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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 582 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 46.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 46.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 7.7 Senior 12 92.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 7.7 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 1 7.7 Required by my major 4 30.8 3 hours 4 30.8 Other (e.g. elective) 9 69.2 4 - 5 hours 6 46.2 6 - 7 hours 1 7.7 8 or more hours 1 7.7 % % 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 7.7 7.7 53.8 30.8 3.1 0.86 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 13 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 16.7 75.0 8.3 2.9 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.60 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 12 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 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 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.72 % % % % 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 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 582 001L1 ADV STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blandford, George E % % 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 = 14 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 92.9 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 499 001L1 TOPICS IN CE: INTRO TO ENVIRONMENTAL ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 41.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 13 54.2 Junior 2 8.3 C 1 4.2 Senior 20 83.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 8.3 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 4.2 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 33.3 Required by my major 20 83.3 3 hours 9 37.5 Other (e.g. elective) 4 16.7 4 - 5 hours 4 16.7 6 - 7 hours 1 4.2 8 or more hours 1 4.2 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 25 0.0 4.0 80.0 16.0 3.1 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 4.0 72.0 24.0 3.2 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 8.0 24.0 56.0 12.0 2.7 0.79 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 8.0 24.0 48.0 20.0 2.8 0.87 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 8.0 64.0 28.0 3.2 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 4.0 8.0 76.0 12.0 3.0 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 16.0 52.0 28.0 4.0 2.2 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 12.0 32.0 52.0 4.0 2.5 0.77 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 8.0 8.0 60.0 24.0 3.0 0.82 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 18.2 68.2 13.6 3.0 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 4.0 16.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 8.0 44.0 32.0 16.0 2.6 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 36.0 48.0 16.0 2.8 0.71 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 31.6 63.2 5.3 2.7 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 12.5 70.8 16.7 3.0 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 8.3 33.3 45.8 12.5 2.6 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 12.0 12.0 64.0 12.0 2.8 0.83 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 24.0 24.0 40.0 12.0 2.4 1.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 499 001L1 TOPICS IN CE: INTRO TO ENVIRONMENTAL ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brion, Gail % % 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 = 52 Number of forms scanned = 50 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 48.1 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 401 001S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 17 85.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 15.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 19 100.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 40.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 30.0 Required by my major 19 100.0 3 hours 2 10.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 4 20.0 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 20 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 20 5.0 0.0 85.0 10.0 3.0 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 3.0 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 0.0 5.0 75.0 20.0 3.2 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 5.0 5.0 75.0 15.0 3.0 0.65 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 3.2 0.42 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 10.5 68.4 21.1 3.1 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 2.9 0.55 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 20 5.0 0.0 65.0 30.0 3.2 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 20 5.0 0.0 45.0 50.0 3.4 0.75 11. Was available for consultation 17 5.9 5.9 64.7 23.5 3.1 0.75 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 5.3 0.0 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 20 5.0 0.0 80.0 15.0 3.1 0.60 14. Encouraged class participation 20 5.0 0.0 45.0 50.0 3.4 0.75 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 5.3 78.9 15.8 3.1 0.46 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 5.0 80.0 15.0 3.1 0.45 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 5.6 83.3 11.1 3.1 0.42 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 20 0.0 0.0 90.0 10.0 3.1 0.31 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 0.0 10.5 78.9 10.5 3.0 0.47 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 15.8 52.6 31.6 3.2 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 19 0.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 401 001S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 20 Percent completed = 90.9 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 401 002S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 15 71.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 28.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 20 95.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.8 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 11 52.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 28.6 Required by my major 21 100.0 3 hours 3 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 4.8 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 21 0.0 0.0 23.8 76.2 3.8 0.44 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 19 5.3 5.3 57.9 31.6 3.2 0.76 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 4.8 0.0 61.9 33.3 3.2 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 19 5.3 36.8 42.1 15.8 2.7 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 4.8 42.9 52.4 3.5 0.60 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 4.8 28.6 66.7 3.6 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 17.6 64.7 17.6 3.0 0.61 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 0.0 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 19.0 52.4 28.6 3.1 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 10.0 45.0 45.0 3.4 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 10.5 57.9 31.6 3.2 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 10.5 26.3 31.6 31.6 2.8 1.01 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 20 5.0 5.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.81 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 5.0 40.0 55.0 3.5 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 401 002S1 SEMINAR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cheeks, John % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 28. Guided student report preparation 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 11 9.1 0.0 54.5 36.4 3.2 0.87 31. Developed abil to conduct research 9 11.1 44.4 33.3 11.1 2.4 . 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 = 23 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 91.3 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 37.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 8 33.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 7 29.2 Senior 22 91.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 8.3 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 12.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 8.3 Required by my major 21 95.5 3 hours 5 20.8 Other (e.g. elective) 1 4.5 4 - 5 hours 8 33.3 6 - 7 hours 4 16.7 8 or more hours 2 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 24 8.3 4.2 83.3 4.2 2.8 0.64 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 17.4 39.1 39.1 4.3 2.3 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 12.5 29.2 58.3 0.0 2.5 0.72 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 8.3 8.3 79.2 4.2 2.8 0.66 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 16.7 8.3 75.0 0.0 2.6 0.78 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 8.3 16.7 62.5 12.5 2.8 0.78 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 37.5 20.8 37.5 4.2 2.1 0.97 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 66.7 25.0 8.3 0.0 1.4 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 37.5 54.2 4.2 4.2 1.8 0.74 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 4.2 0.0 29.2 66.7 3.6 0.72 11. Was available for consultation 19 10.5 10.5 57.9 21.1 2.9 0.88 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 8.3 12.5 66.7 12.5 2.8 0.76 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 26.1 43.5 26.1 4.3 2.1 0.85 14. Encouraged class participation 24 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.83 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 6.3 56.3 31.3 6.3 2.4 0.72 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 23 8.7 26.1 60.9 4.3 2.6 0.72 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 8.7 30.4 52.2 8.7 2.6 0.78 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 8.7 17.4 69.6 4.3 2.7 0.70 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 30.4 52.2 13.0 4.3 1.9 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 16.7 62.5 16.7 4.2 2.1 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 25.0 54.2 20.8 0.0 2.0 0.69 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 001L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans % % 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 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 32 Number of forms scanned = 32 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 75.0 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 002L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 21.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 10 43.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 8 34.8 Senior 22 100.0 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 4.3 Studies Program 2 9.1 2 hours 3 13.0 Required by my major 17 77.3 3 hours 4 17.4 Other (e.g. elective) 3 13.6 4 - 5 hours 7 30.4 6 - 7 hours 4 17.4 8 or more hours 4 17.4 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 24 4.2 8.3 83.3 4.2 2.9 0.54 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 0.0 21.7 69.6 8.7 2.9 0.55 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 24 4.2 16.7 70.8 8.3 2.8 0.64 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 8.3 25.0 58.3 8.3 2.7 0.76 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 8.3 4.2 70.8 16.7 3.0 0.75 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 12.5 8.3 62.5 16.7 2.8 0.87 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 30.4 60.9 8.7 2.8 0.60 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 41.7 50.0 4.2 4.2 1.7 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 21.7 39.1 39.1 0.0 2.2 0.78 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 9.5 71.4 19.0 3.1 0.54 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 4.2 12.5 70.8 12.5 2.9 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 8.3 41.7 45.8 4.2 2.5 0.72 14. Encouraged class participation 23 0.0 8.7 78.3 13.0 3.0 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 12.5 18.8 68.8 0.0 2.6 0.73 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 4.5 18.2 68.2 9.1 2.8 0.66 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 4.5 22.7 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 8.7 8.7 73.9 8.7 2.8 0.72 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 17.4 30.4 52.2 0.0 2.3 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 4.2 37.5 50.0 8.3 2.6 0.71 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 20.8 29.2 29.2 20.8 2.5 1.06 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 482 002L1 ELEM STRUCTURAL DESIGN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gesund, Hans % % 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 = 26 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 121 001L1 INTRO TO CE SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 6 33.3 A 13 72.2 Sophomore 5 27.8 B 4 22.2 Junior 5 27.8 C 1 5.6 Senior 2 11.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 38.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 22.2 Required by my major 16 88.9 3 hours 5 27.8 Other (e.g. elective) 2 11.1 4 - 5 hours 1 5.6 6 - 7 hours 1 5.6 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 22 0.0 0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 0.0 4.5 40.9 54.5 3.5 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 4.5 36.4 59.1 3.5 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.72 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 4.5 36.4 59.1 3.5 0.60 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 4.5 22.7 72.7 3.7 0.57 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 0.0 65.0 35.0 3.4 0.49 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 0.0 0.0 61.9 38.1 3.4 0.50 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 4.8 0.0 52.4 42.9 3.3 0.73 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 0.0 4.8 47.6 47.6 3.4 0.60 % % % % 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 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 121 001L1 INTRO TO CE SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 27 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 81.5 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 403 001L1 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 61.5 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 38.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 12 92.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 7.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 7.7 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 23.1 Required by my major 11 91.7 3 hours 5 38.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 8.3 4 - 5 hours 4 30.8 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 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 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 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 7.7 0.0 53.8 38.5 3.2 0.83 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 30.8 53.8 15.4 2.8 0.69 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 30.8 46.2 23.1 2.9 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 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 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 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 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 0.0 15.4 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.73 % % % % 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 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 0.0 0.0 7.7 92.3 3.9 0.28 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 403 001L1 CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hancher, Donn E. % % 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 = 43 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 13 Percent completed = 30.2 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 579 001L1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 20 71.4 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 25.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 3.6 Senior 21 77.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 22.2 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 7.4 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 3.7 Required by my major 11 40.7 3 hours 8 29.6 Other (e.g. elective) 16 59.3 4 - 5 hours 13 48.1 6 - 7 hours 3 11.1 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 29 0.0 0.0 69.0 31.0 3.3 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 29 0.0 3.4 55.2 41.4 3.4 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 29 0.0 0.0 58.6 41.4 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 29 0.0 0.0 48.3 51.7 3.5 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 0.0 0.0 55.2 44.8 3.4 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 29 0.0 0.0 65.5 34.5 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 0.0 3.4 65.5 31.0 3.3 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 28 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 0.0 6.9 51.7 41.4 3.3 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 0.0 24.1 75.9 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 29 0.0 0.0 65.5 34.5 3.3 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 0.0 0.0 65.5 34.5 3.3 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 29 0.0 6.9 55.2 37.9 3.3 0.60 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 21.4 60.7 17.9 3.0 0.64 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 6.3 6.3 62.5 25.0 3.1 0.77 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 0.0 74.1 25.9 3.3 0.45 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 0.0 0.0 70.4 29.6 3.3 0.47 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 27 0.0 0.0 63.0 37.0 3.4 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 0.0 15.4 65.4 19.2 3.0 0.60 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 29 0.0 0.0 44.8 55.2 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 29 0.0 0.0 37.9 62.1 3.6 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 579 001L1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % 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 = 35 Number of forms scanned = 35 Number of forms with at least one student response = 29 Percent completed = 82.9 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 779 001L1 ADV GEOTECHNICAL ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 16.7 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 33.3 3 hours 1 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 3 50.0 4 - 5 hours 4 66.7 6 - 7 hours 1 16.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 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. 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 779 001L1 ADV GEOTECHNICAL ENGR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hardin, Bobby O % % 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 = 7 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 85.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 382 001L1 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 17 43.6 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 17 43.6 Junior 13 33.3 C 5 12.8 Senior 26 66.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 10.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 12 30.8 Required by my major 39 100.0 3 hours 17 43.6 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 3 7.7 6 - 7 hours 2 5.1 8 or more hours 1 2.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 40 0.0 2.5 65.0 32.5 3.3 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 40 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 40 0.0 5.0 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.59 4. Exams reflected what was taught 40 0.0 7.5 50.0 42.5 3.4 0.62 5. Grading was fair and consistent 40 2.5 2.5 50.0 45.0 3.4 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 40 2.5 10.0 50.0 37.5 3.2 0.73 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 40 0.0 2.5 60.0 37.5 3.4 0.53 8. Graded assignments included comments 40 5.0 35.0 35.0 25.0 2.8 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 40 0.0 17.5 52.5 30.0 3.1 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 40 0.0 2.5 52.5 45.0 3.4 0.55 11. Was available for consultation 38 0.0 0.0 63.2 36.8 3.4 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 40 0.0 7.5 55.0 37.5 3.3 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 40 2.5 22.5 47.5 27.5 3.0 0.78 14. Encouraged class participation 38 2.6 34.2 52.6 10.5 2.7 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 31 6.5 16.1 71.0 6.5 2.8 0.67 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 40 0.0 2.5 67.5 30.0 3.3 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 40 0.0 2.5 65.0 32.5 3.3 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 40 0.0 0.0 67.5 32.5 3.3 0.47 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 40 5.0 25.0 52.5 17.5 2.8 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 39 5.1 7.7 59.0 28.2 3.1 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 39 5.1 15.4 41.0 38.5 3.1 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 382 001L1 STRUCTURAL MECHANICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E % % 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 = 53 Number of forms scanned = 51 Number of forms with at least one student response = 40 Percent completed = 75.5 % 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 686 001L1 ADVANCED REINFORCED CONCRETE THEORY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 14.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 28.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 71.4 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 28.6 Required by my major 3 42.9 3 hours 3 42.9 Other (e.g. elective) 4 57.1 4 - 5 hours 1 14.3 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 42.9 14.3 42.9 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 . 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 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = CE 686 001L1 ADVANCED REINFORCED CONCRETE THEORY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Harik, Issam E % % 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 = 7 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 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 = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 506 401L1 ENGINEER:LAW & ENVIRONMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hartman, Donald G SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 14 50.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 19 65.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 10 34.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 9 32.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 25.0 Required by my major 9 31.0 3 hours 5 17.9 Other (e.g. elective) 20 69.0 4 - 5 hours 5 17.9 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 29 10.3 3.4 72.4 13.8 2.9 0.77 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 26.7 33.3 33.3 6.7 2.2 0.94 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 29 0.0 20.7 75.9 3.4 2.8 0.47 4. Exams reflected what was taught 29 0.0 10.3 65.5 24.1 3.1 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 3.4 24.1 58.6 13.8 2.8 0.71 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 29 27.6 27.6 37.9 6.9 2.2 0.95 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 13.8 31.0 48.3 6.9 2.5 0.83 8. Graded assignments included comments 29 13.8 58.6 24.1 3.4 2.2 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 10.3 20.7 62.1 6.9 2.7 0.77 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 3.4 75.9 20.7 3.2 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 27 0.0 3.7 74.1 22.2 3.2 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 0.0 6.9 75.9 17.2 3.1 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 3.6 17.9 64.3 14.3 2.9 0.69 14. Encouraged class participation 28 3.6 10.7 64.3 21.4 3.0 0.69 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 7.1 7.1 67.9 17.9 3.0 0.74 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 27 0.0 22.2 59.3 18.5 3.0 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 27 3.7 22.2 59.3 14.8 2.9 0.72 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 3.4 17.2 69.0 10.3 2.9 0.64 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 14.3 35.7 39.3 10.7 2.5 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 7.1 28.6 53.6 10.7 2.7 0.77 21. Overall quality of teaching 28 7.1 28.6 57.1 7.1 2.6 0.73 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Engineering DEPARTMENT = Civil Engineering FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = CE 506 401L1 ENGINEER:LAW & ENVIRONMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hartman, Donald G % % Strongly % % Strongly