Georgia Southern University Course Evaluations Page 1

Similar documents
Cumulative Percent Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Frequency Table. UDSAT Satisfaction with UD. Cumulative. 1 Very Dissatisfied. Valid. 2 Dissatisfied. 3 Satisfied. 4 Very Satisfied. Total.

Rubber Band Car. Tommy Stewart Corey Marineau John Martinez

Heat Shield Design Project

2015 Faculty Survey of Assessment Culture

Questions and Answers from March 1 st, 2016 Roadbuilders Introduction Webinar

FAMU Completers Satisfaction Survey Results 2010

Basic Automotive Collision Repair

FALL 2007 MBA EXIT SURVEY (Sample size of 29: 15 responses from the San Marcos location and 14 responses from the RRHEC location)

NSSE 2017 U.S. Summary Frequencies

Driver Evaluation Instructions for Passenger Vans

CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO COURSE SYLLABUS. 1. COURSE TITLE : Principles of Pneumatics and Hydraulics Laboratory

School Bus Driver Trainer Inservice

Consumer Goods Manufacturers Operational Profile 1.1 Please state what your main activity(ies) is/are within manufacturing End-product manufacturer Ma

Small Engines I PRECISION EXAMS DESCRIPTION. EXAM INFORMATION Items

Safe Driving Program. Private/Proprietary: Not for disclosure outside Cingular Wireless without prior written permission

Lifting Vehicles. Description. Lesson Outcomes. Assumptions. Terminology

Your web browser (Safari 7) is out of date. For more security, comfort and. the best experience on this site: Update your browser Ignore

Gains in Written Communication Among Learning Habits Students: A Report on an Initial Assessment Exercise

Scientific Notation. Slide 1 / 106. Slide 2 / 106. Slide 3 / th Grade. Table of Contents. New Jersey Center for Teaching and Learning

HARLEY-DAVIDSON. Motorcycle Technician Training & Professional Development Program

Institutional Research and Planning 440 Day Hall Ithaca, New York PULSE Survey

Assessment is expected as part of my institution's continuous improvement process. Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Maine Clean Communities Newsletter

2009 Community College of Student Engagement (CCSSE) College Results: Frequency Distributions

Newton Scooters TEACHER NOTES. Forces Chapter Project. Materials and Preparation. Chapter Project Overview. Keep Students on Track Section 2

CRYPTOCURRENCY MORATORIUM SMALL MINER RATE IMPACT. September 4, 2018

Inventory of Best Practices for Learning Support Centers in Higher Education

Certificate in a vocational program

Loblaws Inc. Particulars. RSPO Annual Communications of Progress About Your Organisation. Membership. Particulars Form Page 1/1

Applications in Design & Engine. Analyzing Compound, Robotic Machines

Automotive & Diesel Technology

LIFTGATE AND 250 WATT SOLAR BATTERY CHARGER

Scientific Notation. Slide 1 / 106. Slide 2 / 106. Slide 4 / 106. Slide 3 / 106. Slide 5 / 106. Slide 6 / th Grade.

Integrating Biofuels into the Energy Industry

TAN OEM' TRACTORS. ~GRtCULTURE LIBRARY. Extension Service in Agriculture and Home Economics UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

SAULT COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY SAULT STE. MARIE, ONTARIO COURSE OUTLINE CODE NO. : MPT 230 SEMESTER: 4

CCCCO Worksheet CARNEGIE UNITS - SEMESTER. Lecture Lab Lecture

City University of New York Faculty Survey of Student Experience (FSSE), Spring 2010

RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT AND DRIVER AND VEHICLE STANDARDS AGENCY S CONSULTATION PAPER

MIT ICAT M I T I n t e r n a t i o n a l C e n t e r f o r A i r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n

Frequency Table. Page 1. UDSAT Overall UD Satisfaction. Cumulative. Very Dissatisfied. Valid. Dissatisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Total Missing

Semester Level Grade Distributions with Graphs for EDU Prefix Courses

Association of Medical Research Charities April 2013

6/6/2018. June 7, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement

Toward zero deaths: Who needs to do the heavy lifting?

THE HUMAN ELEMENT Motorcycle Rider Training and Education

SAULT COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY SAULT STE. MARIE, ON COURSE OUTLINE

E-Course & S-Course an expansion of the ASI ATV RiderCourse Program

Frequency Distributions 2014 Administrators' Survey of Assessment Culture

Emissions Inspector Training Program INSPECTION EQUIPMENT HANDS-ON TRAINING. Georgia s Clean Air Force (GCAF)

College of Southern Maryland 2017 Motorcycle Safety Training Program Updated: Monday, January 16, 2017

Pros and cons of hybrid cars

Series and Parallel Circuits Virtual Lab

Carroll County Public Schools Transportation Services Department

Truck Extrication Technology

Development of Wheelchair Standards for Less-Resourced Settings

Mechatronics Instructor: Dr. Hong Zhang

GENERAL CHEMISTRY. Sub-disciplines of Chemistry. Course Organization. Course Organization: People. What You Need for Lecture

Periodic Training. Maintaining high driving standards and improving road safety

Basic voltmeter use. Resources and methods for learning about these subjects (list a few here, in preparation for your research):

MATRIX BY DOMAIN ATHLETIC TRAINING EDUCATION COMPETENCIES, 5TH EDTION FOR THE ATHLEIC TRAINING EDUCATION PROGRAM

2016 ANNUAL CONSERVATION REPORT

INTERNET ACCESS GOALS AND PLANS

CENTRAL TEXAS COLLEGE AERM 1445 AIRCRAFT ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS-A. Semester Hours Credit: 4 INSTRUCTOR: OFFICE HOURS:

reflect energy: the ability to do work

Mechanical Systems. Section 1.0 Machines are tools that help humans do work. 1.1 Simple Machines- Meeting Human Needs Water Systems

Stationary Battery Basics

Result of Dækrazzia Tyre Inspection Campaign

The National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) Strategic Plan

Oleaginosas Del Peru S.A - OLPESA

HOUSE BILL lr0078 A BILL ENTITLED. Vehicle Laws Young Drivers Driving Privileges

UCEMC Employees attend TVPPA Training

Electric Rate Design as Though the Future Matters

Smart Spinner. Age 7+ Teacher s Notes. In collaboration with NASA

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS: FMCSA Notice of Proposed Rule-Making (NPRM)

2018 North America Course Schedule Hydraulic Technology Pneumatic Technology Mobile Hydraulic Technology

All Worn Out! Measure the voltage of batteries as they discharge. Predict how different size batteries will behave when being discharged.

Riders Helping Riders: An Alcohol Peer Intervention Program for Motorcyclists

The Motor Vehicle Act Rewrite Project. Stakeholder Consultations Antique Vehicles

Propeller Palooza! A classroom design challenge for students

Lab # 4 Parallel Circuits

2013 PLS Alumni/ae Survey: Overall Evaluation of the Program

K.L.N. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING Course Outcomes, PO & PSO Mapping Regulation 2013

University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Features of PSEC Educational Programs

ON-SITE DUI BOOT CAMP NHTSA SFST / ARIDE / DRE PROGRAM OVERVIEW

LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGE AUTO MECHANICS 233 AUTOMOTIVE ELECTRICAL & FUEL SYSTEMS SPRING 2005

LEARN2BURN. Schwabe Extension Arm Systems and Training Concepts

Engineering Design Process for BEST Robotics JANNE ACKERMAN COLLIN COUNTY (COCO) BEST & BEST OF TEXAS ROBOTICS

Light Vehicle Autotronics Circuit Trainers

Missouri Motorcycle Safety Program Instructor Candidate Application

An Evaluation of the Relationship between the Seat Belt Usage Rates of Front Seat Occupants and Their Drivers

THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ELECTRIC POWER GRID MODERNIZATION TO ACHIEVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND REDUCTION BENEFITS

Performance and Development Review Scheme

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

FAF & Private Company Issues

AUTO 140A: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE

APR VibRAtoRy PlAtes

Transcription:

12 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll Much Less Less About the same More Much More 1. How much effort did you put into learning the material covered in this course? 12 3.9 4.0 0.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (33.3%) 5 (41.7%) 3 (25.0%) 2. How much did you learn in this course? 12 4.3 4.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 6 (50.0%) 5 (41.7%) 3. To what degree were you intellectually challenged in this course? 12 3.8 4.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50.0%) 2 (16.7%) 4. How often did you seek outside help with this course? 12 3.9 4.0 1.1 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 5 (41.7%) 5. How difficult was this course? 12 3.6 3.5 0.9 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 5 (41.7%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 6. How was the workload of this course? 12 3.8 3.5 0.9 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (50.0%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good 7. Overall, How would you rate this course? 12 4.7 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 2 (16.7%) 9 (75.0%) 8. The degree to which important points were stressed in this course was 12 4.2 4.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (16.7%) 6 (50.0%) 4 (33.3%) 9. The instructor's preparation in this course was 12 4.4 4.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (58.3%) 5 (41.7%) 10. The instructor's encouragement of class participation, discussion, or questions was 12 4.4 5.0 0.9 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (33.3%) 7 (58.3%) 11. The organization of the course material was 12 4.3 4.5 0.9 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (25.0%) 3 (25.0%) 6 (50.0%) 12. The clarity of the presentation of the course material was 12 4.3 4.0 0.6 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 7 (58.3%) 4 (33.3%) 13. The degree to which tests and other graded activities reflected course content was 12 4.3 4.5 0.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50.0%) 14. The instructor's availability to students was 12 4.7 5.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (33.3%) 8 (66.7%) 15. The instructor's helpfulness to students was 11 4.5 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 3 (25.0%) 7 (58.3%) 16. The degree to which the class stayed focused on course objectives was 11 4.2 4.0 0.9 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (50.0%) 4 (33.3%) 17. The instructor's interest in the content (or material) of this course was 11 4.7 5.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (25.0%) 8 (66.7%) 18. Over, how would you rate this instructor? 11 4.7 5.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (25.0%) 8 (66.7%) Georgia Southern University Course Evaluations Page 1

12 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll No Interest at All Mildly Average Very 19. What was your level of interest in this subject matter before taking this course? 11 3.7 3.0 1.1 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%) 20. What was your level of interest in this subject matter after taking this course? 11 4.3 4.0 0.9 0 (0.0%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%) Yes No I Don't Know 21. Is this a required course for you? 11 1.1 1.0 0.3 10 (83.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0.0%) 22. Is this course in your major? 11 1.1 1.0 0.3 10 (83.3%) 1 (8.3%) 0 (0.0%) A B C D F 23. Overall, How would you rate this course? 11 1.2 1.0 0.4 9 (75.0%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Georgia Southern University Course Evaluations Page 2

Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation 12 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation Page 1

Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation 12 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation Page 2

Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation 12 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation Page 3

Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation 12 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll Georgia Southern University Course Evaluation Page 4

11 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll 11 Course GCM 5434 A Semester Fall 2016 courseref = 86209 AND INSTRUCTOR = Millicent Carroll Much Less Less About the same More Much More 1. How much effort did you put into learning the material covered in this course? 11 3.9 4.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (27.3%) 6 (54.5%) 2 (18.2%) 2. How much did you learn in this course? 11 4.1 4.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (18.2%) 6 (54.5%) 3 (27.3%) 3. To what degree were you intellectually challenged in this course? 11 3.7 4.0 0.9 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 3 (27.3%) 5 (45.5%) 2 (18.2%) 4. How often did you seek outside help with this course? 11 3.7 4.0 0.9 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 3 (27.3%) 5 (45.5%) 2 (18.2%) 5. How difficult was this course? 11 3.8 4.0 0.9 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 2 (18.2%) 6 (54.5%) 2 (18.2%) 6. How was the workload of this course? 11 3.8 4.0 0.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (36.4%) 5 (45.5%) 2 (18.2%) Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good 7. Overall, How would you rate this course? 11 4.5 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 4 (36.4%) 6 (54.5%) 8. The degree to which important points were stressed in this course was 11 4.5 5.0 0.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (18.2%) 2 (18.2%) 7 (63.6%) 9. The instructor's preparation in this course was 11 4.5 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 3 (27.3%) 7 (63.6%) 10. The instructor's encouragement of class participation, discussion, or questions was 11 4.5 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 4 (36.4%) 6 (54.5%) 11. The organization of the course material was 11 4.5 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 3 (27.3%) 7 (63.6%) 12. The clarity of the presentation of the course material was 11 4.5 5.0 0.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (18.2%) 2 (18.2%) 7 (63.6%) 13. The degree to which tests and other graded activities reflected course content was 11 4.2 4.0 1.0 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (9.1%) 4 (36.4%) 5 (45.5%) 14. The instructor's availability to students was 11 4.7 5.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (27.3%) 8 (72.7%) 15. The instructor's helpfulness to students was 11 4.8 5.0 0.4 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (18.2%) 9 (81.8%) 16. The degree to which the class stayed focused on course objectives was 11 4.5 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 4 (36.4%) 6 (54.5%) 17. The instructor's interest in the content (or material) of this course was 11 4.8 5.0 0.4 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (18.2%) 9 (81.8%) 18. Over, how would you rate this instructor? 11 4.6 5.0 0.7 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 2 (18.2%) 8 (72.7%) Georgia Southern University Course Evaluations Page 1

11 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll 11 Course GCM 5434 A Semester Fall 2016 courseref = 86209 AND INSTRUCTOR = Millicent Carroll No Interest at All Mildly Average Very 19. What was your level of interest in this subject matter before taking this course? 11 4.3 4.0 0.6 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 6 (54.5%) 4 (36.4%) 20. What was your level of interest in this subject matter after taking this course? 11 4.3 4.0 0.8 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (18.2%) 4 (36.4%) 5 (45.5%) Yes No I Don't Know 21. Is this a required course for you? 11 1.1 1.0 0.3 10 (90.9%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0.0%) 22. Is this course in your major? 11 1.1 1.0 0.3 10 (90.9%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0.0%) A B C D F 23. Overall, How would you rate this course? 11 1.3 1.0 0.5 8 (72.7%) 3 (27.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Georgia Southern University Course Evaluations Page 2

4 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll 5 Course GCM 2332 C Semester Fall 2016 courseref = 88269 AND INSTRUCTOR = Millicent Carroll Much Less Less About the same More Much More 1. How much effort did you put into learning the material covered in this course? 4 4.0 4.0 1.2 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 2. How much did you learn in this course? 4 3.8 3.5 1.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 3. To what degree were you intellectually challenged in this course? 4 3.3 3.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4. How often did you seek outside help with this course? 4 2.8 3.0 1.3 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5. How difficult was this course? 4 3.0 3.0 0.8 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6. How was the workload of this course? 4 3.3 3.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Very Good 7. Overall, How would you rate this course? 4 4.3 4.5 1.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) 8. The degree to which important points were stressed in this course was 4 4.0 4.0 0.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 9. The instructor's preparation in this course was 4 4.3 4.5 1.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) 10. The instructor's encouragement of class participation, discussion, or questions was 4 4.5 4.5 0.6 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 11. The organization of the course material was 4 4.3 4.5 1.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) 12. The clarity of the presentation of the course material was 4 3.8 3.5 1.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 13. The degree to which tests and other graded activities reflected course content was 4 3.8 4.0 1.3 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (25.0%) 14. The instructor's availability to students was 4 4.3 4.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 15. The instructor's helpfulness to students was 4 4.5 4.5 0.6 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 16. The degree to which the class stayed focused on course objectives was 4 4.0 4.0 0.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 17. The instructor's interest in the content (or material) of this course was 4 4.5 4.5 0.6 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 2 (50.0%) 18. Over, how would you rate this instructor? 4 4.8 5.0 0.5 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) Georgia Southern University Course Evaluations Page 1

4 Date Instructor Millicent Carroll 5 Course GCM 2332 C Semester Fall 2016 courseref = 88269 AND INSTRUCTOR = Millicent Carroll No Interest at All Mildly Average Very 19. What was your level of interest in this subject matter before taking this course? 4 4.3 4.5 1.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) 20. What was your level of interest in this subject matter after taking this course? 4 4.3 4.5 1.0 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) Yes No I Don't Know 21. Is this a required course for you? 4 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 22. Is this course in your major? 4 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) A B C D F 23. Overall, How would you rate this course? 4 1.3 1.0 0.5 3 (75.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Georgia Southern University Course Evaluations Page 2