eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015 College of Architecture Course: ARCH 1112-001 / CNS 1112-010 / I D 1112-001 Total Enrollment: 115 Section Title: Cultures of Collaborating Course Level: All Instructors: Hans Butzer / Richard Ryan / Mia Kile Section Size: All Question Level Mean Response Median Response Standard Deviation ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank 2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning INDIVIDUAL 3.93750 4 1.05444 96 1.04 10.42 20.83 29.17 38.54 15.15 17.44 DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63 COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.29 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82 9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development INDIVIDUAL 3.71875 4 1.10218 96 2.08 16.67 15.63 38.54 27.08 18.18 18.61 DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94 COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.39 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24 Hans Butzer 12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.40625 5 0.73382 96 0.00 2.08 8.33 36.46 53.13 48.57 51.69 DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48 COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.15 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66 17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. INDIVIDUAL 4.44792 5 0.80616 96 0.00 3.13 10.42 25.00 61.46 51.43 58.43 DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58 COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.29 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30 21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.68056 96 0.00 1.04 7.29 32.29 59.38 48.57 51.69 DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39 COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.18 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78 Richard Ryan 12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.37234 5 0.80301 94 1.06 2.13 7.45 37.23 52.13 42.86 47.19 DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48 COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.12 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66 17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. INDIVIDUAL 4.34043 5 0.83670 94 0.00 3.19 13.83 28.72 54.26 45.71 55.06 DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58 COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.19 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30 21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.23404 4 0.83506 94 0.00 2.13 19.15 31.91 46.81 20.00 28.09 DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39 COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.12 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78 Mia Kile 12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.17021 4 0.93485 94 2.13 5.32 7.45 43.62 41.49 22.86 31.46 DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48 COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.09 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66 17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. INDIVIDUAL 4.10870 4 1.04257 92 4.35 2.17 16.30 32.61 44.57 17.14 35.96 DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58 COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.02 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30 21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.93617 4 1.10530 94 6.38 3.19 15.96 39.36 35.11 11.43 16.85 DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39 COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.45 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78 Response Key 2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent 9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent 12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent 17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent 21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent Page 1 of 1
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 1112-001 / CNS 1112-010 / I D 1112-001 Total Enrollment: 115
Section Title: Cultures of Collaborating Course Level: All
Instructors: Hans Butzer / Richard Ryan / Mia Kile Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.93750 4 1.05444 96 1.04 10.42 20.83 29.17 38.54 15.15 17.44DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.29 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.71875 4 1.10218 96 2.08 16.67 15.63 38.54 27.08 18.18 18.61DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.39 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Hans Butzer
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.40625 5 0.73382 96 0.00 2.08 8.33 36.46 53.13 48.57 51.69DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.15 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.44792 5 0.80616 96 0.00 3.13 10.42 25.00 61.46 51.43 58.43DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.29 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.68056 96 0.00 1.04 7.29 32.29 59.38 48.57 51.69DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.18 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Richard Ryan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.37234 5 0.80301 94 1.06 2.13 7.45 37.23 52.13 42.86 47.19DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.12 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.34043 5 0.83670 94 0.00 3.19 13.83 28.72 54.26 45.71 55.06DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.19 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.23404 4 0.83506 94 0.00 2.13 19.15 31.91 46.81 20.00 28.09DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.12 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Mia Kile
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.17021 4 0.93485 94 2.13 5.32 7.45 43.62 41.49 22.86 31.46DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.09 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.10870 4 1.04257 92 4.35 2.17 16.30 32.61 44.57 17.14 35.96DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.02 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.93617 4 1.10530 94 6.38 3.19 15.96 39.36 35.11 11.43 16.85DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.45 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 1121-001 Total Enrollment: 35
Section Title: Methods I - Intro-Creating Course Level: All
Instructor: Hans Butzer Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.64807 26 0.00 0.00 7.69 34.62 57.69 66.67 67.44DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.32 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.53846 5 0.70602 26 0.00 0.00 11.54 23.08 65.38 63.64 63.95DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.43 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Hans Butzer
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.76923 5 0.42967 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.08 76.92 82.86 79.78DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.53 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.57692 5 0.70274 26 0.00 3.85 0.00 30.77 65.38 77.14 70.79DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.41 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.46154 5 0.76057 26 0.00 0.00 15.38 23.08 61.54 40.00 47.19DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.14 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 1154-001 Total Enrollment: 17
Section Title: Design I - Fundamentals Course Level: All
Instructor: Robert Pavilk Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.42164 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 81.82 84.88DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.65 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.90000 5 0.31623 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 90.00 87.88 89.54DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.80 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Robert Pavilk
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 1.03280 10 0.00 10.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 34.29 37.08DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.06 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.30000 5 0.94868 10 0.00 10.00 0.00 40.00 50.00 42.86 50.56DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.15 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 68.57 67.42DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.40 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 1154-002 Total Enrollment: 16
Section Title: Design I - Fundamentals Course Level: All
Instructor: Kenneth Marold Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.75593 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 0.00 85.71 72.73 77.91DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.56 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 84.85 87.21DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.75 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Kenneth Marold
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 4 0.69007 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 57.14 28.57 20.00 28.09DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.12 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.85714 4 0.69007 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 57.14 14.29 14.29 25.84DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.25 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 5 1.29099 7 0.00 14.29 28.57 0.00 57.14 14.29 21.35DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.38 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 2243-001 Total Enrollment: 80
Section Title: History of Arch I Course Level: All
Instructor: Catherine Barrett Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.30612 4 0.76931 49 0.00 2.04 12.24 38.78 46.94 42.42 47.67DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.11 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.97959 4 0.92398 49 2.04 4.08 18.37 44.90 30.61 27.27 24.42DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.13 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Catherine Barrett
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.40816 5 0.76153 49 0.00 4.08 4.08 38.78 53.06 51.43 52.81DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.16 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.48980 5 0.73944 49 0.00 0.00 14.29 22.45 63.27 60.00 61.80DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.33 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.36735 4 0.66752 49 0.00 0.00 10.20 42.86 46.94 28.57 38.20DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.03 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 2323-001 Total Enrollment: 38
Section Title: Methods III-Design Analytics Course Level: All
Instructor: Robert Pavilk Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.14815 5 1.16697 27 3.70 11.11 3.70 29.63 51.85 30.30 37.21DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.06 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.96154 4 1.31090 26 7.69 11.54 3.85 30.77 46.15 24.24 23.26DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.15 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Robert Pavilk
