| Dr. Snell's Summer
1998 Course Evaluations. |
| _____________________Evaluations_Items__________________________ |
PY571.01 |
| 1. The instructor was
enthusiastic about the subject matter. |
4.72 |
| 2. The instructor generally encouraged
class participation. |
4.67 |
| 3. The instructor emphasized major
points and made their relationship and significance clear. |
4.56 |
| 4. The instructor seemed to be
interested in teaching. |
4.83 |
| 5. The instructor's use of examples
helped to get points across in class. |
4.67 |
| 6. The instructor encouraged students to
express their own viewpoints. |
4.56 |
| 7. Students had the opportunity to ask
questions. |
4.89 |
| 8. The course was well organized. |
4.44 |
| 9. The instructor's presentations were
well prepared. |
4.61 |
| 10. The instructor appeared to be
thoroughly competent in his/her area. |
4.83 |
| 11. The instructor gave effective help
when it was sought. |
4.83 |
| 12. The tests adequately covered the
course material. |
4.35 |
| 13. The instructor returned tests and
assignments within a reasonable period of time. |
4.83 |
| 14. The instructor made her/his grading
procedures clear. |
4.72 |
| 15. The instructor's grading standards
were fair and reasonable. |
4.72 |
| 16. I gained considerable knowledge from
this course. |
4.61 |
| 17. The textbook used in this course was
satisfactory. |
3.58 |
| (1 = Strongly
Disagree) (2 = Agree) (3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree) (4 = Agree) (5 = Strongly
Agree) |
You are
visitor number: 
This site was last updated on June 17, 2007.
Copyright @ 1998 William E. Snell, Jr. All rights
reserved. |
| AS
REQUIRED BY UNIVERSITY GUIDELINES, The instructor was not present when
the students completed these instructor evaluations, a student took
the evaluations to the Chair of the department, and the evaluation
summaries were given to the instructor after the semester was
completed. |
| E-mail: WESNELL@semovm.semo.edu |
Back |