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 = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 547 001L1 GEO OF INFO & COMMUNICA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brunn, Stanley D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 1 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 60.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 20.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 1 20.0 3 hours 3 60.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 80.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 20.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 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 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 547 001L1 GEO OF INFO & COMMUNICA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brunn, Stanley D % % 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 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 6 Number of forms scanned = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 710 001L1 RES METH/METHODOL IN GEO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brunn, Stanley D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 100.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 3 60.0 8 or more hours 1 20.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 20.0 20.0 0.0 60.0 3.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 20.0 20.0 60.0 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 2.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 3.2 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 5 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 2.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 5 20.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 710 001L1 RES METH/METHODOL IN GEO INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Brunn, Stanley D % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 40.0 20.0 40.0 3.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 2.6 . 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 = 5 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = GEO 305 401L1 ELEMENTS OF CARTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gilbreath, Richard SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 55.6 Sophomore 1 11.1 B 2 22.2 Junior 4 44.4 C 2 22.2 Senior 4 44.4 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 0 0.0 2 hours 1 11.1 Required by my major 6 66.7 3 hours 3 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 3 33.3 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 6 - 7 hours 2 22.2 8 or more hours 1 11.1 % % 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 27.3 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 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 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 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 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 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 10 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.32 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 18.2 54.5 27.3 3.1 0.70 % % % % 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 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = GEO 305 401L1 ELEMENTS OF CARTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gilbreath, Richard % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 13 Number of forms scanned = 13 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 84.6 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 360 001L1 URBAN GEOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, John P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 5.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 12 63.2 Junior 7 35.0 C 2 10.5 Senior 12 60.0 D 1 5.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 5.0 Pass or Audit 3 15.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 20.0 Studies Program 1 5.0 2 hours 7 35.0 Required by my major 9 45.0 3 hours 6 30.0 Other (e.g. elective) 10 50.0 4 - 5 hours 2 10.0 6 - 7 hours 1 5.0 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 81.0 19.0 3.2 0.40 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 19.0 28.6 42.9 9.5 2.4 0.93 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 5.0 40.0 55.0 0.0 2.5 0.61 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 18.2 68.2 13.6 3.0 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 13.6 72.7 13.6 3.0 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 5.0 5.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.75 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 9.5 71.4 19.0 3.1 0.54 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 4.5 31.8 50.0 13.6 2.7 0.77 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 18 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 0.43 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.46 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 9.1 45.5 31.8 13.6 2.5 0.86 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 4.5 81.8 13.6 3.1 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 18 0.0 16.7 77.8 5.6 2.9 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 44.4 50.0 5.6 2.6 0.61 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 46.7 53.3 0.0 2.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 27.3 59.1 13.6 2.9 0.64 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 4.8 52.4 28.6 14.3 2.5 0.81 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 9.1 36.4 36.4 18.2 2.6 0.90 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 40.9 40.9 18.2 2.8 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 360 001L1 URBAN GEOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, John P % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 100.0 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 = 35 Number of forms scanned = 35 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 62.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 722 401S1 TOP SEM SOC/POL GEO: SOCIAL THEORY/CITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, John P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 66.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 8 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 2 33.3 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 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 8 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 12.5 6 - 7 hours 2 25.0 8 or more hours 5 62.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 11.1 0.0 44.4 44.4 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 20.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 14.3 0.0 28.6 57.1 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 16.7 0.0 16.7 66.7 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 5 20.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 3.2 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 16.7 0.0 16.7 66.7 3.3 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 6 16.7 0.0 16.7 66.7 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 722 401S1 TOP SEM SOC/POL GEO: SOCIAL THEORY/CITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Jones, John P % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 718 001S1 TOP SEM GEO ENV/RES: ENVIRON MGMT IN DEVELOP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Karan, P P SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 5 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 20.0 6 - 7 hours 1 20.0 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 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 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 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 718 001S1 TOP SEM GEO ENV/RES: ENVIRON MGMT IN DEVELOP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Karan, P P % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 = 5 Number of forms scanned = 5 Number of forms with at least one student response = 5 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 409G001L1 INTRO TO GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kennedy, Michael D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 41.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 50.0 Junior 1 8.3 C 1 8.3 Senior 7 58.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 33.3 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 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 6 50.0 Required by my major 2 16.7 3 hours 2 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 10 83.3 4 - 5 hours 3 25.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 1 8.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.72 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.58 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 25.0 33.3 41.7 3.2 0.83 5. Grading was fair and consistent 12 0.0 8.3 75.0 16.7 3.1 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 3.1 0.29 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.60 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 8.3 25.0 66.7 0.0 2.6 0.67 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 27.3 63.6 9.1 2.8 0.60 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 8.3 75.0 16.7 3.1 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 3.1 0.29 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0 2.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 16.7 58.3 25.0 3.1 0.67 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 16.7 75.0 8.3 2.9 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.77 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 25.0 58.3 16.7 2.9 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 8.3 16.7 75.0 0.0 2.7 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 409G001L1 INTRO TO GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kennedy, Michael D % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 13 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 92.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 409G002L1 INTRO TO GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kennedy, Michael D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 41.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 25.0 Junior 1 8.3 C 2 16.7 Senior 5 41.7 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 33.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 16.7 Pass or Audit 2 16.7 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 9.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 27.3 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 3 27.3 Other (e.g. elective) 11 100.0 4 - 5 hours 2 18.2 6 - 7 hours 1 9.1 8 or more hours 1 9.1 % % 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 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 15.4 23.1 46.2 15.4 2.6 0.96 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 7.7 0.0 53.8 38.5 3.2 0.83 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 7.7 7.7 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.90 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 7.7 7.7 69.2 15.4 2.9 0.76 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 8.3 25.0 58.3 8.3 2.7 0.78 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 10.0 40.0 40.0 10.0 2.5 0.85 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 7.7 7.7 61.5 23.1 3.0 0.82 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 13 0.0 23.1 46.2 30.8 3.1 0.76 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 14. Encouraged class participation 13 7.7 0.0 69.2 23.1 3.1 0.76 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 22.2 66.7 11.1 2.9 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 13 0.0 15.4 69.2 15.4 3.0 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 13 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 7.7 23.1 46.2 23.1 2.8 0.90 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 13 7.7 7.7 69.2 15.4 2.9 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 13 7.7 15.4 53.8 23.1 2.9 0.86 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 409G002L1 INTRO TO GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kennedy, Michael D % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 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 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . % 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 = 14 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 509 001L1 APPLICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kennedy, Michael D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 5 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 1 20.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 80.0 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 20.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 40.0 Required by my major 1 20.0 3 hours 1 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 80.0 4 - 5 hours 1 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 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 16.7 50.0 33.3 0.0 2.2 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 2.2 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 11. Was available for consultation 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 6 0.0 33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 509 001L1 APPLICATIONS OF GEOGRAPHIC INFO SYSTEMS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Kennedy, Michael D % % 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 = at least 12 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 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 = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 152 004L1 REGIONAL GEO OF WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koegler, K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 23 62.2 A 16 44.4 Sophomore 6 16.2 B 17 47.2 Junior 6 16.2 C 2 5.6 Senior 2 5.4 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 2.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 12 32.4 Studies Program 25 67.6 2 hours 11 29.7 Required by my major 6 16.2 3 hours 11 29.7 Other (e.g. elective) 6 16.2 4 - 5 hours 3 8.1 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 38 0.0 0.0 34.2 65.8 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 38 0.0 5.3 55.3 39.5 3.3 0.58 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 38 0.0 5.3 42.1 52.6 3.5 0.60 4. Exams reflected what was taught 38 2.6 0.0 39.5 57.9 3.5 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 38 0.0 2.6 31.6 65.8 3.6 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 38 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 38 0.0 2.6 36.8 60.5 3.6 0.55 8. Graded assignments included comments 38 0.0 10.5 55.3 34.2 3.2 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 38 0.0 2.6 34.2 63.2 3.6 0.55 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 38 2.6 0.0 13.2 84.2 3.8 0.58 11. Was available for consultation 31 0.0 3.2 45.2 51.6 3.5 0.57 12. Satisfact answered class questions 37 0.0 0.0 45.9 54.1 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 37 0.0 2.7 35.1 62.2 3.6 0.55 14. Encouraged class participation 38 0.0 13.2 52.6 34.2 3.2 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 3.6 60.7 35.7 3.3 0.55 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 33 6.1 6.1 57.6 30.3 3.1 0.78 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 3.8 26.9 42.3 26.9 2.9 0.84 