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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 212 002L1 CULT/POL IN THIRD WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aziabu, Yao E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 7 28.0 A 9 36.0 Sophomore 9 36.0 B 14 56.0 Junior 6 24.0 C 2 8.0 Senior 3 12.0 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 7 28.0 Studies Program 18 75.0 2 hours 6 24.0 Required by my major 6 25.0 3 hours 10 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 0 0.0 4 - 5 hours 2 8.0 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 26 3.8 0.0 46.2 50.0 3.4 0.70 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 0.0 23.1 30.8 46.2 3.2 0.82 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 25 0.0 16.0 36.0 48.0 3.3 0.75 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 3.8 0.0 50.0 46.2 3.4 0.70 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 11.5 61.5 26.9 3.2 0.61 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 25 8.0 4.0 48.0 40.0 3.2 0.87 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 26 0.0 0.0 65.4 34.6 3.3 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 3.8 11.5 42.3 42.3 3.2 0.82 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 11.5 57.7 30.8 3.2 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 25 0.0 4.0 28.0 68.0 3.6 0.57 11. Was available for consultation 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.65 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 15.4 53.8 30.8 3.2 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 4.0 32.0 64.0 3.6 0.58 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 26 0.0 0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.51 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 24 4.2 8.3 58.3 29.2 3.1 0.74 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 23 4.3 13.0 56.5 26.1 3.0 0.77 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 0.0 57.7 42.3 3.4 0.50 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 3.8 38.5 34.6 23.1 2.8 0.86 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 0.0 15.4 50.0 34.6 3.2 0.69 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 3.8 7.7 53.8 34.6 3.2 0.75 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 212 002L1 CULT/POL IN THIRD WORLD INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aziabu, Yao 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 9 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 2.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 16 0.0 18.8 68.8 12.5 2.9 0.57 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 17 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.49 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 19 0.0 0.0 36.8 63.2 3.6 0.50 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 6 16.7 0.0 83.3 0.0 2.7 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 39 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 66.7 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 235 002L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aziabu, Yao E SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 14.3 A 5 35.7 Sophomore 7 50.0 B 4 28.6 Junior 4 28.6 C 5 35.7 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 1 7.1 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 4 28.6 2 hours 3 21.4 Required by my major 4 28.6 3 hours 2 14.3 Other (e.g. elective) 6 42.9 4 - 5 hours 4 28.6 6 - 7 hours 2 14.3 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 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 13 0.0 0.0 69.2 30.8 3.3 0.48 4. Exams reflected what was taught 14 0.0 7.1 35.7 57.1 3.5 0.65 5. Grading was fair and consistent 14 0.0 7.1 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.53 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 14 0.0 0.0 85.7 14.3 3.1 0.36 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 8. Graded assignments included comments 14 0.0 21.4 28.6 50.0 3.3 0.83 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 14 0.0 7.1 57.1 35.7 3.3 0.61 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 11. Was available for consultation 14 0.0 7.1 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.58 12. Satisfact answered class questions 14 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 14 0.0 7.1 78.6 14.3 3.1 0.47 14. Encouraged class participation 14 0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.43 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 14 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.47 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 78.6 21.4 3.2 0.43 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 7.7 84.6 7.7 3.0 0.41 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 14 0.0 0.0 78.6 21.4 3.2 0.43 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 13 7.7 30.8 46.2 15.4 2.7 0.85 % % % % 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 64.3 35.7 3.4 0.50 21. Overall quality of teaching 14 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 235 002L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Aziabu, Yao 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 25 Number of forms scanned = 14 Number of forms with at least one student response = 14 Percent completed = 56.0 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 235 001L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 4 19.0 A 5 23.8 Sophomore 8 38.1 B 12 57.1 Junior 7 33.3 C 3 14.3 Senior 1 4.8 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 4.8 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 3 14.3 Studies Program 3 14.3 2 hours 6 28.6 Required by my major 12 57.1 3 hours 7 33.3 Other (e.g. elective) 6 28.6 4 - 5 hours 5 23.8 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 22 0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 22 4.5 4.5 50.0 40.9 3.3 0.77 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 9.5 57.1 33.3 3.2 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 22 0.0 9.1 40.9 50.0 3.4 0.67 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 4.8 57.1 38.1 3.3 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 9.1 59.1 31.8 3.2 0.61 8. Graded assignments included comments 22 0.0 4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 22 0.0 4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 11. Was available for consultation 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 22 0.0 4.5 31.8 63.6 3.6 0.59 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.67 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 4.5 36.4 59.1 3.5 0.60 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 10.5 57.9 31.6 3.2 0.63 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 22 0.0 0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 22 4.5 13.6 45.5 36.4 3.1 0.83 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 9.1 40.9 50.0 3.4 0.67 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.67 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 235 001L1 WORLD POLITICS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 5 0.0 60.0 20.0 20.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 9 0.0 11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5 3.4 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 5 0.0 20.0 60.0 20.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 29. Students free to express opinions 5 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 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 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 = 28 Number of forms scanned = 22 Number of forms with at least one student response = 22 Percent completed = 78.6 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 491 001L1 SP TOP IN PS: INFL ON AMER FOR POL BEH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 3 60.0 Sophomore 1 20.0 B 1 20.0 Junior 2 40.0 C 1 20.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 2 40.0 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 20.0 Required by my major 3 60.0 3 hours 2 40.0 Other (e.g. elective) 2 40.0 4 - 5 hours 2 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 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 6 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 6 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 6 0.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 . 11. Was available for consultation 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 14. Encouraged class participation 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 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 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 6 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . % % % % 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 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 491 001L1 SP TOP IN PS: INFL ON AMER FOR POL BEH INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Bartilow, Horace A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 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 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 461G001L1 CIVIL LIBERTIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 6 37.5 Sophomore 3 18.8 B 7 43.8 Junior 6 37.5 C 3 18.8 Senior 7 43.8 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 3 18.8 Studies Program 1 6.3 2 hours 5 31.3 Required by my major 9 56.3 3 hours 4 25.0 Other (e.g. elective) 6 37.5 4 - 5 hours 4 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 17 0.0 5.9 47.1 47.1 3.4 0.62 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 17 0.0 23.5 52.9 23.5 3.0 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 17 11.8 11.8 58.8 17.6 2.8 0.88 4. Exams reflected what was taught 17 11.8 5.9 52.9 29.4 3.0 0.94 5. Grading was fair and consistent 17 5.9 17.6 52.9 23.5 2.9 0.83 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 17 5.9 11.8 47.1 35.3 3.1 0.86 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 17 0.0 5.9 76.5 17.6 3.1 0.49 8. Graded assignments included comments 17 5.9 0.0 58.8 35.3 3.2 0.75 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 17 5.9 17.6 52.9 23.5 2.9 0.83 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 17 5.9 0.0 29.4 64.7 3.5 0.80 11. Was available for consultation 16 0.0 6.3 56.3 37.5 3.3 0.60 12. Satisfact answered class questions 17 5.9 0.0 58.8 35.3 3.2 0.75 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 16 18.8 12.5 50.0 18.8 2.7 1.01 14. Encouraged class participation 17 5.9 0.0 70.6 23.5 3.1 0.70 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 13 7.7 0.0 84.6 7.7 2.9 0.64 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 17 5.9 17.6 64.7 11.8 2.8 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 7.7 15.4 69.2 7.7 2.8 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 17 5.9 0.0 70.6 23.5 3.1 0.70 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 17 11.8 11.8 58.8 17.6 2.8 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 17 5.9 11.8 47.1 35.3 3.1 0.86 21. Overall quality of teaching 17 5.9 11.8 41.2 41.2 3.2 0.88 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 461G001L1 CIVIL LIBERTIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley 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 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 42 Number of forms scanned = 17 Number of forms with at least one student response = 17 Percent completed = 40.5 % *********************************************************************** * 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 461G002L1 CIVIL LIBERTIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley C SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 10 32.3 Sophomore 5 16.1 B 14 45.2 Junior 16 51.6 C 6 19.4 Senior 9 29.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 1 3.2 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 3.2 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 7 22.6 Studies Program 1 3.2 2 hours 10 32.3 Required by my major 15 48.4 3 hours 6 19.4 Other (e.g. elective) 15 48.4 4 - 5 hours 6 19.4 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 2 6.5 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 31 0.0 6.5 51.6 41.9 3.4 0.61 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 0.0 6.5 58.1 35.5 3.3 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 31 3.2 9.7 45.2 41.9 3.3 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 31 6.5 12.9 51.6 29.0 3.0 0.84 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 3.2 0.0 67.7 29.0 3.2 0.62 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 31 0.0 3.2 61.3 35.5 3.3 0.54 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 31 0.0 12.9 64.5 22.6 3.1 0.60 8. Graded assignments included comments 31 3.2 6.5 64.5 25.8 3.1 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 31 0.0 9.7 51.6 38.7 3.3 0.64 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 31 0.0 0.0 41.9 58.1 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 28 0.0 0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4 0.50 12. Satisfact answered class questions 30 0.0 3.3 50.0 46.7 3.4 0.57 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 31 3.2 12.9 45.2 38.7 3.2 0.79 14. Encouraged class participation 31 0.0 0.0 41.9 58.1 3.6 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 31 0.0 0.0 77.4 22.6 3.2 0.43 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 31 3.2 9.7 54.8 32.3 3.2 0.73 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 31 3.2 19.4 58.1 19.4 2.9 0.73 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 31 3.2 3.2 54.8 38.7 3.3 0.69 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 31 3.2 22.6 45.2 29.0 3.0 0.82 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 31 3.2 9.7 48.4 38.7 3.2 0.76 21. Overall quality of teaching 30 6.7 6.7 36.7 50.0 3.3 0.88 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 461G002L1 CIVIL LIBERTIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Canon, Bradley 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 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 2 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 49 Number of forms scanned = 31 Number of forms with at least one student response = 31 Percent completed = 63.3 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 430G001L1 CONDUCT AMER FOREIGN REL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Benton V SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 11 55.0 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 9 45.0 Junior 6 31.6 C 0 0.0 Senior 10 52.6 D 0 0.0 Graduate 3 15.8 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 21.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 3 15.8 Required by my major 12 63.2 3 hours 7 36.8 Other (e.g. elective) 7 36.8 4 - 5 hours 2 10.5 6 - 7 hours 3 15.8 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 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 21 0.0 4.8 52.4 42.9 3.4 0.59 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.46 4. Exams reflected what was taught 21 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 5. Grading was fair and consistent 21 0.0 4.8 66.7 28.6 3.2 0.54 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 21 0.0 4.8 57.1 38.1 3.3 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 20 0.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3 0.44 8. Graded assignments included comments 16 0.0 6.3 62.5 31.3 3.3 0.58 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 21 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 21 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9 0.30 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46 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 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48 14. Encouraged class participation 21 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.72 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 16 0.0 12.5 68.8 18.8 3.1 0.57 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 18 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.51 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 0.0 4.8 23.8 71.4 3.7 0.58 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 21 0.0 4.8 23.8 71.4 3.7 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 21 0.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9 0.30 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 430G001L1 CONDUCT AMER FOREIGN REL INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Benton V % % 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 = 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 759 001S1 COMPARATIVE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles L 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 0 0.0 C 0 0.0 Senior 0 0.0 D 0 0.0 Graduate 9 100.0 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 2 22.2 3 hours 1 11.1 Other (e.g. elective) 7 77.8 4 - 5 hours 2 22.2 6 - 7 hours 5 55.6 8 or more hours 1 11.1 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 4. Exams reflected what was taught 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 5. Grading was fair and consistent 5 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 . 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 9 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 7 0.0 42.9 28.6 28.6 2.9 . 8. Graded assignments included comments 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 11. Was available for consultation 8 0.0 0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 . 12. Satisfact answered class questions 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 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 50.0 37.5 3.3 . 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 9 0.0 0.0 55.6 44.4 3.4 . 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 7 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 . 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 9 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 9 0.0 11.1 44.4 44.4 3.3 . % % % % 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 44.4 55.6 3.6 . 21. Overall quality of teaching 9 0.0 0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9 . 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 759 001S1 COMPARATIVE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Davis, Charles 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 8 0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6 . 28. Guided student report preparation 8 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 29. Students free to express opinions 7 0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 8 0.0 0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 7 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 . 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 = 9 Number of forms with at least one student response = 9 Percent completed = 90.0 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 271 002L1 INTRO POLITICAL BEHAVIOR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabel, Matthew SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 5 20.8 A 13 54.2 Sophomore 11 45.8 B 7 29.2 Junior 8 33.3 C 3 12.5 Senior 0 0.0 D 1 4.2 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 8 33.3 Studies Program 4 16.7 2 hours 10 41.7 Required by my major 12 50.0 3 hours 3 12.5 Other (e.g. elective) 8 33.3 4 - 5 hours 3 12.5 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 26 3.8 3.8 46.2 46.2 3.3 0.75 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 26 0.0 19.2 50.0 30.8 3.1 0.71 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 26 0.0 7.7 53.8 38.5 3.3 0.62 4. Exams reflected what was taught 26 0.0 3.8 46.2 50.0 3.5 0.58 5. Grading was fair and consistent 26 0.0 3.8 53.8 42.3 3.4 0.57 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 26 0.0 3.8 46.2 50.0 3.5 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 25 0.0 8.0 32.0 60.0 3.5 0.65 8. Graded assignments included comments 26 0.0 11.5 50.0 38.5 3.3 0.67 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 26 0.0 3.8 38.5 57.7 3.5 0.58 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 26 0.0 3.8 34.6 61.5 3.6 0.58 11. Was available for consultation 24 0.0 4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59 12. Satisfact answered class questions 26 0.0 3.8 38.5 57.7 3.5 0.58 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 26 0.0 11.5 26.9 61.5 3.5 0.71 14. Encouraged class participation 25 0.0 8.0 40.0 52.0 3.4 0.65 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 25 0.0 4.0 68.0 28.0 3.2 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 26 0.0 7.7 42.3 50.0 3.4 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 0.0 8.3 58.3 33.3 3.3 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 26 0.0 3.8 38.5 57.7 3.5 0.58 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 26 0.0 19.2 50.0 30.8 3.1 0.71 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 26 0.0 3.8 46.2 50.0 3.5 0.58 21. Overall quality of teaching 26 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.43 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 271 002L1 INTRO POLITICAL BEHAVIOR INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabel, Matthew % % 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 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 4 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 4 0.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 3.3 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . % answering item N --------------------------------- Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS *** No Optional Questions were answered *** Number of forms preslugged = 48 Number of forms scanned = 26 Number of forms with at least one student response = 26 Percent completed = 54.2 % *********************************************************************** * WARNING: THE RESPONSE RATE FOR THIS CLASS WAS LESS THAN 66.7%. * * Research shows that results may not be valid if more than a third * * of the class is absent or does not respond. * *********************************************************************** For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 671 001S1 STRATGS OF INQUIRY IN PS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabel, Matthew SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 0 0.0 A 2 13.3 Sophomore 0 0.0 B 13 86.7 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 0 0.0 Required by my major 13 86.7 3 hours 1 6.7 Other (e.g. elective) 2 13.3 4 - 5 hours 6 40.0 6 - 7 hours 4 26.7 8 or more hours 4 26.7 % % 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 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 4. Exams reflected what was taught 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 5. Grading was fair and consistent 15 0.0 20.0 40.0 40.0 3.2 0.77 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 15 0.0 26.7 46.7 26.7 3.0 0.76 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 15 0.0 6.7 46.7 46.7 3.4 0.63 8. Graded assignments included comments 15 0.0 13.3 53.3 33.3 3.2 0.68 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 15 0.0 6.7 60.0 33.3 3.3 0.59 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 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 12. Satisfact answered class questions 15 0.0 6.7 33.3 60.0 3.5 0.64 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 15 0.0 13.3 26.7 60.0 3.5 0.74 14. Encouraged class participation 15 0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.51 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 10 0.0 0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 14 0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.47 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 13 0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.44 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 15 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.49 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 14 0.0 14.3 42.9 42.9 3.3 0.73 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 15 0.0 13.3 20.0 66.7 3.5 0.74 21. Overall quality of teaching 15 6.7 0.0 40.0 53.3 3.4 0.83 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 671 001S1 STRATGS OF INQUIRY IN PS INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gabel, Matthew % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 2 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 3 0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 28. Guided student report preparation 6 0.0 16.7 50.0 33.3 3.2 . 29. Students free to express opinions 13 0.0 7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 14 0.0 0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50 31. Developed abil to conduct research 13 0.0 7.7 23.1 69.2 3.6 0.65 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 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 = 17 Number of forms scanned = 15 Number of forms with at least one student response = 15 Percent completed = 88.2 % 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 = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 101 002L1 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 2 9.1 A 6 27.3 Sophomore 9 40.9 B 11 50.0 Junior 5 22.7 C 4 18.2 Senior 6 27.3 D 0 0.0 Graduate 0 0.0 E/Fail 0 0.0 Professional 0 0.0 I 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 Pass or Audit 1 4.5 Reason for taking course Number Percent Hrs/week spent Number Percent Required by University 1 hour or less 5 23.8 Studies Program 8 36.4 2 hours 7 33.3 Required by my major 9 40.9 3 hours 5 23.8 Other (e.g. elective) 5 22.7 4 - 5 hours 2 9.5 6 - 7 hours 1 4.8 8 or more hours 1 4.8 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 4.3 4.3 82.6 8.7 3.0 0.56 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 22 9.1 9.1 68.2 13.6 2.9 0.77 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 26.1 60.9 13.0 2.9 0.63 5. Grading was fair and consistent 22 0.0 9.1 68.2 22.7 3.1 0.56 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 4.5 68.2 27.3 3.2 0.53 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 22 0.0 0.0 81.8 18.2 3.2 0.39 8. Graded assignments included comments 20 10.0 40.0 45.0 5.0 2.5 0.76 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 21 0.0 0.0 81.0 19.0 3.2 0.40 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 23 0.0 17.4 69.6 13.0 3.0 0.56 14. Encouraged class participation 22 0.0 22.7 72.7 4.5 2.8 0.50 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 22 0.0 9.1 81.8 9.1 3.0 0.44 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 21 4.8 0.0 81.0 14.3 3.0 0.59 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 5.3 15.8 68.4 10.5 2.8 0.69 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 21 0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6 3.3 0.46 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 21 0.0 38.1 47.6 14.3 2.8 0.70 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 22 0.0 9.1 59.1 31.8 3.2 0.61 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 9.1 54.5 36.4 3.3 0.63 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 101 002L1 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 5 0.0 0.0 80.0 20.0 3.2 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 6 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7 3.2 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . 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 9 11.1 11.1 66.7 11.1 2.8 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 9 0.0 0.0 88.9 11.1 3.1 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 9 0.0 33.3 44.4 22.2 2.9 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 9 0.0 22.2 55.6 22.2 3.0 . 36. Lab equipment use satis explained 4 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . % 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 = 24 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 95.8 % For help with interpretation of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO". 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 1 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 101 003L1 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 10 45.5 A 8 36.4 Sophomore 6 27.3 B 12 54.5 Junior 4 18.2 C 1 4.5 Senior 2 9.1 D 1 4.5 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 12 54.5 Studies Program 10 45.5 2 hours 4 18.2 Required by my major 5 22.7 3 hours 4 18.2 Other (e.g. elective) 7 31.8 4 - 5 hours 2 9.1 6 - 7 hours 0 0.0 8 or more hours 0 0.0 % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION B - COURSE ITEMS 1. Outlined course material and grading 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 23 4.3 26.1 47.8 21.7 2.9 0.81 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 21 0.0 9.5 66.7 23.8 3.1 0.57 4. Exams reflected what was taught 23 0.0 17.4 56.5 26.1 3.1 0.67 5. Grading was fair and consistent 23 0.0 8.7 60.9 30.4 3.2 0.60 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 22 0.0 4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 23 0.0 4.3 56.5 39.1 3.3 0.57 8. Graded assignments included comments 21 0.0 23.8 66.7 9.5 2.9 0.57 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 23 0.0 8.7 52.2 39.1 3.3 0.63 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 23 0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51 11. Was available for consultation 20 0.0 15.0 50.0 35.0 3.2 0.70 12. Satisfact answered class questions 23 0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 22 0.0 27.3 45.5 27.3 3.0 0.76 14. Encouraged class participation 20 0.0 45.0 45.0 10.0 2.7 0.67 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 21 0.0 9.5 76.2 14.3 3.0 0.50 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 22 0.0 27.3 59.1 13.6 2.9 0.64 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 19 0.0 36.8 47.4 15.8 2.8 0.71 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 23 0.0 8.7 60.9 30.4 3.2 0.60 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 23 4.3 26.1 39.1 30.4 3.0 0.88 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall value of the course 23 0.0 13.0 69.6 17.4 3.0 0.56 21. Overall quality of teaching 22 0.0 4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58 1LEXINGTON CAMPUS - PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT Page 2 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - Spring 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS COLLEGE = Arts and Sciences DEPARTMENT = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 101 003L1 AMERICAN GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Gross, Donald A % % Strongly % % Strongly N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION F - UNIVERSITY STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY 22. USSC/ understand scientific inquiry 7 0.0 42.9 57.1 0.0 2.6 . 23. Saw how discipline relates to other 7 0.0 42.9 42.9 14.3 2.7 . 24. Writing assign helps understand sub 8 0.0 12.5 62.5 25.0 3.1 . 25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture 2 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5 . 26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0 . SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS ONLY 27. Feedback on oral presentations 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 28. Guided student report preparation 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 29. Students free to express opinions 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 30. Discussions broadened my knowledge 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . 31. Developed abil to conduct research 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY 32. Clarified lecture material 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 3.0 . 33. Amount of work appropriate 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 34. Instructor explained expectations 3 0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3 . 35. Instructor helped with my problems 3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 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 = 25 Number of forms scanned = 23 Number of forms with at least one student response = 23 Percent completed = 92.0 % 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 = Political Science FACULTY TYPE = Faculty COURSE = PS 470G001L1 AMERIC POLITICAL PARTIES INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Hager, Gregory L. SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION Classification Number Percent Expected grade Number Percent Freshman 1 3.3 A 12 41.4 Sophomore 1 3.3 B 10 34.5 Junior 14 46.7 C 7 24.1 Senior 14 46.7 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 7 24.1 Studies Program 0 0.0 2 hours 8 27.6 Required by my major 15 50.0 3 hours 7 24.1 Other (e.g. elective) 15 50.0 4 - 5 hours 7 24.1 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 31 3.2 0.0 45.2 51.6 3.5 0.68 2. Textbook contributed to understandin 31 3.2 12.9 54.8 29.0 3.1 0.75 3. Suppl read & assign helped understan 27 3.7 7.4 59.3 29.6 3.1 0.72 4. Exams reflected what was taught 31 6.5 3.2 45.2 45.2 3.3 0.82 5. Grading was fair and consistent 31 6.5 0.0 48.4 45.2 3.3 0.79 6. Assignments were distributed evenly 29 3.4 0.0 55.2 41.4 3.3 0.67 7. Graded assignments returned promptly 31 0.0 0.0 51.6 48.4 3.5 0.51 8. Graded assignments included comments 31 3.2 3.2 71.0 22.6 3.1 0.62 SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS 9. Presented material effectively 31 3.2 3.2 48.4 45.2 3.4 0.71 10. Had good knowledge of subject matte 31 0.0 0.0 38.7 61.3 3.6 0.50 11. Was available for consultation 29 0.0 3.4 65.5 31.0 3.3 0.53 12. Satisfact answered class questions 31 3.2 0.0 64.5 32.3 3.3 0.63 13. Stimulated interest of the subject 31 3.2 9.7 54.8 32.3 3.2 0.73 14. Encouraged class participation 31 3.2 0.0 61.3 35.5 3.3 0.64 SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES 15. Learned respect different viewpoint 28 3.6 3.6 64.3 28.6 3.2 0.67 16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate 28 3.6 3.6 71.4 21.4 3.1 0.63 17. Course helped abil to solve problem 24 4.2 12.5 75.0 8.3 2.9 0.61 18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin. 30 6.7 0.0 63.3 30.0 3.2 0.75 19. Course stimulated me to read furthe 30 6.7 30.0 33.3 30.0 2.9 0.94 % % % % N Poor Fair Good Excellent Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS 20. Overall val