TEACHING
EVALUATIONS
TEACHER
/ COURSE EVALUATIONS
FOR
DEREK R. LANE
FALL
1996
SPRING
1997
FALL
1997
SPRING
1998
FALL
1998
SPRING
1999
FALL
1999
SPRING
2000
Click
here for Fall 1996-Fall 1999 Summary Graphic
Click
here for UK Teacher/Course Evaluation Results Web Page
Fall
1996
281-002 Communicating
in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281
002L1 COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
3 12.0
A
18 72.0
Sophomore
1 4.0
B
7 28.0
Junior
9 36.0
C
0 0.0
Senior
11 44.0
D
0 0.0
Graduate
1 4.0
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
24.0
Studies
Program
18 75.0
2 hours
13 52.0
Required by my major
5 20.8
3 hours
4 16.0
Other (e.g. elective)
1 4.2
4 - 5 hours
1 4.0
6 - 7 hours
1 4.0
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 24 0.0
0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 25 0.0
0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 25 0.0
0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 24
0.0 0.0 33.3 66.7
3.7 0.48
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 24
0.0 4.2 25.0 70.8
3.7 0.56
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 25 0.0
4.0 24.0 72.0 3.7 0.56
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 25 0.0
16.0 32.0 52.0 3.4 0.76
8. Graded assignments
included comments 24 0.0
0.0 20.8 79.2 3.8 0.41
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
25 0.0 0.0 28.0
72.0 3.7 0.46
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 25 0.0
0.0 12.0 88.0 3.9 0.33
11. Was available
for consultation
24 0.0 0.0 25.0
75.0 3.8 0.44
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 25 0.0
0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 25 0.0
0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50
14. Encouraged class
participation 25
0.0 0.0 4.0 96.0
4.0 0.20
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 25 0.0
0.0 28.0 72.0 3.7 0.46
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 25
0.0 0.0 36.0 64.0
3.6 0.49
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 24 0.0
0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 25 0.0
0.0 16.0 84.0 3.8 0.37
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 25 0.0
12.0 44.0 44.0 3.3 0.69
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 0.0 16.0
84.0 3.8
0.37
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 0.0 8.0
92.0 3.9
0.28
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
33.3 16.7 50.0 3.2
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 13 0.0
0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 13 0.0
0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.52
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
= 26
Number of forms scanned
= 25
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 25
Percent completed
= 96.2 %
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".
Fall
1996
281-003
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 003L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
2 9.5
A
8 38.1
Sophomore
3 14.3
B
12 57.1
Junior
8 38.1
C
1 4.8
Senior
8 38.1
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 5
25.0
Studies
Program
12 57.1
2 hours
7 35.0
Required by my major
6 28.6
3 hours
6 30.0
Other (e.g. elective)
3 14.3
4 - 5 hours
2 10.0
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 24 0.0
4.2 20.8 75.0 3.7 0.55
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 24 0.0
4.2 29.2 66.7 3.6 0.58
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 24 0.0
4.2 29.2 66.7 3.6 0.58
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 23
0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5
3.6 0.51
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 24
0.0 8.3 41.7 50.0
3.4 0.65
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 24 0.0
0.0 54.2 45.8 3.5 0.51
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 24 0.0
4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59
8. Graded assignments
included comments 23 0.0
4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
24 0.0 0.0 41.7
58.3 3.6 0.50
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 24 0.0
0.0 20.8 79.2 3.8 0.41
11. Was available
for consultation
23 0.0 0.0 26.1
73.9 3.7 0.45
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 24 0.0
4.2 33.3 62.5 3.6 0.58
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 23 4.3
4.3 30.4 60.9 3.5 0.79
14. Encouraged class
participation 24
4.2 0.0 29.2 66.7
3.6 0.72
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 23
4.3 4.3 30.4 60.9
3.5 0.79
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 23 0.0
8.7 39.1 52.2 3.4 0.66
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 23 0.0
0.0 47.8 52.2 3.5 0.51
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 23 4.3
13.0 43.5 39.1 3.2 0.83
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
24 0.0 8.3 25.0
66.7 3.6
0.65
21. Overall quality
of teaching
23 0.0 8.7 13.0
78.3 3.7
0.63
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 003L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 10 10.0
10.0 40.0 40.0 3.1 0.99
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 14 7.1
7.1 57.1 28.6 3.1 0.83
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 14 7.1
7.1 42.9 42.9 3.2 0.89
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 5 0.0
0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 5 0.0
0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4
.
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
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
33. Amount of work
appropriate
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
34. Instructor explained
expectations 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
35. Instructor helped
with my problems 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
36. Lab equipment
use satis explained 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
% answering item
N --------------------------------- Mean
SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
SECTION I - OPTIONAL
ITEMS
*** No Optional Questions
were answered ***
Number of forms preslugged
= 28
Number of forms scanned
= 25
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 24
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".
Fall
1996
287-001
Persuasive Speaking in Professional Contexts
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 287 001L1
PERSUASIVE SPEAKING:GSC
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
14 60.9
Sophomore
23 100.0
B
8 34.8
Junior
0 0.0
C
1 4.3
Senior
0 0.0
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
0 0.0
Professional
0 0.0
I
0 0.0
Other
0 0.0
Pass or Audit
0 0.0
Reason for taking course
Number Percent
Hrs/week spent Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 4
17.4
Studies
Program
18 85.7
2 hours
8 34.8
Required by my major
2 9.5
3 hours
8 34.8
Other (e.g. elective)
1 4.8
4 - 5 hours
3 13.0
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 23 0.0
0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 23 0.0
30.4 43.5 26.1 3.0 0.77
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 23 0.0
13.0 17.4 69.6 3.6 0.73
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 14
0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0
3.5 0.52
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 23
0.0 0.0 43.5 56.5
3.6 0.51
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 23 0.0
4.3 47.8 47.8 3.4 0.59
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 23 0.0
0.0 26.1 73.9 3.7 0.45
8. Graded assignments
included comments 23 0.0
0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9
0.29
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
23 0.0 0.0 21.7
78.3 3.8 0.42
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 23 0.0
0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34
11. Was available
for consultation
23 0.0 0.0 17.4
82.6 3.8 0.39
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 23 0.0
0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 23 0.0
0.0 39.1 60.9 3.6 0.50
14. Encouraged class
participation 23
0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6
3.8 0.39
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 19 5.3
5.3 52.6 36.8 3.2 0.79
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 22
0.0 4.5 45.5 50.0
3.5 0.60
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 19 0.0
5.3 52.6 42.1 3.4 0.60
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 23 0.0
4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 23 0.0
21.7 39.1 39.1 3.2 0.78
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
23 0.0 0.0 39.1
60.9 3.6
0.50
21. Overall quality
of teaching
23 0.0 0.0 8.7
91.3 3.9
0.29
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 287 001L1
PERSUASIVE SPEAKING:GSC
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 3 0.0
0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 7 0.0
0.0 57.1 42.9 3.4
.
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 7
0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4
3.7 .
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 3 33.3
0.0 33.3 33.3 2.7
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 4 0.0
0.0 75.0 25.0 3.3
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
1 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.0 3.0 .
28. Guided student
report preparation 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
29. Students free
to express opinions 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
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
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
= 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".
Fall
1996
287-003
Persuasive Speaking in Professional Contexts
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 287 003L1
PERSUASIVE SPEAKING:GSC
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
15 75.0
Sophomore
21 100.0
B
4 20.0
Junior
0 0.0
C
0 0.0
Senior
0 0.0
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
0 0.0
Professional
0 0.0
I
0 0.0
Other
0 0.0
Pass or Audit
1 5.0
Reason for taking course
Number Percent
Hrs/week spent Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 6
30.0
Studies
Program
20 95.2
2 hours
7 35.0
Required by my major
0 0.0
3 hours
6 30.0
Other (e.g. elective)
1 4.8
4 - 5 hours
1 5.0
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 4.8 95.2 4.0
0.22
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 21 0.0
0.0 38.1 61.9 3.6 0.50
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 19 0.0
0.0 15.8 84.2 3.8 0.37
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 19
0.0 0.0 10.5 89.5
3.9 0.32
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 21
0.0 0.0 4.8 95.2
4.0 0.22
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 21 0.0
0.0 9.5 90.5 3.9
0.30
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 21 0.0
0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46
8. Graded assignments
included comments 21 0.0
0.0 4.8 95.2 4.0
0.22
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
21 0.0 0.0 4.8
95.2 4.0 0.22
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 21 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00
11. Was available
for consultation
21 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 0.00
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 21 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 21 0.0
0.0 4.8 95.2 4.0
0.22
14. Encouraged class
participation 21
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 0.00
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 20 0.0
0.0 5.0 95.0 4.0
0.22
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 20
0.0 0.0 15.0 85.0
3.9 0.37
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 20 0.0
0.0 15.0 85.0 3.9 0.37
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 20 0.0
0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 20 0.0
0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
20 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0
0.00
21. Overall quality
of teaching
20 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0
0.00
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1996 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 287 003L1
PERSUASIVE SPEAKING:GSC
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 22.2 77.8 3.8
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 12 0.0
0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.45
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 10 0.0
0.0 30.0 70.0 3.7 0.48
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 4 0.0
0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 4 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
28. Guided student
report preparation 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .