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 37 0.0 0.0 51.4 48.6 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 36 0.0 16.7 47.2 36.1 3.2 0.71 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 38 0.0 2.6 39.5 57.9 3.6 0.55 21. Overall quality of teaching 38 0.0 5.3 23.7 71.1 3.7 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 152 004L1 REGIONAL GEO OF WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koegler, K % % 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 13 0.0 23.1 46.2 30.8 3.1 0.76 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 21 0.0 9.5 66.7 23.8 3.1 0.57 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 21 0.0 9.5 61.9 28.6 3.2 0.60 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 10 10.0 0.0 60.0 30.0 3.1 0.88 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 7 0.0 28.6 57.1 14.3 2.9 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 74 Number of forms scanned = 73 Number of forms with at least one student response = 38 Percent completed = 51.4 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 152 005L1 REGIONAL GEO OF WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koegler, K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 24 55.8 A 29 69.0 Sophomore 7 16.3 B 8 19.0 Junior 10 23.3 C 5 11.9 Senior 2 4.7 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 14 33.3 Studies Program 28 65.1 2 hours 11 26.2 Required by my major 6 14.0 3 hours 10 23.8 Other (e.g. elective) 9 20.9 4 - 5 hours 6 14.3 6 - 7 hours 1 2.4 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 46 2.2 0.0 28.3 69.6 3.7 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 46 4.3 2.2 39.1 54.3 3.4 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 46 2.2 10.9 37.0 50.0 3.3 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 46 2.2 0.0 28.3 69.6 3.7 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 45 0.0 4.4 22.2 73.3 3.7 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 46 2.2 2.2 23.9 71.7 3.7 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 46 0.0 6.5 37.0 56.5 3.5 0.62 8. Graded assignments included comments 46 2.2 6.5 37.0 54.3 3.4 0.72 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 46 2.2 4.3 21.7 71.7 3.6 0.68 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 45 0.0 0.0 15.6 84.4 3.8 0.37 11. Was available for consultation 40 2.5 2.5 35.0 60.0 3.5 0.68 12. Satisfact answered class questions 45 2.2 0.0 33.3 64.4 3.6 0.62 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 45 2.2 4.4 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.69 14. Encouraged class participation 45 2.2 15.6 33.3 48.9 3.3 0.82 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 42 2.4 4.8 40.5 52.4 3.4 0.70 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 42 2.4 9.5 33.3 54.8 3.4 0.77 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 38 2.6 18.4 31.6 47.4 3.2 0.85 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 45 2.2 0.0 40.0 57.8 3.5 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 43 4.7 20.9 25.6 48.8 3.2 0.93 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 45 2.2 4.4 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 45 2.2 2.2 17.8 77.8 3.7 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 152 005L1 REGIONAL GEO OF WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koegler, K % % 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 15 0.0 13.3 46.7 40.0 3.3 0.70 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 24 0.0 8.3 54.2 37.5 3.3 0.62 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 25 0.0 8.0 52.0 40.0 3.3 0.63 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 88 Number of forms scanned = 85 Number of forms with at least one student response = 46 Percent completed = 52.3 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 210 401L1 POLLUTN/HAZS/ENVIR MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koegler, K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 13.8 A 11 37.9 Sophomore 6 20.7 B 12 41.4 Junior 14 48.3 C 6 20.7 Senior 4 13.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 3.4 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 10 34.5 Studies Program 7 24.1 2 hours 9 31.0 Required by my major 14 48.3 3 hours 7 24.1 Other (e.g. elective) 8 27.6 4 - 5 hours 3 10.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 32 0.0 0.0 53.1 46.9 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 32 0.0 9.4 59.4 31.3 3.2 0.61 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 32 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 32 3.1 3.1 50.0 43.8 3.3 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 32 0.0 0.0 46.9 53.1 3.5 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 32 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 32 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 32 0.0 0.0 46.9 53.1 3.5 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 32 0.0 6.3 40.6 53.1 3.5 0.62 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 32 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 30 0.0 3.3 53.3 43.3 3.4 0.56 12. Satisfact answered class questions 32 0.0 3.1 34.4 62.5 3.6 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 32 3.1 6.3 34.4 56.3 3.4 0.76 14. Encouraged class participation 32 0.0 6.3 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 32 0.0 3.1 53.1 43.8 3.4 0.56 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 32 3.1 6.3 50.0 40.6 3.3 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 28 3.6 10.7 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.74 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 32 0.0 3.1 37.5 59.4 3.6 0.56 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 32 3.1 6.3 37.5 53.1 3.4 0.76 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 30 3.3 3.3 23.3 70.0 3.6 0.72 21. Overall quality of teaching 30 0.0 6.7 20.0 73.3 3.7 0.61 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 210 401L1 POLLUTN/HAZS/ENVIR MGMT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koegler, K % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 5 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 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 = 44 Number of forms scanned = 44 Number of forms with at least one student response = 32 Percent completed = 72.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Geography FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = GEO 324 001L1 GEO CENTRAL & S AMERICA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Koegler, K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 14.3 A 9 64.3 Sophomore 4 28.6 B 4 28.6 Junior 5 35.7 C 1 7.1 Senior 3 21.4 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 5 35.7 Studies Program 6 42.9 2 hours 2 14.3 Required by my major 2 14.3 3 hours 7 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 42.9 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 17 0.0 11.8 29.4 58.8 3.5 0.72 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 35.3 35.3 29.4 2.9 0.83 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 17.6 35.3 47.1 3.3 0.77 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 5.9 5.9 41.2 47.1 3.3 0.85 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 17.6 82.4 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 6.3 50.0 43.8 3.4 0.62 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 5.9 41.2 52.9 3.5 0.62 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 31.3 31.3 37.5 3.1 0.85 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 6.7 33.3 20.0 40.0 2.9 1.03 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 31.3 31.3 37.5 3.1 0.85 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall val