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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 720 401S1 ECONOMIC STATECRAFT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Burnett, R.E. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 12 85.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 14.3 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 14 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 7 53.8 3 hours 3 21.4 Other (e.g. elective) 6 46.2 4 - 5 hours 7 50.0 6 - 7 hours 4 28.6 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 6.3 18.8 50.0 25.0 2.9 0.85 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 6.3 93.8 3.9 0.25 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 720 401S1 ECONOMIC STATECRAFT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Burnett, R.E. % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 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 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 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 = 18 Number of forms scanned = 18 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 730 001L1 CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION & BARGAINING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stempel, John D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 64.7 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 23.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 15 88.2 E/Fail 2 11.8 Professional 1 5.9 I 0 0.0 Other 1 5.9 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 5.9 Required by my major 12 66.7 3 hours 5 29.4 Other (e.g. elective) 6 33.3 4 - 5 hours 11 64.7 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 19 0.0 0.0 47.4 52.6 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 18 0.0 5.6 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 19 0.0 10.5 42.1 47.4 3.4 0.68 4. Exams reflected what was taught 19 0.0 5.3 63.2 31.6 3.3 0.56 5. Grading was fair and consistent 19 0.0 26.3 57.9 15.8 2.9 0.66 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 19 0.0 0.0 68.4 31.6 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 19 0.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 8. Graded assignments included comments 18 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 19 0.0 15.8 47.4 36.8 3.2 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 11. Was available for consultation 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 19 0.0 10.5 57.9 31.6 3.2 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 19 0.0 10.5 42.1 47.4 3.4 0.68 14. Encouraged class participation 19 0.0 0.0 21.1 78.9 3.8 0.42 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 19 0.0 10.5 52.6 36.8 3.3 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 18 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 0.43 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 5.3 47.4 47.4 3.4 0.61 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 19 5.3 15.8 57.9 21.1 2.9 0.78 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 0.0 5.9 52.9 41.2 3.4 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 0.0 23.5 23.5 52.9 3.3 0.85 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Diplomacy & International Commerc FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = DIP 730 001L1 CROSS-CULTURAL NEGOTIATION & BARGAINING INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Stempel, John 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 = 20 Number of forms scanned = 20 Number of forms with at least one student response = 19 Percent completed = 95.0 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 603 401L1 LEGAL ASPECTS HLTH ADMIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fink, Joseph L, III SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 21 77.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 18.5 Junior 0 0.0 C 1 3.7 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 26 92.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 3.6 I 0 0.0 Other 1 3.6 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 25.9 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 29.6 Required by my major 23 88.5 3 hours 10 37.0 Other (e.g. elective) 3 11.5 4 - 5 hours 1 3.7 6 - 7 hours 1 3.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 28 0.0 0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 11.1 11.1 33.3 44.4 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 3.7 0.0 40.7 55.6 3.5 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 3.6 0.0 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.69 5. Grading was fair and consistent 28 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.49 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 27 3.7 3.7 22.2 70.4 3.6 0.75 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 28 3.6 0.0 17.9 78.6 3.7 0.66 8. Graded assignments included comments 23 8.7 8.7 52.2 30.4 3.0 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 28 0.0 0.0 17.9 82.1 3.8 0.39 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 28 0.0 0.0 3.6 96.4 4.0 0.19 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 4.5 27.3 68.2 3.6 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 28 0.0 0.0 3.6 96.4 4.0 0.19 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 14. Encouraged class participation 28 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 24 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 3.6 35.7 60.7 3.6 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 0.0 7.7 65.4 26.9 3.2 0.57 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 28 0.0 3.6 17.9 78.6 3.8 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 3.6 3.6 39.3 53.6 3.4 0.74 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 28 0.0 3.6 17.9 78.6 3.8 0.52 21. Overall quality of teaching 27 3.7 0.0 14.8 81.5 3.7 0.66 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 603 401L1 LEGAL ASPECTS HLTH ADMIN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Fink, Joseph L, III % % 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 = 31 Number of forms scanned = 28 Number of forms with at least one student response = 28 Percent completed = 90.3 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 660 401L1 DECISION MAKING IN HLTH CARE ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, J M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 14 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 14 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 7.1 Required by my major 12 92.3 3 hours 5 35.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.7 4 - 5 hours 4 28.6 6 - 7 hours 3 21.4 8 or more hours 1 7.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 6.7 53.3 40.0 3.3 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 40.0 26.7 33.3 2.9 0.88 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 13.3 20.0 40.0 26.7 2.8 1.01 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0 3.4 0.67 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 13.3 53.3 33.3 3.2 0.68 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 660 401L1 DECISION MAKING IN HLTH CARE ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, J M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 15 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 775 001L1 SPEC TOPS IN HLTH ADMIN: MANAGED CARE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, J M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 100.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 0 0.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 83.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 33.3 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 4 66.7 4 - 5 hours 1 16.7 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 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 4 50.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 1.8 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 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 4 0.0 25.0 75.0 0.0 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 14.3 14.3 71.4 0.0 2.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 0.0 71.4 28.6 0.0 2.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 57.1 42.9 0.0 2.4 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 775 001L1 SPEC TOPS IN HLTH ADMIN: MANAGED CARE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lee, J M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 7 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 100.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 635 401L1 MANAGEMT ACCOUNTING FOR HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATNS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Samuel, Thomas W SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 64.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 5 35.7 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 15 100.0 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 5 33.3 Required by my major 13 92.9 3 hours 4 26.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.1 4 - 5 hours 5 33.3 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 16 12.5 18.8 31.3 37.5 2.9 1.06 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 16 0.0 6.3 68.8 25.0 3.2 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 5. Grading was fair and consistent 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 16 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 6.7 6.7 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.88 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 16 0.0 6.3 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 16 0.0 0.0 18.8 81.3 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 14 7.1 7.1 28.6 57.1 3.4 0.93 12. Satisfact answered class questions 16 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 0.73 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 0.0 12.5 43.8 43.8 3.3 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 16 0.0 0.0 31.3 68.8 3.7 0.48 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 15.4 38.5 46.2 3.3 0.75 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 16 0.0 6.3 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 16 6.3 12.5 43.8 37.5 3.1 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 6.3 37.5 56.3 3.5 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 6.3 25.0 68.8 3.6 0.62 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = HA 635 401L1 MANAGEMT ACCOUNTING FOR HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATNS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Samuel, Thomas W % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 18 Number of forms scanned = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 16 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 622 001L1 PUBLIC PROGRAM EVALUATN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Philip K SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 45.8 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 13 54.2 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 21 84.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 4.0 I 0 0.0 Other 3 12.0 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 8.3 Studies Program 1 4.2 2 hours 6 25.0 Required by my major 17 70.8 3 hours 9 37.5 Other (e.g. elective) 6 25.0 4 - 5 hours 5 20.8 6 - 7 hours 2 8.3 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 24 12.5 4.2 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.91 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 12.5 20.8 50.0 16.7 2.7 0.91 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 9.1 18.2 40.9 31.8 3.0 0.95 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 8.7 13.0 60.9 17.4 2.9 0.81 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 24 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 0.72 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 4.0 28.0 52.0 16.0 2.8 0.76 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 0.0 20.8 33.3 45.8 3.3 0.79 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 12.0 24.0 40.0 24.0 2.8 0.97 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 4.0 40.0 56.0 3.5 0.59 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 3.7 0.57 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 8.3 16.7 41.7 33.3 3.0 0.93 14. Encouraged class participation 25 8.0 12.0 40.0 40.0 3.1 0.93 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 5.3 0.0 73.7 21.1 3.1 0.66 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 4.0 20.0 32.0 44.0 3.2 0.90 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 3.0 0.83 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 25 8.0 20.0 44.0 28.0 2.9 0.91 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 25 16.0 24.0 48.0 12.0 2.6 0.92 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 8.3 20.8 41.7 29.2 2.9 0.93 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 13.6 18.2 50.0 18.2 2.7 0.94 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 622 001L1 PUBLIC PROGRAM EVALUATN INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Berger, Philip 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 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 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 27 Number of forms scanned = 27 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 92.6 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 636 001L1 HEALTH ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blomquist, Glenn C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 45.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 11 55.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 21 95.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 4.5 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 4.5 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 9.1 Required by my major 16 69.6 3 hours 9 40.9 Other (e.g. elective) 7 30.4 4 - 5 hours 6 27.3 6 - 7 hours 2 9.1 8 or more hours 2 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 24 0.0 4.2 50.0 45.8 3.4 0.58 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 24 0.0 4.2 62.5 33.3 3.3 0.55 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 23 0.0 8.7 56.5 34.8 3.3 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 24 0.0 16.7 41.7 41.7 3.3 0.74 5. Grading was fair and consistent 24 0.0 4.2 58.3 37.5 3.3 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 23 0.0 4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 24 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 24 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.64 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 24 0.0 12.5 45.8 41.7 3.3 0.69 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 24 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2 3.7 0.48 12. Satisfact answered class questions 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 24 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 0.68 14. Encouraged class participation 24 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 0.0 68.2 31.8 3.3 0.48 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 0.0 8.3 66.7 25.0 3.2 0.56 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 16.7 62.5 20.8 3.0 0.62 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 4.2 62.5 33.3 3.3 0.55 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 24 0.0 16.7 45.8 37.5 3.2 0.72 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 24 0.0 12.5 45.8 41.7 3.3 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 24 0.0 0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 636 001L1 HEALTH ECONOMICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Blomquist, Glenn 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 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 = 30 Number of forms scanned = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 24 Percent completed = 80.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 795 002L1 SPEC TOPS PUBLIC ADMIN: LOCAL ECON DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Freshwater, David SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 75.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 80.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 20.0 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 25.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 50.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 25.0 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 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 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 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 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 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . % % % % 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 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 795 002L1 SPEC TOPS PUBLIC ADMIN: LOCAL ECON DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Freshwater, David % % 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 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 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 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 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 = 6 Number of forms with at least one student response = 6 Percent completed = 85.7 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 632 001L1 PUBLIC FUNDS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hackbart, Merl M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 9 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 6 40.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 15 100.0 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 7.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 7 50.0 Required by my major 13 92.9 3 hours 5 35.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 7.1 4 - 5 hours 1 7.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 15 0.0 0.0 46.7 53.3 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 30.8 46.2 23.1 2.9 0.76 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 6.7 0.0 80.0 13.3 3.0 0.65 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 0.0 53.3 46.7 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2 3.7 0.48 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 13.3 40.0 46.7 3.3 0.72 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 7.1 7.1 71.4 14.3 2.9 0.73 % % % % 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 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 632 001L1 PUBLIC FUNDS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hackbart, Merl M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 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 = 16 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 68.2 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 731 001L1 FISCAL/BUDGETARY POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hackbart, Merl M SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 6 100.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 1 20.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 1 16.7 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 5 83.3 3 hours 2 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 33.3 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 33.3 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 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 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 731 001L1 FISCAL/BUDGETARY POLICY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hackbart, Merl M % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 6 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 2.7 . 28. Guided student report preparation 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 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 = 8 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 641 001L1 POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hager, Gregory L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 46.2 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 7 53.8 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 13 86.7 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 1 6.7 I 0 0.0 Other 1 6.7 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 13.3 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 1 6.7 Required by my major 14 93.3 3 hours 7 46.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 6.7 4 - 5 hours 4 26.7 6 - 7 hours 1 6.7 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 0.0 0.0 35.3 64.7 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 5.9 0.0 41.2 52.9 3.4 0.80 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 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 0.0 64.7 35.3 3.4 0.49 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 0.0 0.0 52.9 47.1 3.5 0.51 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 0.0 0.0 41.2 58.8 3.6 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 17 0.0 5.9 64.7 29.4 3.2 0.56 14. Encouraged class participation 17 0.0 0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 0.0 7.7 61.5 30.8 3.2 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.45 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 0.0 0.0 58.8 41.2 3.4 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 0.0 5.9 64.7 29.4 3.2 0.56 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 16 0.0 0.0 56.3 43.8 3.4 0.51 21. Overall quality of teaching 16 0.0 0.0 43.8 56.3 3.6 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 641 001L1 POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hager, Gregory 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 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 = 21 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 81.0 % 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 = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 795 001L1 SPEC TOPS PUBLIC ADMIN: APP ECONOMET FOR PUB POL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Murray, Sheila SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 1 25.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 75.0 Junior 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 4 100.0 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 0 0.0 3 hours 0 0.0 Other (e.g. elective) 5 100.0 4 - 5 hours 1 25.0 6 - 7 hours 1 25.0 8 or more hours 2 50.0 % % 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 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 5 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 4 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.0 2.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 5 0.0 40.0 60.0 0.0 2.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.0 2.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 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 6 0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 2.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Lexington Campus Graduate School DEPARTMENT = Public Administration FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PA 795 001L1 SPEC TOPS PUBLIC ADMIN: APP ECONOMET FOR PUB POL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Murray, Sheila % % 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 fr