1****************************************************************************** * * * Please note that these results DO NOT INCLUDE: * * * * * Course sections taught by a TA * * * Discussion, Laboratory, Independent Study, Practicum, or * * Residency course sections (results contain only LECTURES * * and SEMINARS) * * * Any course section with fewer than 5 evaluations returned * * * * Given for each item are the number responding (N), the percentage that * * strongly disagreed, the percentage that disagreed, the percentage that * * agreed, the percentage that strongly agreed, the mean, and the standard * * deviation (SD). * * * ****************************************************************************** 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 001L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 25.0 A 0 0.0 Sophomore 1 25.0 B 4 100.0 Junior 2 50.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 25.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 25.0 Required by my major 2 50.0 3 hours 2 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 50.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . % % % % 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 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 001L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 Percent completed = 71.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 002L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 40.0 A 2 40.0 Sophomore 1 20.0 B 2 40.0 Junior 1 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 20.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 20.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 2 40.0 3 hours 3 60.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 60.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 203 002L1 ELEM FR CONVER & COMPOS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 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 1 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 8 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 312 001L1 INTERMED FR CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 3 60.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 1 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 20.0 Pass or Audit 1 20.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 4 80.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 1 20.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 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 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . % % % % 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 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 312 001L1 INTERMED FR CONVERSATION INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Baltus-Sih, Marie C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 60.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 004L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 9.1 A 5 45.5 Sophomore 5 45.5 B 4 36.4 Junior 3 27.3 C 2 18.2 Senior 2 18.2 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 2 18.2 Studies Program 5 45.5 2 hours 2 18.2 Required by my major 3 27.3 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 3 27.3 4 - 5 hours 3 27.3 6 - 7 hours 2 18.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 3.0 0.45 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 9.1 18.2 63.6 9.1 2.7 0.79 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 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 2.8 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 0.0 40.0 50.0 10.0 2.7 0.67 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 36.4 45.5 18.2 2.8 0.75 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 18.2 27.3 54.5 3.4 0.81 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 004L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 21 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 52.4 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 005L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 9.1 A 3 30.0 Sophomore 5 45.5 B 4 40.0 Junior 4 36.4 C 2 20.0 Senior 1 9.1 D 1 10.0 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 2 20.0 Studies Program 4 36.4 2 hours 2 20.0 Required by my major 5 45.5 3 hours 3 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 4 - 5 hours 3 30.0 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 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 8.3 0.0 66.7 25.0 3.1 0.79 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.62 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 3.3 0.75 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 16.7 58.3 25.0 3.1 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 9.1 18.2 45.5 27.3 2.9 0.94 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 36.4 36.4 27.3 2.9 0.83 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 25.0 62.5 12.5 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 30.0 50.0 20.0 2.9 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 10.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 2.4 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 16.7 75.0 8.3 2.9 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 101 005L2 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 19 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 63.2 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 001L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 27.3 A 4 36.4 Sophomore 6 54.5 B 5 45.5 Junior 2 18.2 C 2 18.2 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 9.1 Studies Program 3 27.3 2 hours 7 63.6 Required by my major 7 63.6 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 1 9.1 4 - 5 hours 1 9.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 12.5 0.0 37.5 50.0 3.3 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 9.1 90.9 3.9 0.30 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 106 001L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH REVIEW INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blythe, Marsha J % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 15 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 73.3 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 504 001L1 TOPICS FR LIT/CULTURE: 19TH-CENT NARRATIVE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Erickson, John SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 14.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 71.4 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 1 14.3 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 3 42.9 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 57.1 4 - 5 hours 4 57.1 6 - 7 hours 1 14.3 8 or more hours 2 28.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 44.4 55.6 0.0 2.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 2.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 37.5 62.5 0.0 2.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 11.1 77.8 11.1 3.0 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 22.2 11.1 55.6 11.1 2.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 33.3 55.6 11.1 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 44.4 44.4 11.1 2.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 504 001L1 TOPICS FR LIT/CULTURE: 19TH-CENT NARRATIVE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Erickson, 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 11 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 81.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = FR 102 402L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Flowers, Mary L SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 10.0 A 2 22.2 Sophomore 2 20.0 B 5 55.6 Junior 3 30.0 C 2 22.2 Senior 4 40.0 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 2 25.0 2 hours 2 22.2 Required by my major 4 50.0 3 hours 2 22.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 25.0 4 - 5 hours 3 33.3 6 - 7 hours 2 22.2 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 10 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 0.84 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 5. Grading was fair and consistent 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 10.0 30.0 60.0 3.5 0.71 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 3.3 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 10 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 10 10.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 3.1 0.88 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 8 12.5 0.0 50.0 37.5 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 2.7 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 10 0.0 20.0 30.0 50.0 3.3 0.82 21. Overall quality of teaching 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = FR 102 402L1 ELEMENTARY FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Flowers, Mary L % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 10 Number of forms with at least one student response = 10 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 305 001L1 INTRO TO FRENCH LIT II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 23.1 Sophomore 5 38.5 B 9 69.2 Junior 4 30.8 C 0 0.0 Senior 2 15.4 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 15.4 Pass or Audit 1 7.7 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 4 30.8 Required by my major 8 61.5 3 hours 5 38.5 Other (e.g. elective) 5 38.5 4 - 5 hours 2 15.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 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 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 23.1 53.8 23.1 3.0 0.71 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 7.7 0.0 46.2 46.2 3.3 0.85 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 7.1 42.9 50.0 3.4 0.65 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 14. Encouraged class participation 14 7.1 42.9 42.9 7.1 2.5 0.76 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 10 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 2.9 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 305 001L1 INTRO TO FRENCH LIT II INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = LaCharite, V A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 63.6 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 002L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lewis, SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 10.0 A 3 30.0 Sophomore 5 50.0 B 6 60.0 Junior 2 20.0 C 1 10.0 Senior 2 20.0 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 2 20.0 Studies Program 3 30.0 2 hours 4 40.0 Required by my major 5 50.0 3 hours 3 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 20.0 4 - 5 hours 1 10.0 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 10 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 9.1 36.4 54.5 0.0 2.5 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 10 10.0 30.0 50.0 10.0 2.6 0.84 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 201 002L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lewis, % % 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 = 22 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 50.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 001L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lewis, SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 25.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 3 37.5 B 2 25.0 Junior 1 12.5 C 2 25.0 Senior 2 25.0 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 12.5 Studies Program 2 25.0 2 hours 4 50.0 Required by my major 5 62.5 3 hours 3 37.5 Other (e.g. elective) 1 12.5 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 25.0 12.5 12.5 50.0 2.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 14.3 57.1 28.6 0.0 2.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 37.5 0.0 25.0 37.5 2.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 37.5 25.0 37.5 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 001L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lewis, % % 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 1 100.0 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 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 = 9 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 Percent completed = 88.9 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 003L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lewis, SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 33.3 A 2 22.2 Sophomore 1 11.1 B 5 55.6 Junior 0 0.0 C 2 22.2 Senior 5 55.6 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 2 22.2 Studies Program 6 66.7 2 hours 3 33.3 Required by my major 2 22.2 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 1 11.1 4 - 5 hours 1 11.1 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 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 12.5 12.5 50.0 25.0 2.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 003L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lewis, % % 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 = 19 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 47.4 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = French FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = FR 202 006L1 INTERMEDIATE FRENCH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lewis, SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 28.6 A 4 57.1 Sophomore 2 28.6 B 2 28.6 Junior 2 28.6 C 1 14.3 Senior 1 14.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 14.3 Studies Program 4 57.1 2 hours 2 28.6 Required by my major 2 28.6 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 1 14.3 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 28.6 % % 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 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 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 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEA