eValuate Report (Public) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1133-900 Total Enrollment: 72

Section Title: Intro to Building Technology 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 4.29412 4 0.81146 68 1.47 1.47 8.82 42.65 45.59 50.00 47.19DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.12 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.16418 4 0.82750 67 0.00 4.48 13.43 43.28 38.81 40.91 35.96DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.03 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

DANIEL BUTKO

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.66176 5 0.61354 68 0.00 1.47 2.94 23.53 72.06 66.67 63.54DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.45 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.58209 5 0.63124 67 0.00 0.00 7.46 26.87 65.67 64.58 61.46DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.45 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.37313 5 0.73517 67 0.00 1.49 10.45 37.31 50.75 42.55 42.11DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.02 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1254-001 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Design and Graphics Studio II Course Level: All

Instructor: Thomas Cline 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 0.75593 8 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.12500 5 1.12599 8 0.00 12.50 12.50 25.00 50.00 38.64 33.71DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.01 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Cline

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 4 1.03510 8 0.00 12.50 25.00 37.50 25.00 16.67 17.71DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.42 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 0.92582 8 0.00 12.50 37.50 37.50 12.50 14.58 15.63DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.48 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.70711 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 50.00 37.50 34.04 34.74DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.12 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1254-002 Total Enrollment: 5

Section Title: Design and Graphics Studio II Course Level: All

Instructor: Thomas Cline 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 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 22.73 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Cline

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 22.92 23.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 2.00000 2 0.00000 1 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 2.08DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 1.77 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 12.77 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1254-003 Total Enrollment: 5

Section Title: Design and Graphics Studio II Course Level: All

Instructor: Thomas Cline 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 1.00000 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 22.73 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Cline

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 22.92 23.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 3 1.15470 3 0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 33.33 20.83 19.79DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.33 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1254-004 Total Enrollment: 20

Section Title: Design and Graphics Studio II Course Level: All

Instructor: Thomas Cline 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 4.35714 5 0.74495 14 0.00 0.00 14.29 35.71 50.00 54.55 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.18 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.21429 4 0.80178 14 0.00 0.00 21.43 35.71 42.86 43.18 38.20DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.08 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Cline

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 4 0.77033 14 0.00 0.00 21.43 42.86 35.71 41.67 36.46DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.04 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.92857 4 0.91687 14 0.00 7.14 21.43 42.86 28.57 29.17 30.21DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.11 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 5 0.75593 14 0.00 0.00 14.29 28.57 57.14 46.81 44.21DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.09 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1254-005 Total Enrollment: 19

Section Title: Design and Graphics Studio II Course Level: All

Instructor: Thomas Cline 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 4.70000 5 0.67495 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 80.00 84.09 74.16DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.54 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.88889 5 0.33333 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 88.89 84.09 80.90DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.75 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Cline

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.52705 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 54.17 48.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 75.00 70.83DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.56 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.42164 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 68.09 71.58DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.50 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2233-001 Total Enrollment: 42

Section Title: Architectural Structures I Course Level: All

Instructor: I-Kwang Chang 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 3.46875 3 1.16354 32 9.38 3.13 40.63 25.00 21.88 6.82 10.11DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.75 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.19355 3 1.37645 31 19.35 6.45 29.03 25.81 19.35 4.55 5.62DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.93 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

I-Kwang Chang

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.54839 4 1.33763 31 12.90 6.45 22.58 29.03 29.03 14.58 13.54DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.61 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.29032 3 1.32145 31 9.68 22.58 19.35 25.81 22.58 12.50 14.58DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.66 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.93333 4 1.14269 30 3.33 10.00 16.67 30.00 40.00 10.64 11.58DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.47 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2343-001 Total Enrollment: 58

Section Title: History-Built Environment II 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 3.72973 4 1.01786 37 2.70 10.81 18.92 45.95 21.62 9.09 12.36DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.48 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.75676 4 1.03831 37 5.41 2.70 27.03 40.54 24.32 11.36 13.48DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.38 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Catherine Barrett

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.02703 4 1.09256 37 5.41 5.41 8.11 43.24 37.84 35.42 32.29DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.15 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.24324 5 0.98334 37 0.00 8.11 13.51 24.32 54.05 47.92 45.83DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.16 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.10811 4 0.84274 37 0.00 5.41 13.51 45.95 35.14 25.53 26.32DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.28 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2454-001 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Studio IV 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 4.25000 4 0.62158 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 58.33 33.33 47.73 43.82DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.07 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.41667 5 0.66856 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 41.67 50.00 52.27 49.44DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.28 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Anthony Cricchio

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.08333 4 0.51493 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 75.00 16.67 37.50 33.33DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.10 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.90909 4 0.94388 11 0.00 9.09 18.18 45.45 27.27 27.08 29.17DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.12 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.77850 12 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 40.43 38.95DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.02 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2454-002 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Studio IV Course Level: All

Instructor: Geoff Parker 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 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 30.00 60.00 59.09 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.33 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 30.00 60.00 54.55 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Geoff Parker

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.51640 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 64.58 61.46DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.40 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 66.67 62.50DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.47 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 63.83 61.05DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.39 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2454-003 Total Enrollment: 12

Section Title: Studio IV 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 4.72727 5 0.64667 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 9.09 81.82 86.36 76.41DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.57 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.63636 5 0.67420 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 18.18 72.73 68.18 64.05DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.50 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Nickolas Harm

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.81818 4 1.25045 11 9.09 0.00 27.27 27.27 36.36 20.83 20.83DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.35 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 11 0.00 9.09 18.18 36.36 36.36 31.25 31.25DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.18182 5 1.16775 11 0.00 18.18 0.00 27.27 54.55 29.79 30.53DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.19 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 3654-001 Total Enrollment: 12

Section Title: Studio VI 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 90.91 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 77.27 75.28DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.64 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Stephanie Pilat

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 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 77.08 76.04DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.62 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 3654-002 Total Enrollment: 10

Section Title: Studio VI Course Level: All

Instructor: Bob Fillpot 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 0.89443 6 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.83666 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 16.67 66.67 54.55 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Bob Fillpot

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 54.17 48.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 56.25 55.21DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.38 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.40825 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 72.34 74.74DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.54 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4013-900 Total Enrollment: 11

Section Title: Workplace CAD Course Level: All

Instructor: Joel Dietrich 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 59.09 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.33 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.57735 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 54.55 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Joel Dietrich

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 75.00 71.88DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.54 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4183-900 Total Enrollment: 26

Section Title: Survey of Middle Eastern Arch 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 4.33333 5 0.81650 15 0.00 0.00 20.00 26.67 53.33 52.27 48.32DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.16 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.40000 5 0.73679 15 0.00 0.00 13.33 33.33 53.33 47.73 47.19DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.26 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Khosrow Bozorgi

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.13333 4 0.91548 15 0.00 6.67 13.33 40.00 40.00 39.58 35.42DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.05 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.26667 4 1.53375 15 20.00 13.33 13.33 26.67 26.67 10.42 13.54DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.68 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.06667 4 1.16292 15 6.67 0.00 20.00 26.67 46.67 23.40 24.21DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.32 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4353-900 Total Enrollment: 21

Section Title: LEED Seminar 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 4.22222 4 0.66667 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 55.56 33.33 45.46 40.45DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.04 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.88889 4 1.05409 9 0.00 11.11 22.22 33.33 33.33 18.18 20.23DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.25 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

John Yowell

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.70711 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 50.00 37.50 45.83 40.63DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.06 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.55556 5 0.52705 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 55.56 62.50 59.38DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.43 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.66667 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 0.00 88.89 65.96 67.37DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.48 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4433-900 Total Enrollment: 29

Section Title: Rendering 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 4.63636 5 0.50452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.36 63.64 72.73 66.29DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.48 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.72727 5 0.64667 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 9.09 81.82 75.00 71.91DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.59 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

David Boeck

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 77.08 72.92DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.59 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.40000 5 0.84327 10 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 60.00 54.17 54.17DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.30 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.63636 5 0.67420 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 18.18 72.73 53.19 51.58DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.32 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4733-001 Total Enrollment: 30

Section Title: Architectural Structures III Course Level: All

Instructor: I-Kwang Chang 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 2.87500 3 1.08781 16 12.50 25.00 25.00 37.50 0.00 2.27 1.12DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 1.38 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 2.50000 3 1.26491 16 31.25 18.75 18.75 31.25 0.00 0.00 0.00DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 1.62 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

I-Kwang Chang

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.81250 3 1.16726 16 18.75 18.75 25.00 37.50 0.00 2.08 3.13DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.31 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 2.66667 3 1.23443 15 26.67 13.33 26.67 33.33 0.00 4.17 5.21DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 1.20 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.12500 4 0.71880 16 0.00 0.00 18.75 50.00 31.25 27.66 28.42DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.26 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4754-001 Total Enrollment: 11

Section Title: Studio VII 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 3.87500 4 0.99103 8 0.00 12.50 12.50 50.00 25.00 13.64 15.73DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.32 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.87500 4 0.99103 8 0.00 12.50 12.50 50.00 25.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.26 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

David Boeck

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.12500 4 1.12599 8 12.50 12.50 25.00 50.00 0.00 8.33 10.42DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.01 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 1.06904 8 12.50 12.50 37.50 37.50 0.00 6.25 8.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.91 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 0.75593 8 0.00 12.50 25.00 62.50 0.00 2.13 1.05DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.96 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4754-002 Total Enrollment: 9

Section Title: Studio VII Course Level: All

Instructor: Eren Erdener 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 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 22.73 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Eren Erdener

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 2.12132 2 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 10.42 11.46DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.66 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 2.12132 2 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 14.58 15.63DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.48 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 12.77 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4833-900 Total Enrollment: 32

Section Title: Environmental Controls II Course Level: All

Instructor: Donald Carter 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 4.54545 5 0.68755 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 27.27 63.64 68.18 61.80DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.38 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.54545 5 0.68755 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 27.27 63.64 63.64 58.43DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.41 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Donald Carter

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.81818 5 0.40452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.18 81.82 81.25 77.08DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.60 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.90000 5 0.31623 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 90.00 79.17 80.21DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.73 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.63636 5 0.67420 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 18.18 72.73 53.19 51.58DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.32 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4833-901 Total Enrollment: 24

Section Title: Environmental Controls II Course Level: All

Instructor: Ik-Seong Joo 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 4.07692 4 0.75955 13 0.00 0.00 23.08 46.15 30.77 38.64 33.71DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.11 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.92308 4 0.64051 13 0.00 0.00 23.08 61.54 15.38 20.46 22.47DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.21 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Ik-Seong Joo

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.53846 5 0.51887 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.15 53.85 62.50 59.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.34 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.23077 4 0.72501 13 0.00 0.00 15.38 46.15 38.46 45.83 44.79DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.15 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.41667 5 0.66856 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 41.67 50.00 44.68 43.16DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.07 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4854-001 Total Enrollment: 17

Section Title: Studio VIII 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 3.37500 4 1.59799 8 12.50 25.00 12.50 12.50 37.50 4.55 5.62DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.85 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.55556 4 1.50923 9 11.11 22.22 0.00 33.33 33.33 6.82 8.99DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.58 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Nickolas Harm

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.55556 3 1.42400 9 33.33 11.11 33.33 11.11 11.11 0.00 2.08DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.56 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 1.55556 1 1.33333 9 77.78 11.11 0.00 0.00 11.11 0.00 0.00DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 2.15 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 1.77778 1 1.09291 9 55.56 22.22 11.11 11.11 0.00 0.00 0.00DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 2.91 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4960-002 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Directed Readings Course Level: All

Instructor: Tamera Mc Cuen 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 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 86.36 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Tamera Mc Cuen

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 31.25 31.25DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4960-005 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Directed Readings 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 90.91 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 86.36 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

David Boeck

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 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4960-015 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Directed Readings 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 90.91 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 86.36 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

DANIEL BUTKO

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 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4960-016 Total Enrollment: 3

Section Title: Directed Readings Course Level: All

Instructor: Thomas Cline 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 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 22.73 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Cline

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 22.92 23.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 56.25 55.21DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.38 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4960-023 Total Enrollment: 3

Section Title: Directed Readings Course Level: All

Instructor: Blair Humphreys 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 59.09 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.33 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 54.55 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Blair Humphreys

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 22.92 23.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 31.25 31.25DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 12.77 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4970-001 Total Enrollment: 15

Section Title: IQC Community Work Course Level: All

Instructors: Blair Humphreys / 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 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 88.64 80.90DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.71 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 81.82 79.78DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.72 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Blair Humphreys

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.83666 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 16.67 66.67 54.17 48.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 68.75 65.63DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.53 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.83666 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 16.67 66.67 48.94 46.32DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.17 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Ronald Frantz

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.40825 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 83.33 78.13DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.62 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4970-015 Total Enrollment: 8

Section Title: Politics & Architecture 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 4.20000 4 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 20.00 40.91 38.20DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.02 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.40000 4 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 40.00 47.73 47.19DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.26 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Stephanie Pilat

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4970-900 Total Enrollment: 6

Section Title: Money, Memory and Meaning 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 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 75.00 67.42DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.51 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 70.46 65.17DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.53 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Catherine Barrett

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 47.92 41.67DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.14 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 68.75 65.63DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.53 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 57.45 53.68DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.35 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4970-905 Total Enrollment: 7

Section Title: Acoustics in Architecture 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 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 70.46 62.92DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.44 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 79.55 76.41DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.66 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

DANIEL BUTKO

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 77.08 72.92DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.59 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.44721 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 68.09 71.58DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.50 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5055-001 Total Enrollment: 15

Section Title: Studio X 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 4.20000 4 0.78881 10 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 40.91 38.20DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.02 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.80000 4 0.78881 10 0.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 13.64 15.73DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.33 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Khosrow Bozorgi

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.80000 4 1.13529 10 0.00 20.00 10.00 40.00 30.00 18.75 19.79DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.37 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.10000 4 0.73786 10 0.00 0.00 20.00 50.00 30.00 41.67 40.63DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.04 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 4 0.63246 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 60.00 30.00 31.92 32.63DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.17 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5055-002 Total Enrollment: 15

Section Title: Studio X 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 4.36364 5 1.02691 11 0.00 9.09 9.09 18.18 63.64 56.82 51.69DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.54545 5 1.03573 11 0.00 9.09 9.09 0.00 81.82 63.64 58.43DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.41 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Hans Butzer

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.90909 3 1.57826 11 27.27 18.18 9.09 27.27 18.18 4.17 5.21DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.22 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.20000 5 1.39841 10 10.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 70.00 43.75 43.75DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.13 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.54545 4 1.29334 11 9.09 9.09 27.27 27.27 27.27 6.38 3.16DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.91 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5263-001 Total Enrollment: 41

Section Title: Professional Practice II 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 3.76471 4 1.01679 34 0.00 11.76 29.41 29.41 29.41 11.36 13.48DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.44 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.67647 4 1.03633 34 2.94 8.82 29.41 35.29 23.53 9.09 12.36DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.46 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Marjorie Callahan

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.20588 4 0.91385 34 2.94 0.00 14.71 38.24 44.12 43.75 39.58DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.02 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 1.37620 34 11.76 11.76 23.53 20.59 32.35 14.58 15.63DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.48 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.32353 5 0.84282 34 0.00 0.00 23.53 20.59 55.88 38.30 37.90DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.03 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5546-001 Total Enrollment: 3

Section Title: Grad Architectural Design IV Course Level: All

Instructors: Lee Fithian / 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 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 75.00 67.42DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.51 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 70.46 65.17DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.53 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lee Fithian

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 54.17 48.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 31.25 31.25DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 48.94 46.32DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.17 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Marjorie Callahan

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 68.75 64.58DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.46 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 1.15470 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 52.08 50.00DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.24 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 57.45 53.68DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.35 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5763-980 Total Enrollment: 9

Section Title: Landscape Arch for Architects Course Level: All

Instructor: Gregory Warren 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 2.75000 3 1.25831 4 25.00 0.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 1.51 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 2.50000 3 1.73205 4 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 1.62 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Gregory Warren

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 1.29099 4 0.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 10.42 11.46DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.66 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 5 0.95743 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 46.88DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.17 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 5 0.95743 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 34.04 34.74DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.12 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5970-001 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: IQC Community Work Course Level: All

Instructors: Blair Humphreys / 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 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 22.73 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Blair Humphreys

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 6.25DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.13 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 6.25 8.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.91 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 12.77 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Ronald Frantz

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.41421 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 22.92 23.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 31.25 31.25DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.50000 4 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 2.13 1.05DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.96 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5990-981 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Special Studies in Arch Course Level: All

Instructor: Showa Omabegho 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 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 86.36 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Showa Omabegho

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 0.00000 0DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6233-001 Total Enrollment: 5

Section Title: Sustainable Technology 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 90.91 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 86.36 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lee Fithian

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 68.75 64.58DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.46 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6243-001 Total Enrollment: 5

Section Title: Research Methods & Programming Course Level: All

Instructor: Eren Erdener 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 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 75.00 67.42DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.51 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 22.73 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Eren Erdener

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 68.75 64.58DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.46 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 5 2.30940 3 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 20.83 19.79DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.33 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 5 2.30940 3 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 8.51 4.21DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.78 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6256-001 Total Enrollment: 4

Section Title: Graduate Studio II Course Level: All

Instructors: Lee Fithian / 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 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 90.91 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 86.36 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lee Fithian

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 1.15470 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 0.00 66.67 47.92 41.67DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.14 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 68.75 65.63DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.53 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 57.45 53.68DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.35 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Marjorie Callahan

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 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6456-001 Total Enrollment: 8

Section Title: Graduate Studio IV 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 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 75.00 67.42DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.51 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 45.46 40.45DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.20 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lee Fithian

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 47.92 41.67DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.14 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 0.00 20.83 19.79DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.33 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 12.77 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6680-980 Total Enrollment: 2

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 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 15.91 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 22.73 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Shawn Schaefer

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 22.92 23.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 81.25 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6690-980 Total Enrollment: 4

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 4.50000 5 0.70711 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 59.09 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.33 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 86.36 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Shawn Schaefer

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 85.42 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 56.25 55.21DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.38 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 74.47 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 1212-010 Total Enrollment: 25

Section Title: Computers in Construction Course Level: All

Instructor: Tamera Mc Cuen 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 0.41039 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 77.78 79.78DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.65 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.60698 20 0.00 0.00 5.00 40.00 55.00 44.44 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Tamera Mc Cuen

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.35000 5 0.87509 20 0.00 5.00 10.00 30.00 55.00 27.78 46.88DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.16 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.15000 5 1.13671 20 0.00 15.00 10.00 20.00 55.00 22.22 42.71DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.08 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.45000 5 0.82558 20 0.00 5.00 5.00 30.00 60.00 33.33 45.26DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.11 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 1212-011 Total Enrollment: 25

Section Title: Lab-CNS 1212-010 Course Level: All

Instructor: Tamera Mc Cuen 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 4.90909 5 0.30151 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 90.91 83.33 83.15DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.76 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.72727 5 0.64667 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 9.09 81.82 72.22 71.91DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.59 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Tamera Mc Cuen

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.45455 5 1.03573 11 0.00 9.09 9.09 9.09 72.73 33.33 47.92DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.26 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.90909 5 0.30151 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.09 90.91 88.89 82.29DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.74 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.72727 5 0.90453 11 0.00 9.09 0.00 0.00 90.91 66.67 64.21DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.42 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 2812-001 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Construction Fundamentals Lab 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 88.89 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 83.33 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lisa Holliday

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 66.67 72.92DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.59 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.54772 5 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 50.00 62.50DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.47 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 88.89 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 2813-001 Total Enrollment: 16

Section Title: Construct Docs/Quantity Survey 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 4.66667 5 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 55.56 67.42DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.51 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 83.33 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lisa Holliday

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.40825 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 72.22 78.13DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.62 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 55.56 65.63DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.53 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 44.44 53.68DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.35 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 3223-001 Total Enrollment: 35

Section Title: Structures I 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 4.50000 5 0.70711 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 30.00 60.00 38.89 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.33 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.69921 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 55.56 61.80DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.46 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lisa Holliday

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.90000 5 0.31623 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 90.00 88.89 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.68 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.90000 5 0.31623 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 90.00 83.33 80.21DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.73 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.70711 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 11.11 77.78 44.44 53.68DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.35 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 3821-001 Total Enrollment: 32

