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 = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 204 001L1 EFFECTIVE MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Johnson, Wesley SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 14.3 A 4 57.1 Sophomore 4 57.1 B 2 28.6 Junior 2 28.6 C 1 14.3 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 28.6 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 57.1 Required by my major 1 14.3 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 6 85.7 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 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 57.1 14.3 28.6 0.0 1.7 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 0.0 2.4 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 2.8 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 0.0 28.6 28.6 42.9 3.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 14.3 28.6 57.1 0.0 2.4 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 7 14.3 14.3 57.1 14.3 2.7 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 204 001L1 EFFECTIVE MILITARY COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Johnson, Wesley % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 8 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 87.5 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 104 001L1 INTRO TO LEADERSHIP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 6 60.0 A 8 80.0 Sophomore 2 20.0 B 1 10.0 Junior 1 10.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 1 10.0 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 1 10.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 8 80.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 2 20.0 Other (e.g. elective) 10 100.0 4 - 5 hours 0 0.0 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 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 18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.79 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 10 0.0 10.0 60.0 30.0 3.2 0.63 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 10 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48 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 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 11 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.65 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 % % % % 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 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52 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 = Military Science DEPARTMENT = ROTC FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = MS 104 001L1 INTRO TO LEADERSHIP INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Wiant, T.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 = 11 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 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".