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.62963 5 0.68770 27 0.00 3.70 0.00 25.93 70.37 74.29 71.91DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.39 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.51852 5 0.97548 27 3.70 3.70 0.00 22.22 70.37 71.43 67.42DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.35 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.29630 5 0.99285 27 3.70 0.00 14.81 25.93 55.56 22.86 31.46DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.05 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 2354-001 Total Enrollment: 14
Section Title: Design III-Crafting Place Course Level: All
Instructor: Anthony Cricchio Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.88889 5 0.33333 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 88.89 87.88 90.70DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.75 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.50000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 75.76 75.58DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.56 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Anthony Cricchio
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 1.00000 9 0.00 11.11 0.00 33.33 55.56 40.00 44.94DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.08 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.11111 5 1.26930 9 11.11 0.00 0.00 44.44 44.44 20.00 37.08DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.02 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.50000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 65.71 66.29DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.37 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 3013-001 Total Enrollment: 101
Section Title: Architecture for Non-Majors Course Level: All
Instructor: David Boeck Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.10000 4 0.99488 50 2.00 8.00 8.00 42.00 40.00 27.27 33.72DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.11 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.74000 4 1.08440 50 4.00 10.00 20.00 40.00 26.00 21.21 19.77DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.37 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
David Boeck
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.12000 4 1.06215 50 2.00 8.00 14.00 28.00 48.00 14.29 24.72DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.15 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.14000 5 1.10675 50 2.00 10.00 12.00 24.00 52.00 22.86 39.33DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.01 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.30000 5 0.83910 50 0.00 4.00 12.00 34.00 50.00 25.71 32.58DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.04 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 3555-001 Total Enrollment: 13
Section Title: Design V-Arch Making I Course Level: All
Instructor: Khosrow Bozorgi Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 5 1.13389 7 0.00 14.29 0.00 14.29 71.43 48.49 55.81DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.25 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.28571 5 1.11270 7 0.00 14.29 0.00 28.57 57.14 39.39 51.16DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.18 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Khosrow Bozorgi
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.28571 4 0.95119 7 0.00 28.57 14.29 57.14 0.00 8.57 11.24DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.02 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 4 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 85.71 14.29 28.57 41.57DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.01 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.85714 4 1.06904 7 0.00 14.29 14.29 42.86 28.57 8.57 10.11DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.54 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 3555-002 Total Enrollment: 13
Section Title: Design V-Arch Making I Course Level: All
Instructor: John Yowell Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.48795 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 72.73 77.91DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.56 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.48795 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 78.79 79.07DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.61 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
John Yowell
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 85.71 87.64DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.63 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.83666 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 16.67 66.67 68.57 66.29DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.34 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 82.86 80.90DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.58 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4133-001 / ARCH 5133-001 Total Enrollment: 28
Section Title: Architectural Structures I Course Level: All
Instructor: Shideh Shadravan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.52632 4 1.21876 19 5.26 21.05 10.53 42.11 21.05 12.12 9.30DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.73 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.42105 4 1.16980 19 5.26 21.05 15.79 42.11 15.79 12.12 8.14DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.69 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Shideh Shadravan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.47368 4 1.38918 19 15.79 10.53 5.26 47.37 21.05 11.43 14.61DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.82 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.10526 3 1.32894 19 10.53 26.32 26.32 15.79 21.05 5.71 10.11DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.94 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.57895 5 0.83771 19 0.00 5.26 5.26 15.79 73.68 51.43 57.30DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.27 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4173-900 / ARCH 5173-900 Total Enrollment: 5
Section Title: Cinema & Architecture of City Course Level: All
Instructor: Khosrow Bozorgi Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 1.00000 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 75.00 66.67 67.44DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.32 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 1.00000 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 75.00 60.61 62.79DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.39 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Khosrow Bozorgi
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 1.00000 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 75.00 68.57 66.29DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.34 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 74.29 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.46 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4333-001 / ARCH 5333-001 Total Enrollment: 31
Section Title: Advanced Structures Course Level: All
Instructor: Shideh Shadravan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.09524 4 0.94365 21 0.00 9.52 9.52 42.86 38.10 24.24 32.56DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.11 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 4 0.65465 21 0.00 0.00 14.29 57.14 28.57 36.36 40.70DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.03 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Shideh Shadravan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.91287 21 0.00 9.52 0.00 38.10 52.38 40.00 44.94DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.08 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 5 1.19523 21 4.76 4.76 19.05 14.29 57.14 28.57 41.57DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.01 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.61905 5 0.80475 21 0.00 4.76 4.76 14.29 76.19 62.86 61.80DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.31 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4453-001 / ARCH 5453-001 Total Enrollment: 48
Section Title: Modern & Contemporary Arch Course Level: All
Instructor: Stephanie Pilat Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.34483 5 0.81398 29 0.00 3.45 10.34 34.48 51.72 45.46 50.00DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.16 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.31034 5 0.96745 29 0.00 10.34 3.45 31.03 55.17 42.42 52.33DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.20 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Stephanie Pilat
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.51724 5 0.68768 29 0.00 3.45 0.00 37.93 58.62 62.86 64.05DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.27 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.44828 5 0.63168 29 0.00 0.00 6.90 41.38 51.72 54.29 59.55DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.29 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.39286 4 0.68526 28 0.00 3.57 0.00 50.00 46.43 37.14 43.82DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.06 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4523-900 / ARCH 5523-900 Total Enrollment: 31
Section Title: Methods V-Thermal Systems Course Level: All
Instructor: John Yowell Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.45000 5 0.68633 20 0.00 0.00 10.00 35.00 55.00 51.52 56.98DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.27 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.35000 5 0.81273 20 0.00 0.00 20.00 25.00 55.00 48.49 54.65DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.24 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
John Yowell
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.68421 5 0.47757 19 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.58 68.42 77.14 74.16DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.45 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.44426 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 80.00 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.56 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.44426 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 74.29 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.46 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4723-001 / ARCH 5723-001 Total Enrollment: 33
Section Title: Methods VII-Advanced Systems Course Level: All
Instructor: DANIEL BUTKO Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.48387 5 0.50800 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 51.61 48.39 57.58 59.30DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.31 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.41935 4 0.56416 31 0.00 0.00 3.23 51.61 45.16 51.52 55.81DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.31 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
DANIEL BUTKO
