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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 021L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Avery, Jon SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 27.3 A 3 27.3 Sophomore 4 36.4 B 7 63.6 Junior 2 18.2 C 1 9.1 Senior 2 18.2 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 6 54.5 Studies Program 7 63.6 2 hours 4 36.4 Required by my major 0 0.0 3 hours 1 9.1 Other (e.g. elective) 4 36.4 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 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 4. Exams reflected what was taught 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 12 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39 11. Was available for consultation 11 0.0 0.0 18.2 81.8 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 12 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 0.72 14. Encouraged class participation 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 0.0 41.7 58.3 3.6 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 8.3 33.3 25.0 33.3 2.8 1.03 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 12 0.0 8.3 50.0 41.7 3.3 0.65 21. Overall quality of teaching 12 0.0 8.3 25.0 66.7 3.6 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 021L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Avery, Jon % % 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 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 12 Number of forms with at least one student response = 12 Percent completed = 44.4 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 317 001L1 EXISTENTIALIST THGT/LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 8 40.0 Sophomore 3 15.0 B 6 30.0 Junior 7 35.0 C 4 20.0 Senior 6 30.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 10.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 2 10.0 Pass or Audit 2 10.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 1 5.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 4 20.0 Required by my major 2 10.0 3 hours 7 35.0 Other (e.g. elective) 18 90.0 4 - 5 hours 8 40.0 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 21 0.0 0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 4.8 42.9 52.4 3.5 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 4. Exams reflected what was taught 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 5. Grading was fair and consistent 20 0.0 5.0 45.0 50.0 3.5 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 9.5 52.4 38.1 3.3 0.64 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 21 0.0 4.8 66.7 28.6 3.2 0.54 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 9.5 47.6 42.9 3.3 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 19.0 81.0 3.8 0.40 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 12. Satisfact answered class questions 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 21 0.0 4.8 33.3 61.9 3.6 0.60 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 4.8 23.8 71.4 3.7 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 19 0.0 5.3 47.4 47.4 3.4 0.61 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 5.0 60.0 35.0 3.3 0.57 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 16 0.0 0.0 81.3 18.8 3.2 0.40 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 19 0.0 0.0 52.6 47.4 3.5 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 20 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 19 0.0 0.0 31.6 68.4 3.7 0.48 21. Overall quality of teaching 20 0.0 0.0 35.0 65.0 3.7 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 317 001L1 EXISTENTIALIST THGT/LIT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 31 Number of forms scanned = 21 Number of forms with at least one student response = 21 Percent completed = 67.7 % 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 500 001L2 TOPICS IN PHI:EARLY ROMANTICISM/GER IDEALISM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James D SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 2 33.3 Junior 2 28.6 C 0 0.0 Senior 4 57.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 14.3 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 16.7 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 14.3 Required by my major 2 28.6 3 hours 2 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 4 - 5 hours 2 28.6 6 - 7 hours 2 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 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . 14. Encouraged class participation 7 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 6 0.0 16.7 33.3 50.0 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 4 0.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 5 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 . 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 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 7 0.0 14.3 14.3 71.4 3.6 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 500 001L2 TOPICS IN PHI:EARLY ROMANTICISM/GER IDEALISM INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Breazeale, James 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 = 15 Number of forms scanned = 7 Number of forms with at least one student response = 7 Percent completed = 46.7 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 516 001L1 CONTEMP PHI:PHENOMEN DIR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bruzina, Ronald C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 3 50.0 Junior 1 14.3 C 0 0.0 Senior 3 42.9 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 42.9 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 2 28.6 Required by my major 2 28.6 3 hours 1 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 5 71.4 4 - 5 hours 1 14.3 6 - 7 hours 2 28.6 8 or more hours 1 14.3 % % 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 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 8 12.5 25.0 37.5 25.0 2.8 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 8 0.0 12.5 37.5 50.0 3.4 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 12.5 12.5 37.5 37.5 3.0 . 14. Encouraged class participation 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 6 0.0 16.7 66.7 16.7 3.0 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 7 14.3 0.0 42.9 42.9 3.1 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 7 14.3 14.3 28.6 42.9 3.0 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 8 12.5 0.0 37.5 50.0 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 8 0.0 12.5 25.0 62.5 3.5 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 516 001L1 CONTEMP PHI:PHENOMEN DIR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bruzina, Ronald C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 10 Number of forms scanned = 8 Number of forms with at least one student response = 8 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 26.1 Sophomore 1 4.3 B 9 39.1 Junior 7 30.4 C 4 17.4 Senior 15 65.2 D 1 4.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 3 13.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 2 8.7 Studies Program 9 39.1 2 hours 10 43.5 Required by my major 3 13.0 3 hours 8 34.8 Other (e.g. elective) 11 47.8 4 - 5 hours 2 8.7 6 - 7 hours 1 4.3 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 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 25 4.0 12.0 52.0 32.0 3.1 0.78 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 4.0 8.0 64.0 24.0 3.1 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 25 0.0 12.0 56.0 32.0 3.2 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 25 0.0 8.0 48.0 44.0 3.4 0.64 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 0.0 0.0 68.0 32.0 3.3 0.48 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 4.0 60.0 36.0 3.3 0.56 8. Graded assignments included comments 25 0.0 0.0 68.0 32.0 3.3 0.48 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 25 0.0 4.0 56.0 40.0 3.4 0.57 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 25 0.0 20.0 44.0 36.0 3.2 0.75 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 0.0 28.0 72.0 3.7 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 25 0.0 0.0 52.0 48.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 22 0.0 13.6 45.5 40.9 3.3 0.70 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 24 0.0 4.2 58.3 37.5 3.3 0.56 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 0.0 34.8 39.1 26.1 2.9 0.79 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 25 0.0 8.0 52.0 40.0 3.3 0.63 21. Overall quality of teaching 25 0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 330 001L1 PROFESSIONAL ETHICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan 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 4 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 9 0.0 11.1 88.9 0.0 2.9 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 9 0.0 55.6 44.4 0.0 2.4 . 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 = 25 Number of forms with at least one student response = 25 Percent completed = 80.6 % 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 535 001L1 SOCIAL & POLITICAL PHI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 4 50.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 4 50.0 Junior 2 25.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 62.5 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 12.5 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 0 0.0 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 0 0.0 Required by my major 2 25.0 3 hours 2 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 75.0 4 - 5 hours 3 37.5 6 - 7 hours 2 25.0 8 or more hours 1 12.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 8 0.0 12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 7 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 11.1 33.3 55.6 3.4 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 14. Encouraged class participation 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 9 0.0 0.0 77.8 22.2 3.2 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 535 001L1 SOCIAL & POLITICAL PHI INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Callahan, Joan C % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 12 Number of forms scanned = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 75.0 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 011L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cooper, John C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 25.0 A 3 25.0 Sophomore 3 25.0 B 5 41.7 Junior 4 33.3 C 3 25.0 Senior 2 16.7 D 1 8.3 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 33.3 Studies Program 9 75.0 2 hours 3 25.0 Required by my major 2 16.7 3 hours 2 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 8.3 4 - 5 hours 3 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 14 0.0 7.1 78.6 14.3 3.1 0.47 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 7.1 50.0 42.9 3.4 0.63 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 14 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 0.55 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 35.7 50.0 14.3 2.8 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 14.3 7.1 64.3 14.3 2.8 0.89 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 7.1 7.1 78.6 7.1 2.9 0.66 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 76.9 23.1 3.2 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 13 15.4 15.4 61.5 7.7 2.6 0.87 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 14.3 28.6 50.0 7.1 2.5 0.85 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 14.3 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.66 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 0.00 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 7.1 42.9 35.7 14.3 2.6 0.85 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 0.52 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 78.6 21.4 3.2 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 2.8 0.42 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 28.6 64.3 7.1 2.8 0.58 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 14 0.0 28.6 64.3 7.1 2.8 0.58 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 7.1 21.4 71.4 0.0 2.6 0.63 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 21.4 57.1 21.4 0.0 2.0 0.68 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 14 14.3 42.9 42.9 0.0 2.3 0.73 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 14.3 35.7 28.6 21.4 2.6 1.02 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 011L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cooper, John 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 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 2.4 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 2.4 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 2.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 2.7 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 2 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 = 27 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 51.9 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 014L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cooper, John C. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 45.5 A 4 40.0 Sophomore 2 18.2 B 5 50.0 Junior 3 27.3 C 1 10.0 Senior 1 9.1 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 36.4 Studies Program 8 72.7 2 hours 2 18.2 Required by my major 1 9.1 3 hours 2 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 2 18.2 4 - 5 hours 3 27.3 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 11 0.0 0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.52 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 11 0.0 9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 10 0.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 3.4 0.70 4. Exams reflected what was taught 11 0.0 18.2 45.5 36.4 3.2 0.75 5. Grading was fair and consistent 11 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 3.0 0.63 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 11 0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4 3.4 0.50 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 27.3 63.6 9.1 2.8 0.60 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 11 0.0 27.3 54.5 18.2 2.9 0.70 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 11 0.0 9.1 45.5 45.5 3.4 0.67 11. Was available for consultation 10 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.42 12. Satisfact answered class questions 11 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.40 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 14. Encouraged class participation 11 0.0 0.0 72.7 27.3 3.3 0.47 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 27.3 27.3 45.5 3.2 0.87 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 11 0.0 18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.79 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 11 0.0 9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 11 9.1 36.4 36.4 18.2 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 11 9.1 18.2 36.4 36.4 3.0 1.00 21. Overall quality of teaching 11 0.0 18.2 63.6 18.2 3.0 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Part-time instructors COURSE = PHI 120 014L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Cooper, John 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 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 6 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 24 Number of forms scanned = 11 Number of forms with at least one student response = 11 Percent completed = 45.8 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 270 001L1 HIS PHI II:RENAISSANCE TO PRESENT ERA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 3 10.3 A 15 55.6 Sophomore 12 41.4 B 11 40.7 Junior 8 27.6 C 0 0.0 Senior 5 17.2 D 1 3.7 Graduate 1 3.4 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 0 0.0 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 4 14.3 Studies Program 5 17.9 2 hours 10 35.7 Required by my major 15 53.6 3 hours 8 28.6 Other (e.g. elective) 8 28.6 4 - 5 hours 3 10.7 6 - 7 hours 2 7.1 8 or more hours 1 3.6 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 30 0.0 3.3 23.3 73.3 3.7 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 30 0.0 0.0 23.3 76.7 3.8 0.43 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 30 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 4. Exams reflected what was taught 30 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31 5. Grading was fair and consistent 30 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.45 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 28 0.0 3.6 14.3 82.1 3.8 0.50 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 0.0 6.9 55.2 37.9 3.3 0.60 8. Graded assignments included comments 29 0.0 0.0 34.5 65.5 3.7 0.48 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 30 0.0 0.0 3.3 96.7 4.0 0.18 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 30 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00 11. Was available for consultation 26 0.0 0.0 19.2 80.8 3.8 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 30 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 30 0.0 0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31 14. Encouraged class participation 29 0.0 3.4 13.8 82.8 3.8 0.49 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 0.0 0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 26 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 0.0 0.0 20.7 79.3 3.8 0.41 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 0.0 0.0 23.3 76.7 3.8 0.43 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 30 0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35 21. Overall quality of teaching 30 0.0 0.0 3.3 96.7 4.0 0.18 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 270 001L1 HIS PHI II:RENAISSANCE TO PRESENT ERA INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 37 Number of forms scanned = 30 Number of forms with at least one student response = 30 Percent completed = 81.1 % 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 310 001L1 PHI OF HUMAN NATURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 9.5 A 7 33.3 Sophomore 1 4.8 B 12 57.1 Junior 3 14.3 C 1 4.8 Senior 15 71.4 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 4.8 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 23.8 Studies Program 1 4.8 2 hours 6 28.6 Required by my major 1 4.8 3 hours 7 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 19 90.5 4 - 5 hours 2 9.5 6 - 7 hours 1 4.8 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 52.4 47.6 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 4.8 33.3 61.9 3.6 0.60 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 9.1 31.8 59.1 3.5 0.67 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 4.5 0.0 54.5 40.9 3.3 0.72 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 11. Was available for consultation 17 0.0 0.0 29.4 70.6 3.7 0.47 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 9.1 18.2 72.7 3.6 0.66 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 4.5 0.0 31.8 63.6 3.5 0.74 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 20 0.0 0.0 45.0 55.0 3.6 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 4.8 38.1 57.1 3.5 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5 3.4 0.59 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 4.5 31.8 63.6 3.6 0.59 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 0.0 13.6 86.4 3.9 0.35 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 310 001L1 PHI OF HUMAN NATURE INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Force, James E % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 30 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 73.3 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 260 001L1 HIS PHI I:GRK BEGINNINGS TO THE MIDDLE AGES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 14.3 A 5 35.7 Sophomore 3 21.4 B 7 50.0 Junior 2 14.3 C 2 14.3 Senior 7 50.0 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 3 21.4 Studies Program 6 42.9 2 hours 5 35.7 Required by my major 3 21.4 3 hours 5 35.7 Other (e.g. elective) 5 35.7 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 11 0.0 9.1 72.7 18.2 3.1 0.54 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 0.0 86.7 13.3 3.1 0.35 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 0.41 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 7.7 69.2 23.1 3.2 0.55 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 0.0 93.3 6.7 3.1 0.26 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 21.4 71.4 7.1 2.9 0.53 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 26.7 40.0 33.3 3.1 0.80 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 15 0.0 0.0 26.7 73.3 3.7 0.46 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 0.39 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 6.7 6.7 53.3 33.3 3.1 0.83 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 35.7 50.0 14.3 2.8 0.70 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 14.3 78.6 7.1 2.9 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 7.1 85.7 7.1 3.0 0.39 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 0.39 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 13.3 73.3 13.3 3.0 0.53 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 15 0.0 26.7 40.0 33.3 3.1 0.80 % % % % 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 73.3 26.7 3.3 0.46 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 0.49 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 260 001L1 HIS PHI I:GRK BEGINNINGS TO THE MIDDLE AGES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Frank, Daniel % % 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 3 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 38 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 39.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 005L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabhart, Mitch SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 16 61.5 A 7 26.9 Sophomore 6 23.1 B 13 50.0 Junior 3 11.5 C 6 23.1 Senior 1 3.8 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 11 42.3 Studies Program 19 73.1 2 hours 12 46.2 Required by my major 2 7.7 3 hours 1 3.8 Other (e.g. elective) 5 19.2 4 - 5 hours 2 7.7 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 29 0.0 0.0 62.1 37.9 3.4 0.49 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 29 3.4 6.9 55.2 34.5 3.2 0.73 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 12.0 68.0 20.0 3.1 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 28 0.0 0.0 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.49 5. Grading was fair and consistent 29 0.0 3.4 65.5 31.0 3.3 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 9.1 68.2 22.7 3.1 0.56 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 29 0.0 0.0 51.7 48.3 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 0.0 35.3 47.1 17.6 2.8 0.73 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 29 3.4 17.2 48.3 31.0 3.1 0.80 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 29 0.0 0.0 37.9 62.1 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 25 0.0 0.0 64.0 36.0 3.4 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 29 0.0 0.0 58.6 41.4 3.4 0.50 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 28 14.3 17.9 57.1 10.7 2.6 0.87 14. Encouraged class participation 28 7.1 7.1 78.6 7.1 2.9 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 27 3.7 11.1 63.0 22.2 3.0 0.71 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 3.6 10.7 75.0 10.7 2.9 0.60 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 25 4.0 36.0 56.0 4.0 2.6 0.65 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 29 3.4 6.9 69.0 20.7 3.1 0.65 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 28 25.0 42.9 25.0 7.1 2.1 0.89 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 29 0.0 34.5 48.3 17.2 2.8 0.71 21. Overall quality of teaching 29 3.4 13.8 58.6 24.1 3.0 0.73 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 100 005L1 INTRO PHI:KNOWL/REALITY INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabhart, Mitch % % 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 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 12 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 2.8 0.39 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 12 0.0 0.0 91.7 8.3 3.1 0.29 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 8 0.0 12.5 75.0 12.5 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 7 0.0 14.3 71.4 14.3 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 37 Number of forms scanned = 29 Number of forms with at least one student response = 29 Percent completed = 78.4 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Philosophy FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PHI 120 019L1 INTRODUCTORY LOGIC INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabhart, Mitch SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 16.7 A 4 36.4 Sophomore 4 33.3 B 5 45.5 Junior 4 33.3 C 2 18.2 Senior 2 16.7 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 2 16.7 Studies Program 10 83.3 2 hours 6 50.0 Required by my major 1 8.3 3 hours 2 16.7 Other (e.g. elective) 1 8.3 4 - 5 hours 1 8.3 6 - 7 hours 1 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 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 13 0.0 7.7 46.2 46.2 3.4 0.65 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 7.7 30.8 61.5 3.5 0.66 4. Exams reflected what was taught 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 13 0.0 0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 11 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.50 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 11. Was available for consultation 12 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 12. Satisfact answered class questions 13 0.0 0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 13 0.0 15.4 30.8 53.8 3.4 0.77 14. Encouraged class participation 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 10.0 0.0 30.0 60.0 3.4 0.97 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 12 8.3 8.3 25.0 58.3 3.3 0.98 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 12 16.7 0.0 25.0 58.3 3.3 1.14 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 12 8.3 0.0 33.3 58.3 3.4 0.90 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 12 8.3 8.3 25.0 58.3 3.3 0.98