29. Students free
to express opinions 1
0.0 0.0 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 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 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
= 24
Number of forms scanned
= 21
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 21
Percent completed
= 87.5 %
For help with interpretation
of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS
OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION
GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached, see
your department chairperson.
An electronic copy is also available from VIEW on the IBM
mainframe by typing
"VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO".
SPRING
1997
252-005
Interpersonal Communication
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 005L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
6 25.0
A
12 50.0
Sophomore
3 12.5
B
11 45.8
Junior
9 37.5
C
1 4.2
Senior
6 25.0
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 6
25.0
Studies
Program
15 65.2
2 hours
9 37.5
Required by my major
4 17.4
3 hours
8 33.3
Other (e.g. elective)
4 17.4
4 - 5 hours
0 0.0
6 - 7 hours
1 4.2
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 28.0 72.0 3.7 0.46
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 25 0.0
4.0 44.0 52.0 3.5 0.59
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 25 0.0
0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 25
0.0 4.0 40.0 56.0
3.5 0.59
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 25
0.0 0.0 48.0 52.0
3.5 0.51
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 25 0.0
4.0 48.0 48.0 3.4 0.58
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 25 0.0
0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49
8. Graded assignments
included comments 25 0.0
4.0 36.0 60.0 3.6 0.58
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
25 0.0 4.0 28.0
68.0 3.6 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
25 0.0 0.0 24.0
76.0 3.8 0.44
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 25 0.0
0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 25 4.0
0.0 32.0 64.0 3.6 0.71
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
4.0 48.0 48.0 3.4 0.58
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 23
0.0 4.3 43.5 52.2
3.5 0.59
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 23 0.0
8.7 43.5 47.8 3.4 0.66
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 25 0.0
0.0 48.0 52.0 3.5 0.51
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 25 0.0
20.0 36.0 44.0 3.2 0.78
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 0.0 40.0
60.0 3.6
0.50
21. Overall quality
of teaching
24 0.0 0.0 8.3
91.7 3.9
0.28
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 005L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 10 0.0
0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4 0.52
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 11 0.0
9.1 27.3 63.6 3.5 0.69
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 5 0.0
0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 4 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5
.
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
= 29
Number of forms scanned
= 25
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 25
Percent completed
= 86.2 %
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".
SPRING
1997
252-006
Interpersonal Communication
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 006L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
2 9.5
A
12 57.1
Sophomore
6 28.6
B
8 38.1
Junior
6 28.6
C
0 0.0
Senior
7 33.3
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 4.8
Reason for taking course
Number Percent
Hrs/week spent Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 4
19.0
Studies
Program
12 57.1
2 hours
11 52.4
Required by my major
6 28.6
3 hours
2 9.5
Other (e.g. elective)
3 14.3
4 - 5 hours
4 19.0
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 22 0.0
0.0 22.7 77.3 3.8 0.43
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 22 0.0
4.5 45.5 50.0 3.5 0.60
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 22 0.0
0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 22
0.0 0.0 31.8 68.2
3.7 0.48
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 22
4.5 0.0 40.9 54.5
3.5 0.74
6. Assignments were
distributed
evenly 22 0.0
0.0 54.5 45.5 3.5 0.51
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 22 0.0
0.0 40.9 59.1 3.6 0.50
8. Graded assignments
included comments 22 4.5
0.0 40.9 54.5 3.5 0.74
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
22 0.0 0.0 36.4
63.6 3.6 0.49
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
22 0.0 0.0 36.4
63.6 3.6 0.49
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 22 0.0
0.0 36.4 63.6 3.6 0.49
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 22 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51
14. Encouraged class
participation 22
0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7
3.7 0.46
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 20 0.0
0.0 65.0 35.0 3.4 0.49
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 21
0.0 0.0 71.4 28.6
3.3 0.46
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 19 0.0
5.3 68.4 26.3 3.2 0.54
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 21 0.0
0.0 47.6 52.4 3.5 0.51
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 21 0.0
14.3 61.9 23.8 3.1 0.62
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
22 0.0 0.0 45.5
54.5 3.5
0.51
21. Overall quality
of teaching
22 0.0 0.0 22.7
77.3 3.8
0.43
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 006L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 3 0.0
0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 9 0.0
11.1 88.9 0.0 2.9
.
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 8
0.0 0.0 87.5 12.5
3.1 .
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
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
= 23
Number of forms scanned
= 23
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 22
Percent completed
= 95.7 %
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".
SPRING
1997
281-001
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
4 13.8
A
24 82.8
Sophomore
8 27.6
B
5 17.2
Junior
8 27.6
C
0 0.0
Senior
9 31.0
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 8
27.6
Studies
Program
18 62.1
2 hours
11 37.9
Required by my major
10 34.5
3 hours
9 31.0
Other (e.g. elective)
1 3.4
4 - 5 hours
0 0.0
6 - 7 hours
1 3.4
8 or more hours 0
0.0
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION B - COURSE
ITEMS
1. Outlined course
material and grading 30 0.0
0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 28 0.0
0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.49
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 29 0.0
0.0 17.2 82.8 3.8 0.38
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 28
0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7
3.9 0.36
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 29
0.0 10.3 10.3 79.3
3.7 0.66
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 30 0.0
3.3 23.3 73.3 3.7 0.53
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 29 0.0
6.9 13.8 79.3 3.7 0.59
8. Graded assignments
included comments 30 0.0
3.3 23.3 73.3 3.7 0.53
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
30 0.0 0.0 6.7
93.3 3.9 0.25
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 30 0.0
0.0 3.3 96.7 4.0
0.18
11. Was available
for consultation
30 0.0 0.0 13.3
86.7 3.9 0.35
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 30 0.0
0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 29 0.0
3.4 10.3 86.2 3.8 0.47
14. Encouraged class
participation 29
0.0 0.0 3.4 96.6
4.0 0.19
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 28 0.0
0.0 14.3 85.7 3.9 0.36
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 30
0.0 0.0 13.3 86.7
3.9 0.35
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 30 0.0
0.0 10.0 90.0 3.9 0.31
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 30 0.0
0.0 13.3 86.7 3.9 0.35
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 30 0.0
3.3 16.7 80.0 3.8 0.50
% % %
%
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 0.0
100.0 4.0
0.00
21. Overall quality
of teaching
28 0.0 0.0 3.6
96.4 4.0
0.19
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 11.1 88.9 3.9
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 12 0.0
0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.39
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 13 0.0
0.0 15.4 84.6 3.8 0.38
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 9 0.0
0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 9 0.0
0.0 11.1 88.9 3.9
.
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
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
33. Amount of work
appropriate
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
34. Instructor explained
expectations 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
35. Instructor helped
with my problems 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
36. Lab equipment
use satis explained 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
% answering item
N --------------------------------- Mean
SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
SECTION I - OPTIONAL
ITEMS
*** No Optional Questions
were answered ***
Number of forms preslugged
= 30
Number of forms scanned
= 30
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 30
Percent completed
= 100.0 %
For help with interpretation
of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS
OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION
GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached,
see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available
from VIEW on the IBM mainframe by typing "VIEW CAMPUS LCINFO".
SPRING
1997
281-002
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
17 77.3
Sophomore
9 39.1
B
5 22.7
Junior
11 47.8
C
0 0.0
Senior
3 13.0
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
0 0.0
Professional
0 0.0
I
0 0.0
Other
0 0.0
Pass or Audit
0 0.0
Reason for taking course
Number Percent
Hrs/week spent Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 2
8.7
Studies
Program
14 66.7
2 hours
7 30.4
Required by my major
7 33.3
3 hours
4 17.4
Other (e.g. elective)
0 0.0
4 - 5 hours
5 21.7
6 - 7 hours
5 21.7
8 or more hours 0
0.0
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION B - COURSE
ITEMS
1. Outlined course
material and grading 25 0.0
0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 25 0.0
4.0 36.0 60.0 3.6 0.58
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 25 0.0
0.0 28.0 72.0 3.7 0.46
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 22
0.0 0.0 27.3 72.7
3.7 0.46
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 25
0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0
3.8 0.44
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 24 0.0
4.2 29.2 66.7 3.6 0.58
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 25 4.0
8.0 40.0 48.0 3.3 0.80
8. Graded assignments
included comments 25 0.0
0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
25 0.0 0.0 20.0
80.0 3.8 0.41
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 25 0.0
0.0 4.0 96.0 4.0
0.20
11. Was available
for consultation
24 0.0 0.0 16.7
83.3 3.8 0.38
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 25 0.0
0.0 16.0 84.0 3.8 0.37
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 25 0.0
0.0 20.0 80.0 3.8 0.41
14. Encouraged class
participation 25
0.0 0.0 4.0 96.0
4.0 0.20
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 25 0.0
4.0 24.0 72.0 3.7 0.56
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 25
0.0 4.0 28.0 68.0
3.6 0.57
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 25 0.0
4.0 32.0 64.0 3.6 0.58
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 25 0.0
0.0 12.0 88.0 3.9 0.33
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 24 8.3
8.3 41.7 41.7 3.2 0.92
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 4.0 12.0
84.0 3.8
0.50
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 4.0 0.0
96.0 3.9
0.40
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- SPRING 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 3 0.0
33.3 0.0 66.7 3.3
.
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 12.5
0.0 25.0 62.5 3.4
.
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 3 33.3
0.0 0.0 66.7 3.0
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 4 25.0
0.0 50.0 25.0 2.8
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
2 0.0 0.0 50.0
50.0 3.5 .
28. Guided student
report preparation 2
0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0
3.5 .
29. Students free
to express opinions 2
0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0
3.5 .
30. Discussions broadened
my knowledge 2 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5
.
31. Developed abil
to conduct research 2
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 0.0 100.0
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
= 28
Number of forms scanned
= 25
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 25
Percent completed
= 89.3 %
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".
Fall
1997
252-009
Interpersonal Communication
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 009L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
9 33.3
A
23 85.2
Sophomore
3 11.1
B
4 14.8
Junior
4 14.8
C
0 0.0
Senior
10 37.0
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
0 0.0
Professional
1 3.7
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
7.4
Studies
Program
23 88.5
2 hours
18 66.7
Required by my major
2 7.7
3 hours
6 22.2
Other (e.g. elective)
1 3.8
4 - 5 hours
1 3.7
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 28 0.0
0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 28 0.0
0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 28 0.0
0.0 21.4 78.6 3.8 0.42
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 28
0.0 0.0 21.4 78.6
3.8 0.42
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 28
0.0 0.0 28.6 71.4
3.7 0.46
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 28 0.0
0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 28 0.0
0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50
8. Graded assignments
included comments 28 0.0
0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
28 0.0 0.0 25.0
75.0 3.8 0.44
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 28 0.0
0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9
0.26
11. Was available
for consultation
28 0.0 3.6 14.3
82.1 3.8 0.50
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 28 0.0
0.0 17.9 82.1 3.8 0.39
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 28 0.0
3.6 25.0 71.4 3.7 0.55
14. Encouraged class
participation 28
0.0 0.0 14.3 85.7
3.9 0.36
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 28 0.0
3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 28
0.0 0.0 46.4 53.6
3.5 0.51
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 24 0.0
4.2 45.8 50.0 3.5 0.59
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 28 0.0
0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 28 0.0
10.7 53.6 35.7 3.3 0.65
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
28 0.0 0.0 17.9
82.1 3.8
0.39
21. Overall quality
of teaching
28 0.0 0.0 10.7
89.3 3.9
0.31
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 009L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 11 0.0
18.2 36.4 45.5 3.3 0.79
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 17 0.0
0.0 47.1 52.9 3.5 0.51
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 18 0.0
0.0 38.9 61.1 3.6 0.50
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 50.0 50.0 3.5
.
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
= 28
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 28
Percent completed
= 93.3 %
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
Fall
1997
252-010
Interpersonal Communication
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 010L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
1 4.0
A
15 60.0
Sophomore
6 24.0
B
9 36.0
Junior
5 20.0
C
1 4.0
Senior
13 52.0
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
12.0
Studies
Program
15 60.0
2 hours
11 44.0
Required by my major
9 36.0
3 hours
7 28.0
Other (e.g. elective)
1 4.0
4 - 5 hours
3 12.0
6 - 7 hours
1 4.0
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 25 0.0
0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6 0.50
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 25 0.0
4.0 28.0 68.0 3.6 0.57
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 25 0.0
8.0 32.0 60.0 3.5 0.65
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 25
0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0
3.6 0.50
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 25
0.0 0.0 40.0 60.0
3.6 0.50
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 25 0.0
0.0 44.0 56.0 3.6 0.51
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 25 0.0
0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48
8. Graded assignments
included comments 25 0.0
0.0 32.0 68.0 3.7 0.48
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
25 0.0 4.0 24.0
72.0 3.7 0.56
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 25 0.0
0.0 16.0 84.0 3.8 0.37
11. Was available
for consultation
24 0.0 0.0 33.3
66.7 3.7 0.48
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 25 0.0
0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 25 0.0
4.0 36.0 60.0 3.6 0.58
14. Encouraged class
participation 25
0.0 0.0 24.0 76.0
3.8 0.44
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 25 0.0
4.0 48.0 48.0 3.4 0.58
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 24
0.0 4.2 41.7 54.2
3.5 0.59
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 24 0.0
0.0 58.3 41.7 3.4 0.50
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 25 0.0
0.0 36.0 64.0 3.6 0.49
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 25 0.0
12.0 40.0 48.0 3.4 0.70
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 0.0 36.0
64.0 3.6
0.49
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 0.0 24.0
76.0 3.8
0.44
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 010L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
33.3 50.0 16.7 2.8
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 9 0.0
11.1 55.6 33.3 3.2
.
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 9
0.0 22.2 33.3 44.4
3.2 .
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 4 0.0
25.0 0.0 75.0 3.5
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 2 0.0
50.0 50.0 0.0 2.5
.
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
= 26
Number of forms scanned
= 25
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 25
Percent completed
= 96.2 %
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
Fall
1997
281-001
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
3 15.0
A
17 85.0
Sophomore
2 10.0
B
2 10.0
Junior
8 40.0
C
1 5.0
Senior
7 35.0
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 0
0.0
Studies
Program
7 35.0
2 hours
6 30.0
Required by my major
9 45.0
3 hours
11 55.0
Other (e.g. elective)
4 20.0
4 - 5 hours
2 10.0
6 - 7 hours
0 0.0
8 or more hours 1
5.0
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION B - COURSE
ITEMS
1. Outlined course
material and grading 24 0.0
0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 24 0.0
0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 24 0.0
0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 21
0.0 4.8 23.8 71.4
3.7 0.58
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 24
0.0 0.0 37.5 62.5
3.6 0.49
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 24 0.0
12.5 29.2 58.3 3.5 0.72
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 24 0.0
4.2 25.0 70.8 3.7 0.56
8. Graded assignments
included comments 24 0.0
0.0 20.8 79.2 3.8 0.41
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
24 0.0 0.0 20.8
79.2 3.8 0.41
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 24 0.0
0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34
11. Was available
for consultation
24 0.0 0.0 12.5
87.5 3.9 0.34
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 24 0.0
0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 24 0.0
8.3 20.8 70.8 3.6 0.65
14. Encouraged class
participation 24
0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7
3.9 0.28
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 23 0.0
0.0 26.1 73.9 3.7 0.45
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 23
0.0 8.7 26.1 65.2
3.6 0.66
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 23 0.0
0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 24 0.0
0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 24 0.0
25.0 29.2 45.8 3.2 0.83
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
24 0.0 0.0 29.2
70.8 3.7
0.46
21. Overall quality
of teaching
24 0.0 0.0 12.5
87.5 3.9
0.34
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 3 0.0
0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3
.
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 3
0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7
3.3 .
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 1 0.0
0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
1 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.0 3.0 .
28. Guided student
report preparation 1
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
3.0 .
29. Students free
to express opinions 1
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
3.0 .
30. Discussions broadened
my knowledge 1 0.0
0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0
.
31. Developed abil
to conduct research 1
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
3.0 .
SECTION H - LABORATORY
& DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY
32. Clarified lecture
material
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
33. Amount of work
appropriate
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
34. Instructor explained
expectations 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .
35. Instructor helped
with my problems 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .
36. Lab equipment
use satis explained 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .
% answering item
N --------------------------------- Mean
SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
SECTION I - OPTIONAL
ITEMS
*** No Optional Questions
were answered ***
Number of forms preslugged
= 29
Number of forms scanned
= 24
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 24
Percent completed
= 82.8 %
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
Fall
1997
281-002
Communicating in Small Gorups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
5 19.2
A
22 84.6
Sophomore
7 26.9
B
3 11.5
Junior
4 15.4
C
1 3.8
Senior
10 38.5
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
11.5
Studies
Program
17 70.8
2 hours
8 30.8
Required by my major
5 20.8
3 hours
8 30.8
Other (e.g. elective)
2 8.3
4 - 5 hours
6 23.1
6 - 7 hours
0 0.0
8 or more hours 1
3.8
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION B - COURSE
ITEMS
1. Outlined course
material and grading 28 0.0
0.0 17.9 82.1 3.8 0.39
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 28 0.0
0.0 32.1 67.9 3.7 0.48
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 28 0.0
0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 26
0.0 0.0 23.1 76.9
3.8 0.43
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 28
3.6 10.7 14.3 71.4
3.5 0.84
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 28 0.0
10.7 28.6 60.7 3.5 0.69
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 28 0.0
10.7 28.6 60.7 3.5 0.69
8. Graded assignments
included comments 28 0.0
3.6 28.6 67.9 3.6 0.56
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
28 0.0 0.0 32.1
67.9 3.7 0.48
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 28 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00
11. Was available
for consultation
28 0.0 3.6 25.0
71.4 3.7 0.55
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 28 0.0
3.6 14.3 82.1 3.8 0.50
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 28 0.0
14.3 14.3 71.4 3.6 0.74
14. Encouraged class
participation 28
0.0 0.0 17.9 82.1
3.8 0.39
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 26 0.0
11.5 26.9 61.5 3.5 0.71
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 27
0.0 7.4 29.6 63.0
3.6 0.64
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. 28 0.0
0.0 28.6 71.4 3.7 0.46
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 27 7.4
14.8 29.6 48.1 3.2 0.96
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
28 0.0 3.6 25.0
71.4 3.7
0.55
21. Overall quality
of teaching
28 0.0 10.7 10.7
78.6 3.7
0.67
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- FALL 1997 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 8 0.0
25.0 37.5 37.5 3.1
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 14 0.0
7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.65
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 14 0.0
0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.50
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 5 0.0
0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 5 0.0
0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
28. Guided student
report preparation 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
29. Students free
to express opinions 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
30. Discussions broadened
my knowledge 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
31. Developed abil
to conduct research 1
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
3.0 .
SECTION H - LABORATORY
& DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY
32. Clarified lecture
material
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
33. Amount of work
appropriate
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
34. Instructor explained
expectations 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .
35. Instructor helped
with my problems 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .
36. Lab equipment
use satis explained 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .
% answering item
N --------------------------------- Mean
SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
SECTION I - OPTIONAL
ITEMS
*** No Optional Questions
were answered ***
Number of forms preslugged
= 30
Number of forms scanned
= 28
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 28
Percent completed
= 93.3 %
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.
SPRING
1998
252-007
Interpersonal Communication
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Spring 1998 TEACHER AND COURSEVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 007L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
7 28.0
A
14 56.0
Sophomore
3 12.0
B
10 40.0
Junior
11 44.0
C
0 0.0
Senior
4 16.0
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
0 0.0
Professional
0 0.0
I
0 0.0
Other
0 0.0
Pass or Audit
1 4.0
Reason for taking course
Number Percent
Hrs/week spent Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 7
29.2
Studies
Program
16 64.0
2 hours
7 29.2
Required by my major
8 32.0
3 hours
9 37.5
Other (e.g. elective)
1 4.0
4 - 5 hours
1 4.2
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 27 0.0
0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 27 0.0
0.0 40.7 59.3 3.6 0.50
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 27 0.0
0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 27
0.0 3.7 33.3 63.0
3.6 0.57
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 27
0.0 0.0 25.9 74.1
3.7 0.45
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 27 0.0
3.7 37.0 59.3 3.6 0.58
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 27 0.0
3.7 33.3 63.0 3.6 0.57
8. Graded assignments
included comments 27 0.0
7.4 25.9 66.7 3.6 0.64
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
27 0.0 0.0 25.9
74.1 3.7 0.45
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 26 0.0
0.0 23.1 76.9 3.8 0.43
11. Was available
for consultation
26 3.8 7.7 30.8
57.7 3.4 0.81
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 27 0.0
0.0 14.8 85.2 3.9 0.36
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 27 0.0
0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51
14. Encouraged class
participation 27
0.0 0.0 29.6 70.4
3.7 0.47
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 27 0.0
0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7 0.48
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 27
0.0 0.0 40.7 59.3
3.6 0.50
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 26 0.0
0.0 53.8 46.2 3.5 0.51
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 26 0.0
0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 27 0.0
18.5 37.0 44.4 3.3 0.76
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 0.0 40.0
60.0 3.6
0.50
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 0.0 12.0
88.0 3.9
0.33
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- spring 1998 TEACHER AND COURSEVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 007L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
0.0 40.0 60.0 3.6
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 13 0.0
7.7 38.5 53.8 3.5 0.66
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 12 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.52
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 5 0.0
0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 4 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5
.
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
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
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
= 27
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 27
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
SPRING
1998
252-010
Interpersonal Communication
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- spring 1998 TEACHER AND COURSEVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 010L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
13 54.2
A
12 52.2
Sophomore
6 25.0
B
11 47.8
Junior
2 8.3
C
0 0.0
Senior
3 12.5
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 9
37.5
Studies
Program
17 70.8
2 hours
10 41.7
Required by my major
7 29.2
3 hours
3 12.5
Other (e.g. elective)
0 0.0
4 - 5 hours
2 8.3
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 28 0.0
3.6 32.1 64.3 3.6 0.57
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 28 0.0
0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.49
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 28 0.0
0.0 35.7 64.3 3.6 0.49
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 28
0.0 0.0 39.3 60.7
3.6 0.50
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 28
0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1
3.6 0.50
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 28 3.6
3.6 39.3 53.6 3.4 0.74
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 28 0.0
0.0 42.9 57.1 3.6 0.50
8. Graded assignments
included comments 27 0.0
0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
28 0.0 0.0 35.7
64.3 3.6 0.49
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 28 0.0
0.0 7.1 92.9 3.9
0.26
11. Was available
for consultation
28 0.0 7.1 17.9
75.0 3.7 0.61
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 28 0.0
0.0 25.0 75.0 3.8 0.44
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 28 0.0
7.1 28.6 64.3 3.6 0.63
14. Encouraged class
participation 28
0.0 3.6 32.1 64.3
3.6 0.57
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 28 0.0
7.1 46.4 46.4 3.4 0.63
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 27
0.0 0.0 51.9 48.1
3.5 0.51
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 27 0.0
3.7 44.4 51.9 3.5 0.58
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 28 0.0
0.0 39.3 60.7 3.6 0.50
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 28 3.6
10.7 46.4 39.3 3.2 0.79
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
28 0.0 0.0 25.0
75.0 3.8
0.44
21. Overall quality
of teaching
28 0.0 0.0 10.7
89.3 3.9
0.31
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- spring 1998 TEACHER AND COURSEVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 252 010L1
INTRO INTERPERSONAL COM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION F - UNIVERSITY
STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY
22. USSC/ understand
scientific inquiry 15 0.0
26.7 40.0 33.3 3.1 0.80
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 18 0.0
5.6 55.6 38.9 3.3 0.59
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 16 0.0
6.3 31.3 62.5 3.6 0.63
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 8 0.0
0.0 37.5 62.5 3.6
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 5 0.0
0.0 60.0 40.0 3.4
.
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 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
29. Students free
to express opinions 2
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
30. Discussions broadened
my knowledge 2 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
31. Developed abil
to conduct research 2
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 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
35. Instructor helped
with my problems 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
36. Lab equipment
use satis explained 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
% answering item
N --------------------------------- Mean
SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
SECTION I - OPTIONAL
ITEMS
*** No Optional Questions
were answered ***
Number of forms preslugged
= 31
Number of forms scanned
= 28
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 28
Percent completed
= 90.3 %
For help with interpretation
of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS
OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION
GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached,
see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available
from VIEW on the IBM
SPRING
1998
365-002
Communication Research Methods
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- spring 1998 TEACHER AND COURSEVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 002L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
2 7.4
Sophomore
2 7.4
B
23 85.2
Junior
14 51.9
C
2 7.4
Senior
11 40.7
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
7.4
Studies
Program
0 0.0
2 hours
5 18.5
Required by my major
27 100.0
3 hours
11 40.7
Other (e.g. elective)
0 0.0
4 - 5 hours
7 25.9
6 - 7 hours
2 7.4
8 or more hours 0
0.0
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION B - COURSE
ITEMS
1. Outlined course
material and grading 29 0.0
3.4 34.5 62.1 3.6 0.57
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 29 0.0
6.9 44.8 48.3 3.4 0.63
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 29 0.0
3.4 48.3 48.3 3.4 0.57
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 29
0.0 10.3 55.2 34.5
3.2 0.64
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 29
0.0 6.9 55.2 37.9
3.3 0.60
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 29 0.0
6.9 65.5 27.6 3.2 0.56
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 28 0.0
3.6 42.9 53.6 3.5 0.58
8. Graded assignments
included comments 28 0.0
3.6 39.3 57.1 3.5 0.58
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
29 0.0 3.4 37.9
58.6 3.6 0.57
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 29 0.0
3.4 6.9 89.7 3.9
0.44
11. Was available
for consultation
29 0.0 3.4 17.2
79.3 3.8 0.51
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 28 0.0
3.6 28.6 67.9 3.6 0.56
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 29 0.0
10.3 31.0 58.6 3.5 0.69
14. Encouraged class
participation 29
0.0 3.4 20.7 75.9
3.7 0.53
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 27 0.0
3.7 51.9 44.4 3.4 0.57
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 29
0.0 3.4 44.8 51.7
3.5 0.57
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 29 0.0
3.4 48.3 48.3 3.4 0.57
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 29 0.0
3.4 51.7 44.8 3.4 0.57
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 28 3.6
25.0 46.4 25.0 2.9 0.81
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
29 0.0 3.4 48.3
48.3 3.4
0.57
21. Overall quality
of teaching
29 0.0 3.4 10.3
86.2 3.8
0.47
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- spring 1998 TEACHER AND COURSEVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 002L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
= 29
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 29
Percent completed
= 96.7 %
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
FALL
1998
281-001
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
2 8.3
A
21 87.5
Sophomore
3 12.5
B
3 12.5
Junior
9 37.5
C
0 0.0
Senior
10 41.7
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 3
12.5
Studies
Program
11 45.8
2 hours
6 25.0
Required by my major
9 37.5
3 hours
10 41.7
Other (e.g. elective)
4 16.7
4 - 5 hours
5 20.8
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 25 0.0
0.0 8.0 92.0 3.9
0.28
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 25 0.0
0.0 12.0 88.0 3.9 0.33
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 25 0.0
4.0 8.0 88.0 3.8
0.47
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 23
0.0 0.0 8.7 91.3
3.9 0.29
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 25
0.0 4.0 4.0 92.0
3.9 0.44
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 25 0.0
8.0 20.0 72.0 3.6 0.64
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 25 0.0
0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44
8. Graded assignments
included comments 25 0.0
4.0 12.0 84.0 3.8 0.50
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
25 0.0 0.0 12.0
88.0 3.9 0.33
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 25 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0 0.00
11. Was available
for consultation
25 0.0 0.0 24.0
76.0 3.8 0.44
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 25 0.0
0.0 8.0 92.0 3.9
0.28
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 25 0.0
4.0 4.0 92.0 3.9
0.44
14. Encouraged class
participation 25
0.0 0.0 4.0 96.0
4.0 0.20
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 25 4.0
4.0 12.0 80.0 3.7 0.75
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 25
4.0 4.0 28.0 64.0
3.5 0.77
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 25 4.0
4.0 16.0 76.0 3.6 0.76
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 25 0.0
0.0 12.0 88.0 3.9 0.33
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 25 4.0
4.0 20.0 72.0 3.6 0.76
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 0.0 12.0
88.0 3.9
0.33
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 0.0 8.0
92.0 3.9
0.28
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 11.1
11.1 22.2 55.6 3.2
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 11 0.0
0.0 27.3 72.7 3.7 0.47
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 11 0.0
0.0 45.5 54.5 3.5 0.52
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
28. Guided student
report preparation 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
29. Students free
to express opinions 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
30. Discussions broadened
my knowledge 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
31. Developed abil
to conduct research 1
0.0 0.0 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
= 30
Number of forms scanned
= 25
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 25
Percent completed
= 83.3 %
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
at our UK web page
FALL
1998
281-002
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
3 14.3
A
16 80.0
Sophomore
2 9.5
B
4 20.0
Junior
8 38.1
C
0 0.0
Senior
8 38.1
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 2
9.5
Studies
Program
11 52.4
2 hours
8 38.1
Required by my major
8 38.1
3 hours
9 42.9
Other (e.g. elective)
2 9.5
4 - 5 hours
2 9.5
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 24 0.0
0.0 8.3 91.7 3.9
0.28
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 24 0.0
0.0 20.8 79.2 3.8 0.41
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 24 0.0
0.0 29.2 70.8 3.7 0.46
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 22
4.5 0.0 18.2 77.3
3.7 0.72
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 24
4.2 0.0 20.8 75.0
3.7 0.70
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 24 0.0
0.0 29.2 70.8 3.7 0.46
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 24 0.0
0.0 20.8 79.2 3.8 0.41
8. Graded assignments
included comments 24 0.0
0.0 16.7 83.3 3.8 0.38
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
24 0.0 0.0 8.3
91.7 3.9 0.28
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 24 0.0
0.0 4.2 95.8 4.0
0.20
11. Was available
for consultation
24 0.0 0.0 16.7
83.3 3.8 0.38
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 24 0.0
0.0 12.5 87.5 3.9 0.34
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 24 0.0
4.2 29.2 66.7 3.6 0.58
14. Encouraged class
participation 24
0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7
3.9 0.28
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 23 0.0
0.0 43.5 56.5 3.6 0.51
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 23
0.0 0.0 26.1 73.9
3.7 0.45
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 23 0.0
0.0 34.8 65.2 3.7 0.49
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 23 0.0
0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 23 0.0
4.3 60.9 34.8 3.3 0.56
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
24 0.0 4.2 12.5
83.3 3.8
0.51
21. Overall quality
of teaching
24 0.0 0.0 8.3
91.7 3.9
0.28
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 3 0.0
0.0 33.3 66.7 3.7
.
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 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
= 30
Number of forms scanned
= 24
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 24
Percent completed
= 80.0 %
For help with interpretation
of the results, refer to your copy of "STUDENT RATINGS
OF TEACHING - INTERPRETATION
GUIDELINES AND OBSERVATIONS." If a copy is not attached,
see your department chairperson. An electronic copy is also available
at our UK web page
FALL
1998
365-001
Communication Research Methods
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 001L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
5 20.0
Sophomore
0 0.0
B
14 56.0
Junior
7 28.0
C
6 24.0
Senior
18 72.0
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 0
0.0
Studies
Program
0 0.0
2 hours
2 8.0
Required by my major
25 100.0
3 hours
5 20.0
Other (e.g. elective)
0 0.0
4 - 5 hours
12 48.0
6 - 7 hours
4 16.0
8 or more hours 2
8.0
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION B - COURSE
ITEMS
1. Outlined course
material and grading 26 0.0
3.8 53.8 42.3 3.4 0.57
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 26 0.0
19.2 53.8 26.9 3.1 0.69
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 26 0.0
23.1 50.0 26.9 3.0 0.72
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 25
0.0 4.0 72.0 24.0
3.2 0.50
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 25
0.0 20.0 56.0 24.0
3.0 0.68
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 24 0.0
33.3 54.2 12.5 2.8 0.66
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 26 3.8
46.2 38.5 11.5 2.6 0.76
8. Graded assignments
included comments 22 0.0
9.1 68.2 22.7 3.1 0.56
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
26 0.0 11.5 46.2
42.3 3.3 0.68
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 26 0.0
3.8 23.1 73.1 3.7 0.55
11. Was available
for consultation
26 3.8 11.5 26.9
57.7 3.4 0.85
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 26 0.0
11.5 46.2 42.3 3.3 0.68
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 26 11.5
38.5 26.9 23.1 2.6 0.98
14. Encouraged class
participation 26
0.0 7.7 26.9 65.4
3.6 0.64
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 24 0.0
8.3 83.3 8.3 3.0
0.42
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 25
0.0 4.0 76.0 20.0
3.2 0.47
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 25 0.0
12.0 68.0 20.0 3.1 0.57
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 25 0.0
16.0 68.0 16.0 3.0 0.58
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 25 16.0
44.0 32.0 8.0 2.3
0.85
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 32.0 40.0
28.0 3.0
0.79
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 8.0 36.0
56.0 3.5
0.65
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Fall 1998 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 001L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
= 26
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 26
Percent completed
= 86.7 %
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
at our UK web page
SPRING
1999
281-001
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Spring 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
1 4.3
A
9 39.1
Sophomore
5 21.7
B
14 60.9
Junior
7 30.4
C
0 0.0
Senior
10 43.5
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
17.4
Studies
Program
11 47.8
2 hours
11 47.8
Required by my major
9 39.1
3 hours
4 17.4
Other (e.g. elective)
3 13.0
4 - 5 hours
3 13.0
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 26 0.0
0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.50
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 26 0.0
3.8 42.3 53.8 3.5 0.58
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 26 0.0
3.8 42.3 53.8 3.5 0.58
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 23
0.0 4.3 52.2 43.5
3.4 0.58
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 26
0.0 3.8 42.3 53.8
3.5 0.58
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 26 3.8
3.8 34.6 57.7 3.5 0.76
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 26 0.0
0.0 38.5 61.5 3.6 0.50
8. Graded assignments
included comments 26 7.7
7.7 46.2 38.5 3.2 0.88
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
25 0.0 0.0 36.0
64.0 3.6 0.49
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 25 0.0
0.0 12.0 88.0 3.9 0.33
11. Was available
for consultation
24 0.0 0.0 29.2
70.8 3.7 0.46
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 25 0.0
0.0 24.0 76.0 3.8 0.44
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 25 0.0
8.0 32.0 60.0 3.5 0.65
14. Encouraged class
participation 25
0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0
3.8 0.41
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 25 0.0
8.0 44.0 48.0 3.4 0.65
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 25
0.0 4.0 44.0 52.0
3.5 0.59
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 25 0.0
8.0 40.0 52.0 3.4 0.65
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 25 0.0
4.0 44.0 52.0 3.5 0.59
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 25 0.0
12.0 48.0 40.0 3.3 0.68
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 4.0 20.0
76.0 3.7
0.54
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 4.0 16.0
80.0 3.8
0.52
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Spring 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
14.3 85.7 0.0 2.9
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 11 0.0
9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 11 0.0
9.1 63.6 27.3 3.2 0.60
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 2 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 2 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE
SEMINARS ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
2 0.0 0.0 50.0
50.0 3.5 .
28. Guided student
report preparation 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
= 29
Number of forms scanned
= 26
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 26
Percent completed
= 89.7 %
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
at our UK web page
SPRING
1999
281-002
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Spring 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
4 14.8
A
19 70.4
Sophomore
4 14.8
B
8 29.6
Junior
9 33.3
C
0 0.0
Senior
9 33.3
D
0 0.0
Graduate
1 3.7
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
26.9
Studies
Program
13 48.1
2 hours
4 15.4
Required by my major
11 40.7
3 hours
8 30.8
Other (e.g. elective)
3 11.1
4 - 5 hours
5 19.2
6 - 7 hours
2 7.7
8 or more hours 0
0.0
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION B - COURSE
ITEMS
1. Outlined course
material and grading 27 0.0
0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 27 0.0
0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 27 0.0
0.0 37.0 63.0 3.6 0.49
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 26
0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2
3.7 0.47
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 27
0.0 0.0 40.7 59.3
3.6 0.50
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 27 0.0
3.7 48.1 48.1 3.4 0.58
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 27 0.0
0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51
8. Graded assignments
included comments 27 0.0
0.0 44.4 55.6 3.6 0.51
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
27 0.0 0.0 29.6
70.4 3.7 0.47
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 27 0.0
0.0 22.2 77.8 3.8 0.42
11. Was available
for consultation
26 0.0 0.0 23.1
76.9 3.8 0.43
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 27 0.0
0.0 25.9 74.1 3.7 0.45
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 27 0.0
3.7 25.9 70.4 3.7 0.55
14. Encouraged class
participation 26
0.0 0.0 30.8 69.2
3.7 0.47
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 26 0.0
0.0 50.0 50.0 3.5 0.51
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 26
0.0 3.8 42.3 53.8
3.5 0.58
17. Course helped
abil to solve problem 26 0.0
0.0 46.2 53.8 3.5 0.51
18. Gained undrstnd
of concepts & prin. 26 0.0
0.0 34.6 65.4 3.7 0.49
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 25 0.0
8.0 40.0 52.0 3.4 0.65
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
25 0.0 0.0 32.0
68.0 3.7
0.48
21. Overall quality
of teaching
25 0.0 0.0 12.0
88.0 3.9
0.33
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Spring 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 002L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
28.6 42.9 28.6 3.0
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 8 0.0
12.5 50.0 37.5 3.3
.
24. Writing assign
helps understand sub 8
0.0 0.0 62.5 37.5
3.4 .
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 2 0.0
0.0 100.0 0.0 3.0
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 4 0.0
25.0 50.0 25.0 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 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
30. Discussions broadened
my knowledge 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
31. Developed abil
to conduct research 1
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
3.0 .
SECTION H - LABORATORY
& DISCUSSION SECTIONS ONLY
32. Clarified lecture
material
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
33. Amount of work
appropriate
1 0.0 0.0 100.0
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
= 30
Number of forms scanned
= 27
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 27
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
at our UK web page
SPRING
1999
365-001
Communication Research Methods
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Spring 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 001L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
2 11.1
Sophomore
0 0.0
B
13 72.2
Junior
13 68.4
C
3 16.7
Senior
6 31.6
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
0 0.0
Professional
0 0.0
I
0 0.0
Other
0 0.0
Pass or Audit
0 0.0
Reason for taking course
Number Percent
Hrs/week spent Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 0
0.0
Studies
Program
2 10.5
2 hours
2 10.5
Required by my major
17 89.5
3 hours
5 26.3
Other (e.g. elective)
0 0.0
4 - 5 hours
6 31.6
6 - 7 hours
3 15.8
8 or more hours 3
15.8
%
%
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
0.0 52.2 47.8 3.5 0.51
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 23 0.0
17.4 43.5 39.1 3.2 0.74
3. Suppl read &
assign helped understan 23 0.0
13.0 52.2 34.8 3.2 0.67
4. Exams reflected
what was taught 22
0.0 0.0 63.6 36.4
3.4 0.49
5. Grading was fair
and consistent 23
0.0 4.3 60.9 34.8
3.3 0.56
6. Assignments were
distributed evenly 23 0.0
26.1 43.5 30.4 3.0 0.77
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 23 0.0
4.3 52.2 43.5 3.4 0.58
8. Graded assignments
included comments 23 0.0
8.7 52.2 39.1 3.3 0.63
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
23 0.0 4.3 43.5
52.2 3.5 0.59
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 23 0.0
0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42
11. Was available
for consultation
23 0.0 8.7 30.4
60.9 3.5 0.67
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 23 0.0
4.3 30.4 65.2 3.6 0.58
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 23 8.7
13.0 30.4 47.8 3.2 0.98
14. Encouraged class
participation 23
0.0 0.0 30.4 69.6
3.7 0.47
SECTION D - LEARNING
OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect
different viewpoint 20 0.0
5.0 65.0 30.0 3.3 0.55
16. Inc my abil to
analyze & evaluate 22
0.0 4.5 50.0 45.5
3.4 0.59
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. 22 0.0
4.5 54.5 40.9 3.4 0.58
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 21 9.5
14.3 47.6 28.6 3.0 0.92
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
22 0.0 13.6 45.5
40.9 3.3
0.70
21. Overall quality
of teaching
22 0.0 0.0 22.7
77.3 3.8
0.43
LEXINGTON CAMPUS -
ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- Spring 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 001L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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
= 23
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 23
Percent completed
= 76.7 %
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
at our UK web page
FALL
1999
281-001
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT
AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- fall 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
2 10.5
A
12 63.2
Sophomore
2 10.5
B
6 31.6
Junior
5 26.3
C
1 5.3
Senior
10 52.6
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
0 0.0
Professional
0 0.0
I
0 0.0
Other
0 0.0
Pass or Audit
0 0.0
Reason for taking course
Number Percent
Hrs/week spent Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 0
0.0
Studies
Program
8 42.1
2 hours
8 42.1
Required by my major
10 52.6
3 hours
9 47.4
Other (e.g. elective)
1 5.3
4 - 5 hours
2 10.5
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 23 0.0
0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9
0.29
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 23 0.0
0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47
3. Suppl read & assign
helped understan 23 0.0
0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47
4. Exams reflected what
was taught 20
0.0 0.0 15.0 85.0
3.9 0.37
5. Grading was fair and
consistent 23
8.7 8.7 30.4 52.2
3.3 0.96
6. Assignments were distributed
evenly 23 0.0
8.7 30.4 60.9 3.5 0.67
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 23 0.0
0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47
8. Graded assignments
included comments 22 0.0
4.5 22.7 72.7 3.7 0.57
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
23 0.0 0.0 8.7
91.3 3.9 0.29
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 23 0.0
0.0 4.3 95.7 4.0
0.21
11. Was available for
consultation 23
0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6
3.8 0.39
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 23 0.0
0.0 13.0 87.0 3.9 0.34
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 23 0.0
0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39
14. Encouraged class
participation 23
0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0
3.9 0.34
SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect different
viewpoint 23 0.0
4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59
16. Inc my abil to analyze
& evaluate 23
0.0 4.3 47.8 47.8
3.4 0.59
17. Course helped abil
to solve problem 22 0.0
9.1 36.4 54.5 3.5 0.67
18. Gained undrstnd of
concepts & prin. 23 0.0
0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 21 0.0
14.3 52.4 33.3 3.2 0.68
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS
20. Overall value of
the course
23 0.0 0.0 13.0
87.0 3.9
0.34
21. Overall quality of
teaching
23 0.0 0.0 8.7
91.3 3.9
0.29
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT
AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- fall 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1
COMM IN SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
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 3 33.3
0.0 33.3 33.3 2.7
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 6 16.7
0.0 66.7 16.7 2.8
.
24. Writing assign helps
understand sub 6 0.0
0.0 66.7 33.3 3.3
.
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
= 29
Number of forms scanned
= 23
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 23
Percent completed = 79.3
%
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 at our UK web page
FALL
1999
365-001
Communication Research Methods
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT
AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- fall 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 001L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification
Number Percent
Expected grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
6 37.5
Sophomore
0 0.0
B
9 56.3
Junior
4 25.0
C
1 6.3
Senior
12 75.0
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 0
0.0
Studies
Program
0 0.0
2 hours
1 6.3
Required by my major
16 100.0
3 hours
8 50.0
Other (e.g. elective)
0 0.0
4 - 5 hours
3 18.8
6 - 7 hours
1 6.3
8 or more hours 3
18.8
%
%
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
0.0 17.4 82.6 3.8 0.39
2. Textbook contributed
to understandin 23 0.0
4.3 30.4 65.2 3.6 0.58
3. Suppl read & assign
helped understan 23 0.0
0.0 26.1 73.9 3.7 0.45
4. Exams reflected what
was taught 23
0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2
3.7 0.49
5. Grading was fair and
consistent 23
4.3 0.0 30.4 65.2
3.6 0.73
6. Assignments were distributed
evenly 23 4.3
21.7 30.4 43.5 3.1 0.92
7. Graded assignments
returned promptly 23 0.0
4.3 21.7 73.9 3.7 0.56
8. Graded assignments
included comments 23 0.0
8.7 30.4 60.9 3.5 0.67
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR
ITEMS
9. Presented material
effectively
23 0.0 0.0 17.4
82.6 3.8 0.39
10. Had good knowledge
of subject matte 23 0.0
0.0 8.7 91.3 3.9
0.29
11. Was available for
consultation 23
0.0 0.0 8.7 91.3
3.9 0.29
12. Satisfact answered
class questions 23 0.0
0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42
13. Stimulated interest
of the subject 23 0.0
4.3 17.4 78.3 3.7 0.54
14. Encouraged class
participation 23
0.0 0.0 13.0 87.0
3.9 0.34
SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect different
viewpoint 23 0.0
4.3 39.1 56.5 3.5 0.59
16. Inc my abil to analyze
& evaluate 23
0.0 0.0 17.4 82.6
3.8 0.39
17. Course helped abil
to solve problem 23 0.0
0.0 30.4 69.6 3.7 0.47
18. Gained undrstnd of
concepts & prin. 23 0.0
0.0 21.7 78.3 3.8 0.42
19. Course stimulated
me to read furthe 23 0.0
8.7 26.1 65.2 3.6 0.66
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS
20. Overall value of
the course
22 0.0 0.0 22.7
77.3 3.8
0.43
21. Overall quality of
teaching
22 0.0 0.0 18.2
81.8 3.8
0.39
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT
AND INSTITUTIONAL DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
- fall 1999 TEACHER AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications
& Info Studies DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 365 001L1
INTRO TO COMM RES METH
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED
= Lane, Derek
%
%
Strongly % %
Strongly
N Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Mean SD
(1) (2) (3)
(4)
SECTION F - UNIVERSITY
STUDIES PROGRAM COURSES ONLY
22. USSC/ understand
scientific inquiry 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
23. Saw how discipline
relates to other 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
24. Writing assign helps
understand sub 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
25. Cross-Cult/understand
other culture 0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.
26. Cross-Discipline/
links were eviden 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
SECTION G - GRADUATE SEMINARS
ONLY
27. Feedback on oral
presentations
1 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.0 3.0 .
28. Guided student report
preparation 1
0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
3.0 .
29. Students free to
express opinions 1
0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
4.0 .
30. Discussions broadened
my knowledge 1 0.0
0.0 0.0 100.0 4.0
.
31. Developed abil to
conduct research 1
0.0 0.0 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
= 28
Number of forms scanned
= 23
Number of forms with
at least one student response = 23
Percent completed = 82.1
%
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 at our UK web page
FALL
1999
601-401 Introduction
to Graduate Studies
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY
ITEMS
20. Overall value
of the course
09 0.0 0.0 3.6
96.4 4.0 0.19
21. Overal l quality
of teaching
09 0.0 0.0 3.6
100.0 4.0 0.00
SPRING
2000
281-001
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - spring 2000 TEACHER
AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies
DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1 COMM IN
SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification Number
Percent Expected
grade Number Percent
Freshman
2 7.7
A
18 72.0
Sophomore
4 15.4
B
7 28.0
Junior
9 34.6
C
0 0.0
Senior
11 42.3
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
0 0.0
Reason for taking course Number
Percent Hrs/week spent
Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 8
30.8
Studies Program
10 38.5
2 hours
7 26.9
Required by my major
15 57.7
3 hours
7 26.9
Other (e.g. elective)
1 3.8
4 - 5 hours
4 15.4
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
27 0.0 0.0 22.2
77.8 3.8 0.42
2. Textbook contributed to understandin
27 0.0 0.0 33.3
66.7 3.7 0.48
3. Suppl read & assign helped understan
26 0.0 0.0 42.3
57.7 3.6 0.50
4. Exams reflected what was taught
23 0.0 4.3 43.5
52.2 3.5 0.59
5. Grading was fair and consistent
27 0.0 7.4 44.4
48.1 3.4 0.64
6. Assignments were distributed evenly
27 0.0 14.8 22.2
63.0 3.5 0.75
7. Graded assignments returned promptly
27 0.0 3.7 44.4
51.9 3.5 0.58
8. Graded assignments included comments
27 0.0 3.7 22.2
74.1 3.7 0.54
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS
9. Presented material effectively
27 3.7 0.0 29.6
66.7 3.6 0.69
10. Had good knowledge of subject matte
27 0.0 0.0 18.5
81.5 3.8 0.40
11. Was available for consultation
27 0.0 0.0 33.3
66.7 3.7 0.48
12. Satisfact answered class questions
27 0.0 0.0 22.2
77.8 3.8 0.42
13. Stimulated interest of the subject
27 0.0 3.7 29.6
66.7 3.6 0.56
14. Encouraged class participation
27 0.0 0.0 25.9
74.1 3.7 0.45
SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect different viewpoint
27 0.0 0.0 51.9
48.1 3.5 0.51
16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate
27 0.0 0.0 29.6
70.4 3.7 0.47
17. Course helped abil to solve problem
27 0.0 0.0 22.2
77.8 3.8 0.42
18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin.
27 0.0 0.0 22.2
77.8 3.8 0.42
19. Course stimulated me to read furthe
27 0.0 7.4 55.6
37.0 3.3 0.61
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS
20. Overall value of the course
27 0.0 0.0 25.9
74.1 3.7 0.45
21. Overall quality of teaching
27 0.0 0.0 14.8
85.2 3.9 0.36
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - spring 2000 TEACHER
AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies
DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 001L1 COMM IN
SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek
%
%
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
8 0.0 0.0 62.5
37.5 3.4 .
23. Saw how discipline relates to other
13 0.0 0.0 46.2
53.8 3.5 0.52
24. Writing assign helps understand sub
13 0.0 0.0 46.2
53.8 3.5 0.52
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 50.0
50.0 3.5 .
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
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
33. Amount of work appropriate
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
34. Instructor explained expectations
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
35. Instructor helped with my problems
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
36. Lab equipment use satis explained
1 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
% answering item
N --------------------------------- Mean
SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS
*** No Optional Questions were answered ***
Number of forms preslugged = 28
Number of forms scanned = 27
Number of forms with at least one student response
= 27
Percent completed = 96.4 %
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 at our UK web page
for Assessment & Instituttional Data.
SPRING
2000
281-003
Communicating in Small Groups
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - spring 2000 TEACHER
AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies
DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 003L1 COMM IN
SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification Number
Percent Expected
grade Number Percent
Freshman
1 3.7
A
20 76.9
Sophomore
5 18.5
B
5 19.2
Junior
12 44.4
C
1 3.8
Senior
9 33.3
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
0 0.0
Reason for taking course Number
Percent Hrs/week spent
Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 2
8.0
Studies Program
9 33.3
2 hours
13 52.0
Required by my major
15 55.6
3 hours
4 16.0
Other (e.g. elective)
3 11.1
4 - 5 hours
5 20.0
6 - 7 hours
1 4.0
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 6.9
93.1 3.9 0.26
2. Textbook contributed to understandin
29 0.0 0.0 13.8
86.2 3.9 0.35
3. Suppl read & assign helped understan
29 0.0 0.0 20.7
79.3 3.8 0.41
4. Exams reflected what was taught
24 0.0 0.0 20.8
79.2 3.8 0.41
5. Grading was fair and consistent
29 0.0 0.0 10.3
89.7 3.9 0.31
6. Assignments were distributed evenly
29 0.0 0.0 17.2
82.8 3.8 0.38
7. Graded assignments returned promptly
29 0.0 3.4 24.1
72.4 3.7 0.54
8. Graded assignments included comments
29 0.0 0.0 13.8
86.2 3.9 0.35
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS
9. Presented material effectively
29 0.0 0.0 6.9
93.1 3.9 0.26
10. Had good knowledge of subject matte
29 0.0 0.0 6.9
93.1 3.9 0.26
11. Was available for consultation
29 0.0 0.0 17.2
82.8 3.8 0.38
12. Satisfact answered class questions
29 0.0 0.0 6.9
93.1 3.9 0.26
13. Stimulated interest of the subject
28 0.0 0.0 17.9
82.1 3.8 0.39
14. Encouraged class participation
29 0.0 0.0 6.9
93.1 3.9 0.26
SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect different viewpoint
28 0.0 3.6 25.0
71.4 3.7 0.55
16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate
27 0.0 0.0 18.5
81.5 3.8 0.40
17. Course helped abil to solve problem
26 0.0 0.0 19.2
80.8 3.8 0.40
18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin.
28 0.0 0.0 10.7
89.3 3.9 0.31
19. Course stimulated me to read furthe
28 0.0 7.1 32.1
60.7 3.5 0.64
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS
20. Overall value of the course
28 0.0 0.0 10.7
89.3 3.9 0.31
21. Overall quality of teaching
28 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 0.00
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - spring 2000 TEACHER
AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies
DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 281 003L1 COMM IN
SMALL GROUPS
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek
%
%
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 33.3 50.0
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 33.3 55.6
3.4 .
25. Cross-Cult/understand other culture
3 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
26. Cross-Discipline/ links were eviden
3 0.0 0.0 33.3
66.7 3.7 .
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 = 29
Number of forms with at least one student response
= 29
Percent completed = 96.7 %
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 at our UK web page
for Assessment & Institutional Data.
SPRING
2000
454-001
Communication Capstone Honors Seminar
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
DATA
Page 1
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - spring 2000 TEACHER
AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies
DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 454 001S1 HONORS SEM
IN COMM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek
SECTION A - STUDENT INFORMATION
Classification Number
Percent Expected
grade Number Percent
Freshman
0 0.0
A
16 80.0
Sophomore
0 0.0
B
3 15.0
Junior
3 15.0
C
0 0.0
Senior
17 85.0
D
0 0.0
Graduate
0 0.0
E/Fail
1 5.0
Professional
0 0.0
I
0 0.0
Other
0 0.0
Pass or Audit
0 0.0
Reason for taking course Number
Percent Hrs/week spent
Number Percent
Required by University
1 hour or less 1
5.0
Studies Program
0 0.0
2 hours
7 35.0
Required by my major
5 25.0
3 hours
9 45.0
Other (e.g. elective)
15 75.0
4 - 5 hours
1 5.0
6 - 7 hours
2 10.0
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
20 0.0 5.0 15.0
80.0 3.8 0.55
2. Textbook contributed to understandin
7 0.0 0.0 14.3
85.7 3.9 .
3. Suppl read & assign helped understan
17 0.0 5.9 35.3
58.8 3.5 0.62
4. Exams reflected what was taught
6 0.0 0.0 0.0
100.0 4.0 .
5. Grading was fair and consistent
20 0.0 5.0 20.0
75.0 3.7 0.57
6. Assignments were distributed evenly
20 0.0 20.0 25.0
55.0 3.4 0.81
7. Graded assignments returned promptly
20 5.0 10.0 45.0
40.0 3.2 0.83
8. Graded assignments included comments
20 0.0 5.0 40.0
55.0 3.5 0.61
SECTION C - INSTRUCTOR ITEMS
9. Presented material effectively
20 0.0 5.0 20.0
75.0 3.7 0.57
10. Had good knowledge of subject matte
20 0.0 0.0 15.0
85.0 3.9 0.37
11. Was available for consultation
20 0.0 0.0 20.0
80.0 3.8 0.41
12. Satisfact answered class questions
20 0.0 0.0 30.0
70.0 3.7 0.47
13. Stimulated interest of the subject
19 0.0 5.3 21.1
73.7 3.7 0.58
14. Encouraged class participation
20 0.0 0.0 25.0
75.0 3.8 0.44
SECTION D - LEARNING OUTCOMES
15. Learned respect different viewpoint
17 0.0 0.0 41.2
58.8 3.6 0.51
16. Inc my abil to analyze & evaluate
20 5.0 0.0 35.0
60.0 3.5 0.76
17. Course helped abil to solve problem
19 5.3 0.0 36.8
57.9 3.5 0.77
18. Gained undrstnd of concepts & prin.
20 0.0 10.0 30.0
60.0 3.5 0.69
19. Course stimulated me to read furthe
20 0.0 10.0 30.0
60.0 3.5 0.69
% % %
%
N Poor Fair Good
Excellent Mean SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
SECTION E - SUMMARY ITEMS
20. Overall value of the course
20 0.0 5.0 20.0
75.0 3.7 0.57
21. Overall quality of teaching
20 0.0 5.0 15.0
80.0 3.8 0.55
LEXINGTON CAMPUS - ASSESSMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL
DATA
Page 2
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY - spring 2000 TEACHER
AND COURSE EVALUATION RESULTS
COLLEGE = Communications & Info Studies
DEPARTMENT = Communication
FACULTY TYPE = Faculty
COURSE = COM 454 001S1 HONORS SEM
IN COMM
INSTRUCTOR EVALUATED = Lane, Derek
%
%
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
12 0.0 8.3 16.7
75.0 3.7 0.65
28. Guided student report preparation
12 8.3 16.7 16.7
58.3 3.3 1.06
29. Students free to express opinions
12 0.0 0.0 25.0
75.0 3.8 0.45
30. Discussions broadened my knowledge
12 0.0 8.3 25.0
66.7 3.6 0.67
31. Developed abil to conduct research
12 8.3 0.0 16.7
75.0 3.6 0.90
SECTION H - LABORATORY & DISCUSSION SECTIONS
ONLY
32. Clarified lecture material
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
33. Amount of work appropriate
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
34. Instructor explained expectations
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
35. Instructor helped with my problems
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
36. Lab equipment use satis explained
0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .
% answering item
N --------------------------------- Mean
SD
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(5)
SECTION I - OPTIONAL ITEMS
*** No Optional Questions were answered ***
Number of forms preslugged = 21
Number of forms scanned = 21
Number of forms with at least one student response
= 20
Percent completed = 95.2 %
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 at our UK web page
for Assessment & Instituttional Data. |