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.61290 5 0.61522 31 0.00 0.00 6.45 25.81 67.74 71.43 69.66DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.37 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.48387 5 0.67680 31 0.00 0.00 9.68 32.26 58.06 57.14 60.67DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.32 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.58065 5 0.62044 31 0.00 0.00 6.45 29.03 64.52 54.29 58.43DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.27 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4755-001 Total Enrollment: 15
Section Title: Design VII-Systems & Context Course Level: All
Instructor: Marjorie Callahan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 4 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 33.33 39.54DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.00 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 69.70 70.93DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.49 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Marjorie Callahan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 0.83666 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 34.29 37.08DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.06 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 0.83666 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.06 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 1.30384 5 0.00 20.00 0.00 20.00 60.00 17.14 26.97DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.16 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4755-002 Total Enrollment: 15
Section Title: Design VII-Systems & Context Course Level: All
Instructor: DANIEL BUTKO Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.46154 5 0.77625 13 0.00 0.00 15.38 23.08 61.54 54.55 58.14DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.28 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.07692 5 1.18754 13 7.69 0.00 15.38 30.77 46.15 33.33 36.05DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.03 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
DANIEL BUTKO
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.53846 5 0.87706 13 0.00 7.69 0.00 23.08 69.23 68.57 66.29DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.29 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.53846 5 0.66023 13 0.00 0.00 7.69 30.77 61.54 74.29 68.54DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.37 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.38462 5 0.76795 13 0.00 0.00 15.38 30.77 53.85 34.29 42.70DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.05 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4970-005 / ARCH 6133-001 Total Enrollment: 7
Section Title: Sustainable Design Analytics Course Level: All
Instructor: Lee Fithian Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 81.82 84.88DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.65 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 69.70 70.93DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.49 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Lee Fithian
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.40000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 40.00 45.71 50.56DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.15 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 82.86 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.61 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 77.14 76.40DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.51 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4970-900 / ARCH 5970-900 Total Enrollment: 16
Section Title: Fabrication & the Digital City Course Level: All
Instructor: Deborah Richards Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.21429 5 0.97496 14 0.00 7.14 14.29 28.57 50.00 36.36 40.70DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.01 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 5 0.93761 14 0.00 7.14 7.14 21.43 64.29 54.55 56.98DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.32 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Deborah Richards
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 5 1.09945 14 0.00 14.29 7.14 28.57 50.00 20.00 28.09DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.12 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.35714 5 0.84190 14 0.00 0.00 21.43 21.43 57.14 48.57 56.18DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.20 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.38462 5 0.65044 13 0.00 0.00 7.69 46.15 46.15 34.29 42.70DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.05 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 4970-901 / ARCH 5970-901 / EN D 4893-001 Total Enrollment: 19
Section Title: Historic Buildings of Oklahoma Course Level: All
Instructor: Ronald Frantz Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.76471 5 0.43724 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.53 76.47 75.76 79.07DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.61 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.64706 5 0.60634 17 0.00 0.00 5.88 23.53 70.59 72.73 73.26DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.54 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Ronald Frantz
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.76471 5 0.56230 17 0.00 0.00 5.88 11.76 82.35 80.00 78.65DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.53 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.87500 5 0.34157 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 88.57 88.76DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.68 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.88235 5 0.48507 17 0.00 0.00 5.88 0.00 94.12 85.71 83.15DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.61 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5143-001 Total Enrollment: 5
Section Title: Architectural History Course Level: All
Instructor: Nickolas Harm Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 5 1.22474 5 0.00 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 21.21 25.58DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.40000 4 1.14018 5 0.00 20.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 9.09 6.98DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.71 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Nickolas Harm
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 4 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 34.29 37.08DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.06 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 0.83666 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.06 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 60.00 60.67DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.29 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5516-001 Total Enrollment: 6
Section Title: Graduate Arch Design I Course Level: All
Instructor: Anthony Cricchio Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.40825 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 84.85 86.05DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.69 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.40825 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 81.82 86.05DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.73 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Anthony Cricchio
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.54772 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 60.00 62.92DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.25 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.40825 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 85.71 86.52DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.64 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.40825 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 80.00 78.65DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.55 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5536-001 Total Enrollment: 5
Section Title: Grad Architectural Design III Course Level: All
Instructor: David Boeck Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.70711 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 21.21 25.58DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 5 1.22474 5 0.00 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 30.30 32.56DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.11 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
David Boeck
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 4 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 34.29 37.08DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.06 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 0.83666 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.06 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 60.00 60.67DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.29 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5743-980 Total Enrollment: 4
Section Title: Legal Framework for Design Course Level: All
Instructor: Ronald Chandler Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.87 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Ronald Chandler
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5922-001 Total Enrollment: 45
Section Title: Methods IX Course Level: All
Instructor: Marjorie Callahan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.24242 4 0.83030 33 0.00 3.03 15.15 36.36 45.45 39.39 43.02DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.05 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.31250 4 0.73780 32 0.00 0.00 15.63 37.50 46.88 45.46 53.49DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.21 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Marjorie Callahan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.53125 5 0.71772 32 0.00 3.13 3.13 31.25 62.50 65.71 65.17DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.29 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.18182 4 0.80834 33 0.00 3.03 15.15 42.42 39.39 31.43 42.70DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.04 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.48485 5 0.71244 33 0.00 0.00 12.12 27.27 60.61 42.86 48.32DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.16 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5955-002 Total Enrollment: 14
Section Title: Design IX Course Level: All
Instructor: Lee Fithian Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 1.29099 4 0.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 9.09 8.14DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.76 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 1.29099 4 0.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 15.15 13.95DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.61 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Lee Fithian
