AND PROGRAM EVAL IN REHAB COUNSEL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harley, Debra % % 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 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 76.5 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 633 201L1 EDUCATION ADMIN AND SUPERVISION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = JOHNSON, PATSY SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 22 100.0 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 17 85.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 3 15.0 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 1 4.8 2 hours 3 14.3 Required by my major 11 52.4 3 hours 2 9.5 Other (e.g. elective) 9 42.9 4 - 5 hours 8 38.1 6 - 7 hours 1 4.8 8 or more hours 7 33.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 0.0 4.5 27.3 68.2 3.6 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 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 22 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 4.5 18.2 77.3 3.7 0.55 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 4.5 95.5 4.0 0.21 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.29 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.39 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 633 201L1 EDUCATION ADMIN AND SUPERVISION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = JOHNSON, PATSY % % 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 1 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 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 = 22 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 601 201L1 ADMIN OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lindle, Jane SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 93.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 6.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 12 75.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 4 25.0 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 5 31.3 2 hours 1 6.3 Required by my major 10 62.5 3 hours 2 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.3 4 - 5 hours 4 25.0 6 - 7 hours 2 12.5 8 or more hours 7 43.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 6.7 26.7 20.0 46.7 3.1 1.03 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 6.3 43.8 50.0 3.4 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 12.5 18.8 31.3 37.5 2.9 1.06 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 6.3 18.8 43.8 31.3 3.0 0.89 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 0.86 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 12.5 12.5 25.0 50.0 3.1 1.09 14. Encouraged class participation 16 6.3 0.0 31.3 62.5 3.5 0.82 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 6.3 0.0 31.3 62.5 3.5 0.82 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 12.5 31.3 56.3 3.4 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 18.8 31.3 50.0 3.3 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 6.3 12.5 37.5 43.8 3.2 0.91 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 6.3 18.8 37.5 37.5 3.1 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 6.3 25.0 12.5 56.3 3.2 1.05 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 12.5 12.5 18.8 56.3 3.2 1.11 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 601 201L1 ADMIN OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lindle, Jane % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 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 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 50.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2.5 . 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 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 16 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 639 401L1 THE SUPERVISOR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lindle, Jane SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 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 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 4 80.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 20.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 4 80.0 % % 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 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 . % % % % 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 639 401L1 THE SUPERVISOR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lindle, Jane % % 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 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 = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 83.3 % 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 642 201L1 MICROCOMPUTER APPLS IN ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Logan, Joyce SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 13 100.0 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 13 100.0 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 3 23.1 Required by my major 13 100.0 3 hours 7 53.8 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 15.4 6 - 7 hours 1 7.7 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 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 61.5 38.5 3.4 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 3.3 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 3.3 0.75 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 8.3 33.3 58.3 3.5 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 642 201L1 MICROCOMPUTER APPLS IN ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Logan, Joyce % % 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 = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 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 = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 771 401S1 SEM IN ADMINISTRATION: ADV PERSONNEL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Logan, Joyce SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 100.0 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 11 100.0 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 1 9.1 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 10 90.9 3 hours 3 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 36.4 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 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 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 0.78 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 8.3 0.0 91.7 3.8 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 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 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 8.3 8.3 83.3 3.8 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9 0.29 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 18.2 18.2 63.6 3.5 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 771 401S1 SEM IN ADMINISTRATION: ADV PERSONNEL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Logan, Joyce % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 601 401L1 ADMIN OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rinehart, James S SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 100.0 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 8 100.0 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 2 25.0 Required by my major 7 87.5 3 hours 1 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 2 25.0 6 - 7 hours 3 37.5 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 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 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Education DEPARTMENT = Administration and Supervision FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = EDA 601 401L1 ADMIN OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Rinehart, James S % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students