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.75000 2 1.50000 4 0.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 2.86 3.37DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.58 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 2.25000 2 1.89297 4 50.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 2.86 3.37DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -1.73 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 1.82574 4 25.00 25.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 2.86 3.37DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -1.50 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5955-003 Total Enrollment: 15
Section Title: Design IX Course Level: All
Instructor: Nickolas Harm Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.12500 3 1.24642 8 12.50 12.50 37.50 25.00 12.50 6.06 2.33DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -1.17 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.37500 4 0.74402 8 0.00 12.50 37.50 50.00 0.00 6.06 5.81DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.74 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Nickolas Harm
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.25000 4 1.28174 8 12.50 12.50 25.00 37.50 12.50 5.71 10.11DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.06 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.37500 4 1.18773 8 12.50 0.00 37.50 37.50 12.50 8.57 17.98DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.69 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.37500 4 1.30247 8 12.50 12.50 12.50 50.00 12.50 5.71 6.74DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -1.08 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 5960-018 Total Enrollment: 2
Section Title: Directed Readings Course Level: All
Instructor: Marjorie Callahan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.87 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Marjorie Callahan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 6680-980 Total Enrollment: 3
Section Title: Advanced Arch Design III Course Level: All
Instructor: Shawn Schaefer Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 66.67 67.44DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.32 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 60.61 62.79DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.39 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Shawn Schaefer
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 60.00 62.92DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.25 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 68.57 66.29DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.34 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 48.57 51.69DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.18 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 6690-980 Total Enrollment: 6
Section Title: Professional Project Course Level: All
Instructor: Shawn Schaefer Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.87 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Shawn Schaefer
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: ARCH 6990-018 Total Enrollment: 2
Section Title: Special Studies Course Level: All
Instructor: Marjorie Callahan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.22303 4 0.93839 547 0.91 6.22 11.15 33.09 48.63COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.87 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.09725 4 1.01083 545 2.02 7.34 12.48 35.23 42.94COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Marjorie Callahan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.35198 5 0.86617 733 1.09 4.50 6.00 34.92 53.48COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.30506 5 0.93558 731 1.92 3.28 11.76 28.45 54.58COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.37108 5 0.84694 733 1.23 2.18 10.23 30.97 55.39COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 1112-011 Total Enrollment: 39
Section Title: Disc-CNS 1112-010 Course Level: All
Instructor: Richard Ryan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.04762 4 1.07127 21 4.76 4.76 9.52 42.86 38.10 55.56 26.74DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.17 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 4 1.15470 21 9.52 0.00 28.57 38.10 23.81 33.33 17.44DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.44 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Richard Ryan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.23810 5 1.09109 21 0.00 14.29 4.76 23.81 57.14 73.68 40.45DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.02 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.04762 4 1.07127 21 4.76 4.76 9.52 42.86 38.10 57.90 32.58DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.08 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 5 0.87014 21 0.00 4.76 9.52 23.81 61.90 84.21 44.94DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.10 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 2714-001 Total Enrollment: 34
Section Title: Materials & Methods I Course Level: All
Instructor: Rick Skaggs Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.64706 4 1.27187 17 5.88 17.65 11.76 35.29 29.41 22.22 10.47DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.60 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 1.31656 16 12.50 6.25 25.00 31.25 25.00 22.22 13.95DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.61 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Rick Skaggs
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.29412 4 1.31171 17 11.76 17.65 17.65 35.29 17.65 21.05 12.36DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.01 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 2.93750 3 1.43614 16 25.00 12.50 18.75 31.25 12.50 21.05 8.99DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -1.10 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.47059 4 1.28051 17 5.88 23.53 11.76 35.29 23.53 15.79 7.87DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.97 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 3103-010 Total Enrollment: 19
Section Title: Construction Surveying Course Level: All
Instructor: Matthew Reyes Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.16667 4 0.75277 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 50.00 33.33 72.22 38.37DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.04 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.16667 5 0.98319 6 0.00 0.00 33.33 16.67 50.00 77.78 43.02DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.06 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Matthew Reyes
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.81650 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 78.95 44.94DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.08 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 84.21 78.65DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.49 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.81650 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 68.42 35.96DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.01 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 3103-011 Total Enrollment: 19
Section Title: Lab-CNS 3103-010 Course Level: All
Instructor: Matthew Reyes Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.57735 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 88.89 67.44DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.32 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 94.44 82.56DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.65 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Matthew Reyes
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 89.47 77.53DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.51 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 89.47 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.56 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 89.47 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.46 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 3123-001 Total Enrollment: 25
Section Title: Statics/Strengths Materials Course Level: All
Instructor: Lisa Holliday Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.70711 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 50.00 37.50 83.33 45.35DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.05 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.12500 4 0.64087 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 62.50 25.00 61.11 38.37DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.02 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Lisa Holliday
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.12500 4 0.99103 8 0.00 12.50 0.00 50.00 37.50 52.63 25.84DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.14 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.70711 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 50.00 37.50 73.68 49.44DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.11 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.70711 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 50.00 37.50 57.90 30.34DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.10 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 3433-900 Total Enrollment: 19
Section Title: Mech/Elect/Plumb Systems I Course Level: All
Instructor: Anthony Perrenoud Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.93541 17 0.00 11.76 5.88 52.94 29.41 50.00 25.58DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.93541 17 0.00 5.88 23.53 35.29 35.29 50.00 32.56DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.11 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Anthony Perrenoud
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.23529 5 0.83137 17 0.00 0.00 23.53 29.41 47.06 68.42 39.33DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.02 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.23529 5 0.97014 17 0.00 5.88 17.65 23.53 52.94 68.42 48.32DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.09 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.35294 5 0.78591 17 0.00 0.00 17.65 29.41 52.94 73.68 37.08DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.01 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 3512-001 Total Enrollment: 24
Section Title: Cost Estimating Course Level: All
Instructor: Somik Ghosh Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.75378 12 0.00 0.00 16.67 41.67 41.67 83.33 45.35DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.05 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.18182 4 0.75076 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 45.45 36.36 83.33 45.35DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.07 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Somik Ghosh
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.91667 4 0.66856 12 0.00 0.00 25.00 58.33 16.67 42.11 20.23DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.36 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 1.08711 12 8.33 0.00 41.67 33.33 16.67 47.37 20.23DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.58 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.77850 12 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 68.42 35.96DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.01 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 3612-001 Total Enrollment: 19
Section Title: Project Controls Lab I Course Level: All
Instructor: Somik Ghosh Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.87500 5 1.55265 8 12.50 12.50 0.00 25.00 50.00 33.33 12.79DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.35 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.30931 8 12.50 0.00 0.00 50.00 37.50 50.00 32.56DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.11 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Somik Ghosh
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.37500 4 1.30247 8 12.50 12.50 12.50 50.00 12.50 26.32 13.48DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.92 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.37500 4 1.40789 8 12.50 12.50 25.00 25.00 25.00 36.84 17.98DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.69 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.87500 4 1.35620 8 12.50 0.00 12.50 37.50 37.50 26.32 12.36DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.52 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 3812-001 Total Enrollment: 23
Section Title: Project Planning & Scheduling Course Level: All
Instructor: Somik Ghosh Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.81650 16 0.00 0.00 31.25 37.50 31.25 50.00 25.58DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.06250 4 0.85391 16 0.00 6.25 12.50 50.00 31.25 55.56 33.72DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.05 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Somik Ghosh
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.89443 16 0.00 6.25 18.75 43.75 31.25 47.37 21.35DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.27 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.37500 3 1.08781 16 6.25 6.25 50.00 18.75 18.75 36.84 17.98DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.69 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.37500 5 0.71880 16 0.00 0.00 12.50 37.50 50.00 78.95 40.45DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.04 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 4112-900 Total Enrollment: 20
Section Title: Understanding Design Services Course Level: All
Instructors: Tamera Mc Cuen / Charles Graham Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.15385 3 0.80064 13 0.00 23.08 38.46 38.46 0.00 5.56 3.49DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -1.14 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.07692 3 0.75955 13 0.00 23.08 46.15 30.77 0.00 5.56 2.33DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -1.04 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Charles Graham
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 0.00000 0DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 0.00000 0DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 0.00000 0DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 4113-001 Total Enrollment: 16
Section Title: Structures II Course Level: All
Instructor: Lisa Holliday Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 4 0.62158 12 0.00 8.33 8.33 83.33 0.00 27.78 11.63DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.49 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.60302 12 0.00 0.00 16.67 66.67 16.67 50.00 32.56DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.11 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Lisa Holliday
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.16667 4 0.38925 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.33 16.67 57.90 30.34DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.10 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.91667 4 0.79296 12 0.00 0.00 33.33 41.67 25.00 52.63 26.97DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.20 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.16667 4 0.57735 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 66.67 25.00 42.11 23.60DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.19 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 4523-001 Total Enrollment: 21
Section Title: Pre-Construction Services Course Level: All
Instructor: Anthony Perrenoud Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.13333 4 0.51640 15 0.00 0.00 6.67 73.33 20.00 66.67 36.05DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.07 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.13333 4 0.63994 15 0.00 0.00 13.33 60.00 26.67 66.67 39.54DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.02 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Anthony Perrenoud
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 4 1.01419 15 6.67 0.00 0.00 53.33 40.00 63.16 37.08DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.06 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.13333 4 0.99043 15 6.67 0.00 0.00 60.00 33.33 63.16 38.20DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.00 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 4 0.67612 15 0.00 0.00 13.33 53.33 33.33 47.37 26.97DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.16 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 4613-900 Total Enrollment: 20
Section Title: Soils and Foundations Course Level: All
Instructor: Nasir Marakah Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.08333 4 0.90034 12 0.00 8.33 8.33 50.00 33.33 61.11 29.07DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.13 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.16667 4 0.57735 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 66.67 25.00 77.78 43.02DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.06 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Nasir Marakah
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.67420 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 33.33 58.33 84.21 62.92DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.25 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.77850 12 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 78.95 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.18 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.62158 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 58.33 33.33 57.90 30.34DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.10 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 5003-900 Total Enrollment: 13
Section Title: Construction Fundamentals I Course Level: All
Instructor: Doyle Phillips Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 100.00 81.40DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.63 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 100.00 83.72DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.67 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Doyle Phillips
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.88889 5 0.33333 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 88.89 94.74 89.89DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.69 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: CNS 5203-900 Total Enrollment: 9
Section Title: Trends-Building Processes Course Level: All
Instructor: Matthew Reyes Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.48795 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 94.44 77.91DEPARTMENT 3.90367 4 0.98602 218 1.83 8.72 16.51 43.12 29.82COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.56 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.48795 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 88.89 79.07DEPARTMENT 3.88889 4 0.99612 216 4.17 3.70 19.44 44.44 28.24COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.61 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Matthew Reyes
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.94495 4 1.06762 218 3.21 8.26 15.60 36.70 36.24COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.72811 4 1.23032 217 8.29 7.83 19.35 31.80 32.72COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.15596 4 0.93744 218 1.83 4.13 13.76 37.16 43.12COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 1151-001 Total Enrollment: 19
Section Title: Graphics I Course Level: All
Instructor: Mia Kile Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.56250 5 0.62915 16 0.00 0.00 6.25 31.25 62.50 53.85 69.77DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.39 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.62500 5 0.50000 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 62.50 61.54 72.09DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.52 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Mia Kile
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.62500 5 0.50000 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 62.50 61.54 70.79DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.38 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.56250 5 0.62915 16 0.00 0.00 6.25 31.25 62.50 61.54 69.66DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.39 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.44721 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 69.23 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.46 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 1151-002 Total Enrollment: 14
Section Title: Graphics I Course Level: All
Instructor: Mia Kile Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.09091 4 0.70065 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 54.55 27.27 23.08 31.40DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.12 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.18182 5 0.98165 11 0.00 9.09 9.09 36.36 45.45 38.46 45.35DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.07 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Mia Kile
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.45455 5 0.68755 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 36.36 54.55 46.15 56.18DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.20 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.09091 4 0.70065 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 54.55 27.27 46.15 34.83DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.04 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.54545 5 0.52223 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.45 54.55 38.46 53.93DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.23 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 1153-001 Total Enrollment: 20
Section Title: Design I Course Level: All
Instructor: Suchismita Bhattacharjee Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.05556 4 1.10997 18 5.56 0.00 22.22 27.78 44.44 15.39 27.91DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.16 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.94444 4 1.16175 18 5.56 5.56 16.67 33.33 38.89 15.39 22.09DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.17 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Suchismita Bhattacharjee
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.38889 5 0.97853 18 5.56 0.00 0.00 38.89 55.56 38.46 49.44DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.14 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.22222 4 1.59247 18 22.22 16.67 5.56 27.78 27.78 15.39 12.36DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.83 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.97014 18 5.56 0.00 0.00 44.44 50.00 23.08 35.96DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.01 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 1153-002 Total Enrollment: 12
Section Title: Design I Course Level: All
Instructor: Suchismita Bhattacharjee Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.90000 5 0.31623 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 90.00 92.31 91.86DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.76 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.51640 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 53.85 70.93DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.49 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Suchismita Bhattacharjee
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.42164 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 76.92 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.57 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.69921 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 69.23 73.03DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.43 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.90000 5 0.31623 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 90.00 76.92 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.63 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 2532-001 Total Enrollment: 17
Section Title: Graphics III Course Level: All
Instructor: MARY PRICE Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 5 0.53452 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.14 42.86 46.15 55.81DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.25 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.28571 4 0.48795 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.43 28.57 46.15 51.16DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.18 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
MARY PRICE
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.53452 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.86 57.14 53.85 67.42DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.33 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 5 0.78680 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 28.57 57.14 53.85 57.30DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.27 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.78680 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 14.29 71.43 53.85 56.18DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.26 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 2533-001 Total Enrollment: 17
Section Title: Design III Course Level: All
Instructor: MARY PRICE Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.87500 5 0.35355 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 84.62 89.54DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.73 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
MARY PRICE
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.37500 4 0.51755 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.50 37.50 30.77 48.32DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.12 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 5 1.58114 8 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 50.00 38.46 22.47DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.35 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.62500 5 1.06066 8 0.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 87.50 61.54 62.92DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.32 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 2763-001 Total Enrollment: 18
Section Title: Computer Applications in I D Course Level: All
Instructor: Elizabeth Pober Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.64286 5 0.49725 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.71 64.29 61.54 73.26DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.48 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.46881 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 76.92 79.07DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.61 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Elizabeth Pober
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.46881 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 69.23 75.28DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.48 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.64286 5 0.49725 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.71 64.29 76.92 75.28DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.47 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.92857 5 1.54244 14 14.29 7.14 7.14 14.29 57.14 15.39 15.73DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.46 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 3723-001 Total Enrollment: 24
Section Title: Lighting Design Course Level: All
Instructor: Hans-Peter Wachter Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.92308 4 0.95407 13 0.00 7.69 23.08 38.46 30.77 7.69 16.28DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.30 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.30769 4 1.31559 13 7.69 23.08 23.08 23.08 23.08 7.69 4.65DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.81 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Hans-Peter Wachter
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.53846 3 1.39137 13 30.77 23.08 15.38 23.08 7.69 7.69 2.25DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.80 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 1.69231 1 1.18213 13 69.23 7.69 7.69 15.38 0.00 7.69 2.25DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -2.24 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 2.92308 3 1.49786 13 23.08 15.38 30.77 7.69 23.08 7.69 2.25DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -1.58 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 3793-001 Total Enrollment: 33
Section Title: Interior Materials & Specs Course Level: All
Instructor: Natalie Ellis Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.25926 4 0.76423 27 0.00 3.70 7.41 48.15 40.74 38.46 46.51DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.06 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.07407 4 0.61556 27 0.00 0.00 14.81 62.96 22.22 30.77 34.88DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.03 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Natalie Ellis
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.03704 4 0.85402 27 0.00 3.70 22.22 40.74 33.33 23.08 22.47DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.23 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.29630 3 1.13730 27 7.41 14.81 33.33 29.63 14.81 30.77 14.61DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.77 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.55556 5 0.57735 27 0.00 0.00 3.70 37.04 59.26 46.15 55.06DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.24 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 4712-001 Total Enrollment: 15
Section Title: Interior Design Portfolio I Course Level: All
Instructor: HILLARY FULTON Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 69.23 81.40DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.63 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.50000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 69.23 75.58DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.56 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
HILLARY FULTON
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 4743-001 Total Enrollment: 14
Section Title: Institutional/Corp Design Course Level: All
Instructor: Natalie Ellis Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.12500 4 0.99103 8 0.00 12.50 0.00 50.00 37.50 30.77 34.88DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.08 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.06904 8 0.00 12.50 12.50 37.50 37.50 23.08 32.56DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.11 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Natalie Ellis
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.87500 3 1.12599 8 12.50 12.50 62.50 0.00 12.50 15.39 5.62DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.45 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.28571 3 1.38013 7 14.29 0.00 57.14 0.00 28.57 23.08 13.48DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.78 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.37500 5 0.91613 8 0.00 0.00 25.00 12.50 62.50 30.77 40.45DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.04 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 4772-001 Total Enrollment: 13
Section Title: I D Capstone (Pre-Design) Course Level: All
Instructor: Elizabeth Pober Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.87500 5 0.35355 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 84.62 89.54DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.73 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.70711 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 0.00 87.50 84.62 82.56DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.65 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Elizabeth Pober
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.87500 5 0.35355 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 84.62 88.76DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.64 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: I D 5143-900 Total Enrollment: 2
Section Title: Design Theory Analysis/Eval Course Level: All
Instructor: Hans-Peter Wachter Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.41060 5 0.77693 151 0.66 1.99 7.95 34.44 54.97COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.87 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.29139 5 0.88385 151 1.32 3.97 8.61 36.42 49.67COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Hans-Peter Wachter
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.25166 5 1.02774 151 3.97 3.31 9.27 30.46 52.98COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.84667 4 1.35477 150 11.33 6.00 14.00 24.00 44.67COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.42384 5 1.00291 151 3.97 2.65 5.96 21.85 65.56COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 4970-002 / L A 5970-002 Total Enrollment: 11
Section Title: Green Roofs Course Level: All
Instructor: Thomas Woodfin Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.53452 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.86 57.14 88.89 70.93DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.40 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.53452 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.86 57.14 88.89 66.28DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.47 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Thomas Woodfin
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 100.00 87.64DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.63 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 88.89 87.64DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.66 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 77.78 80.90DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.58 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 4970-900 / L A 5970-900 Total Enrollment: 7
Section Title: Intro to Revit Course Level: All
Instructor: Scott Williams Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 33.33 25.58DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 2.12132 2 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 22.22 13.95DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.61 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Scott Williams
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 2.82843 2 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 22.22 6.74DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.32 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.79 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 33.33 21.35DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.38 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 4970-902 Total Enrollment: 7
Section Title: Human Experience of Environ Course Level: All
Instructor: Sarah Little Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.40000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 40.00 44.44 53.49DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 1.09545 5 0.00 0.00 40.00 0.00 60.00 55.56 46.51DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.09 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Sarah Little
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 77.78 68.54DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.36 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.70711 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 55.56 31.46DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.12 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 55.56 76.40DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.51 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 5343-001 Total Enrollment: 11
Section Title: Land Arch Tech: Site Issues Course Level: All
Instructor: Leehu Loon Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.63636 5 0.50452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.36 63.64 100.00 72.09DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.47 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.45455 5 0.93420 11 0.00 9.09 0.00 27.27 63.64 66.67 58.14DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.35 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Leehu Loon
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.45455 5 0.82020 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 18.18 63.64 44.44 56.18DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.20 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.63636 5 0.67420 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 18.18 72.73 77.78 74.16DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.46 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.81818 5 0.60302 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 0.00 90.91 66.67 77.53DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.53 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 5402-900 Total Enrollment: 2
Section Title: Res Methods Landscape Arch Course Level: All
Instructor: Guoqiang Shen Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 66.67 67.44DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.32 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 44.44 32.56DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.11 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Guoqiang Shen
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 66.67 62.92DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.25 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 55.56 31.46DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.12 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 5513-001 Total Enrollment: 11
Section Title: Land Arch Drawing & Graphics Course Level: All
Instructor: Scott Williams Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 1.35401 10 10.00 10.00 30.00 20.00 30.00 11.11 8.14DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.76 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.30000 4 1.56702 10 20.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 30.00 11.11 3.49DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.81 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Scott Williams
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.80000 3 1.39841 10 20.00 30.00 10.00 30.00 10.00 11.11 4.49DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -1.53 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 2.90000 3 1.59513 10 20.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 30.00 22.22 7.87DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -1.13 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.30000 3 0.94868 10 0.00 20.00 40.00 30.00 10.00 11.11 4.49DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -1.16 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 5515-001 Total Enrollment: 9
Section Title: L A Intro Graduate Studio I Course Level: All
Instructor: Sarah Little Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.88889 4 0.78174 9 0.00 0.00 33.33 44.44 22.22 22.22 13.95DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.34 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 4 1.11803 9 0.00 22.22 11.11 44.44 22.22 33.33 17.44DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.44 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Sarah Little
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.77778 4 1.09291 9 0.00 11.11 33.33 22.22 33.33 33.33 19.10DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.50 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 2.77778 3 1.20185 9 22.22 11.11 33.33 33.33 0.00 11.11 5.62DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -1.24 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 9 0.00 11.11 11.11 44.44 33.33 33.33 21.35DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.38 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 5535-001 Total Enrollment: 2
Section Title: L A Interm Graduate Studio III Course Level: All
Instructor: Thomas Woodfin Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 66.67 67.44DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.32 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Thomas Woodfin
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 66.67 62.92DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.25 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 55.56 31.46DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.12 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: L A 5713-001 Total Enrollment: 10
Section Title: Plant Material & Technology Course Level: All
Instructor: David Edwards Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.55556 5 0.52705 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 55.56 77.78 68.61DEPARTMENT 4.24561 4 0.87179 57 1.75 1.75 12.28 38.60 45.61COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.38 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.55556 5 0.52705 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 55.56 77.78 65.12DEPARTMENT 4.10526 4 1.11298 57 3.51 8.77 8.77 31.58 47.37COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.45 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
David Edwards
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 88.89 80.90DEPARTMENT 4.12281 5 1.18126 57 5.26 7.02 10.53 24.56 52.63COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.54 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.22222 5 1.09291 9 0.00 11.11 11.11 22.22 55.56 66.67 47.19DEPARTMENT 3.91228 4 1.27168 57 7.02 8.77 15.79 22.81 45.61COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.08 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.44444 5 0.72648 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 33.33 55.56 44.44 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.35088 5 0.91595 57 0.00 5.26 14.04 21.05 59.65COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.12 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: PDC 6003-001 Total Enrollment: 5
Section Title: History/Phil-Plan/Design/Const Course Level: All
Instructor: Charles Warnken Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.87 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Charles Warnken
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 100.00 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.57 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 100.00 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.61 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 100.00 76.40DEPARTMENT 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.51 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 4003-001 / RCPL 5003-001 / GEOG 4003-001 / GEOG 5003-001 Total Enrollment: 16
Section Title: Global City & Planning Issues Course Level: All
Instructor: Dawn Jourdan Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.38462 5 0.86972 13 0.00 7.69 0.00 38.46 53.85 50.00 51.16DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.20 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.23077 4 0.83205 13 0.00 7.69 0.00 53.85 38.46 41.67 48.84DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.12 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Dawn Jourdan
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.30769 5 1.18213 13 7.69 0.00 7.69 23.08 61.54 41.67 41.57DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.05 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.84615 4 1.21423 13 7.69 0.00 30.77 23.08 38.46 16.67 24.72DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.26 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.53846 5 0.51887 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.15 53.85 50.00 52.81DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.22 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5013-001 / P SC 5013-001 / SOC 5013-001 Total Enrollment: 19
Section Title: History & Theory of Urban Plan Course Level: All
Instructor: Kathleen Wieters Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.06904 15 6.67 0.00 13.33 46.67 33.33 16.67 25.58DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.19523 15 6.67 6.67 6.67 40.00 40.00 16.67 32.56DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.11 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Kathleen Wieters
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.06667 5 1.27988 15 6.67 6.67 13.33 20.00 53.33 16.67 23.60DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.20 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.06667 5 1.27988 15 6.67 6.67 13.33 20.00 53.33 33.33 33.71DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.06 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.86667 4 1.18723 15 6.67 6.67 13.33 40.00 33.33 8.33 11.24DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.53 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5113-900 Total Enrollment: 22
Section Title: Urban Planning Research Method Course Level: All
Instructor: Guoqiang Shen Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.08696 4 0.73318 23 0.00 0.00 21.74 47.83 30.43 25.00 30.23DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.12 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 3.91304 4 1.08347 23 4.35 4.35 21.74 34.78 34.78 8.33 20.93DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.20 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Guoqiang Shen
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.21739 4 0.85048 23 0.00 4.35 13.04 39.13 43.48 33.33 38.20DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.04 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.30435 5 0.87567 23 0.00 4.35 13.04 30.43 52.17 41.67 51.69DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.16 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.17391 4 0.77765 23 0.00 4.35 8.70 52.17 34.78 33.33 24.72DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.19 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5353-900 / P SC 5353-900 Total Enrollment: 7
Section Title: State & Local Public Finance Course Level: All
Instructor: Fernando Costa Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.57735 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 66.67 67.44DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.32 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 75.00 82.56DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.65 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Fernando Costa
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.78 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 83.33 78.65DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.49 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 75.00 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.46 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5463-001 Total Enrollment: 18
Section Title: GIS for Land Use Planning Course Level: All
Instructor: Bryce Lowery Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.68750 5 0.47871 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.25 68.75 75.00 74.42DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.53 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.47059 5 0.79982 17 0.00 5.88 0.00 35.29 58.82 50.00 59.30DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.36 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Bryce Lowery
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.35294 5 1.05719 17 5.88 0.00 5.88 29.41 58.82 50.00 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.10 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.64706 5 0.60634 17 0.00 0.00 5.88 23.53 70.59 75.00 76.40DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.47 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.64706 5 0.99632 17 5.88 0.00 0.00 11.76 82.35 58.33 64.05DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.34 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5493-001 / CEES 5493-001 Total Enrollment: 14
Section Title: Transportation & Land Develop Course Level: All
Instructor: Kathleen Wieters Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.23077 5 0.92681 13 0.00 7.69 7.69 38.46 46.15 33.33 41.86DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.03 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.23077 4 0.83205 13 0.00 7.69 0.00 53.85 38.46 41.67 48.84DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.12 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Kathleen Wieters
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.15385 4 0.68874 13 0.00 0.00 15.38 53.85 30.77 25.00 29.21DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.11 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.92308 4 0.95407 13 0.00 7.69 23.08 38.46 30.77 25.00 28.09DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.19 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.92308 4 1.18754 13 0.00 23.08 0.00 38.46 38.46 25.00 14.61DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.47 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5523-001 Total Enrollment: 8
Section Title: Comp RCPL: Research & Plan Course Level: All
Instructor: John Harris Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.81650 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 41.67 48.84DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.14 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.54772 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 58.33 62.79DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.39 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
John Harris
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 66.67 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.43 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.81650 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 50.00 53.93DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.18 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.81650 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 0.00 83.33 66.67 66.29DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.37 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5713-900 Total Enrollment: 12
Section Title: Urban Econ Develop Planning Course Level: All
Instructor: Guoqiang Shen Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 3.91667 4 0.90034 12 0.00 8.33 16.67 50.00 25.00 8.33 15.12DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 -0.31 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.09091 5 1.04447 11 0.00 9.09 18.18 27.27 45.45 25.00 37.21DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 -0.02 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Guoqiang Shen
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 4 1.13818 12 0.00 16.67 25.00 25.00 33.33 8.33 17.98DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 -0.53 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 4 1.35680 12 8.33 16.67 0.00 41.67 33.33 8.33 22.47DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 -0.35 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.91667 4 1.08362 12 8.33 0.00 8.33 58.33 25.00 16.67 13.48DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 -0.47 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5970-001 Total Enrollment: 8
Section Title: Infrastructure Planning Course Level: All
Instructor: John Harris Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 83.33 84.88DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.65 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 83.33 84.88DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.70 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
John Harris
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 91.67 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.57 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 100.00 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.61 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 5970-900 Total Enrollment: 9
Section Title: Water Planning Course Level: All
Instructor: James Collard Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.87500 5 0.35355 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 91.67 89.54DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.73 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.87500 5 0.35355 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 91.67 88.37DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.77 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
James Collard
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.46291 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 75.00 77.53DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.51 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.46291 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 91.67 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.56 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.87500 5 0.35355 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 87.50 83.33 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.60 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 6520-002 Total Enrollment: 2
Section Title: Field Studies Course Level: All
Instructor: Kathleen Wieters Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.87 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.90 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Kathleen Wieters
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 58.33 62.92DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.25 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 58.33 66.29DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.34 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 41.67 51.69DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.18 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2015College of Architecture
Course: RCPL 6643-900 / L A 6643-900 / ARCH 6643-900 Total Enrollment: 8
Section Title: Urban Design Theory Course Level: All
Instructor: Bryce Lowery Section Size: All
Question LevelMean
ResponseMedian
ResponseStandardDeviation
ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning
INDIVIDUAL 4.40000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 40.00 58.33 53.49DEPARTMENT 4.31967 4 0.80562 122 0.82 2.46 9.02 39.34 48.36COLLEGE 4.20091 4 0.92218 0.22 1,100 1.09 5.45 11.55 36.09 45.82
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development
INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 66.67 70.93DEPARTMENT 4.28689 5 0.91344 122 1.64 4.92 6.56 36.89 50.00COLLEGE 4.10858 4 0.99316 0.49 1,096 2.37 5.93 12.41 37.04 42.24
Bryce Lowery
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 91.67 85.39DEPARTMENT 4.30894 5 0.95067 123 2.44 3.25 9.76 30.08 54.47COLLEGE 4.25874 5 0.95580 0.57 1,287 2.10 4.97 8.55 33.72 50.66
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.
INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.89443 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 80.00 66.67 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.25410 5 0.99221 122 2.46 4.10 12.30 27.87 53.28COLLEGE 4.13339 4 1.09152 0.43 1,282 4.37 4.68 13.49 28.16 49.30
21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.34959 5 0.93198 123 2.44 4.07 4.88 33.33 55.28COLLEGE 4.33955 5 0.89522 0.74 1,287 1.71 2.87 9.95 30.69 54.78
Response Key
2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity for learning 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced my learning and development 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments, exams, etc. 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
21. Instructor provided for student consultation 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
Page 1 of 1
Related Documents