Section Title: Project Controls Lab II 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 4.71429 5 0.48795 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 61.11 75.28DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.56 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 66.67 70.79DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.57 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Richard Ryan

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 77.78 80.21DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.64 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 77.78 79.17DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.69 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.85714 5 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 83.33 75.79DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.57 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 3823-001 Total Enrollment: 32

Section Title: Project Mgt and Controls 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 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 72.22 78.65DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.62 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.70711 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 11.11 77.78 61.11 65.17DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.53 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Richard Ryan

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 83.33 81.25DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.66 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 72.22 76.04DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.62 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 77.78 67.37DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.48 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 4153-900 Total Enrollment: 21

Section Title: Legal Issues-Constr Course Level: All

Instructor: Robert Magrini 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 0.94388 11 0.00 0.00 36.36 18.18 45.45 27.78 34.83DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.10 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.36364 5 0.80904 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 27.27 54.55 38.89 44.94DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.23 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Robert Magrini

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.72727 5 0.64667 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 9.09 81.82 61.11 69.79DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.52 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.36364 5 0.80904 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 27.27 54.55 38.89 53.13DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.27 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.09091 4 0.94388 11 0.00 0.00 36.36 18.18 45.45 22.22 25.26DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.30 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 4842-001 Total Enrollment: 10

Section Title: Leadership Construct Industry Course Level: All

Instructor: Kenneth Robson 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 3.77778 4 1.09291 9 0.00 11.11 33.33 22.22 33.33 5.56 14.61DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.43 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.77778 4 0.97183 9 0.00 11.11 22.22 44.44 22.22 11.11 14.61DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Kenneth Robson

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.88889 4 1.05409 9 0.00 11.11 22.22 33.33 33.33 5.56 22.92DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.28 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 4 1.22474 9 11.11 0.00 22.22 44.44 22.22 5.56 19.79DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.33 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 4 1.00000 9 0.00 11.11 33.33 33.33 22.22 0.00 4.21DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.78 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 4852-900 Total Enrollment: 3

Section Title: Heavy-Civil Contruction Mgt Course Level: All

Instructor: Dominique Pittenger 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 88.89 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 83.33 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Dominique Pittenger

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 94.44 84.38DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 94.44 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 88.89 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 4862-900 Total Enrollment: 5

Section Title: Residential Construction Course Level: All

Instructor: William Mc Manus 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 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 16.67 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 4 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 25.00 22.22 39.33DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.11 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

William Mc Manus

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 22.22 41.67DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.14 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 27.78 50.00DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.24 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 44.44 53.68DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.35 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 4881-001 Total Enrollment: 19

Section Title: Construction Safety Management 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 3.91667 4 0.66856 12 0.00 0.00 25.00 58.33 16.67 11.11 16.85DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.28 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.63636 4 1.12006 11 9.09 0.00 27.27 45.45 18.18 5.56 10.11DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.50 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Matthew Reyes

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 38.89 48.96DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.65134 12 0.00 0.00 8.33 50.00 41.67 27.78 50.00DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.24 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 0.77850 12 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 27.78 38.95DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.02 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 4993-001 Total Enrollment: 19

Section Title: Construction Science Capstone Course Level: All

Instructor: Tamera Mc Cuen 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 1.34450 13 15.38 7.69 46.15 7.69 23.08 0.00 3.37DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 1.08 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.15385 3 1.34450 13 15.38 7.69 46.15 7.69 23.08 0.00 4.49DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.97 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Tamera Mc Cuen

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.83333 3 1.26730 12 16.67 25.00 25.00 25.00 8.33 0.00 4.17DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.29 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 2.92308 3 1.38212 13 23.08 7.69 38.46 15.38 15.38 0.00 7.29DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.97 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.91667 4 0.99620 12 0.00 8.33 25.00 33.33 33.33 5.56 10.53DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.49 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 5523-900 Total Enrollment: 10

Section Title: Design-Build Contracting Course Level: All

Instructor: Bryan Bloom 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 0.54772 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 38.89 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.33 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 27.78 40.45DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.20 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Bryan Bloom

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 38.89 48.96DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 44.44 55.21DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.38 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 44.44 53.68DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.35 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 5613-900 Total Enrollment: 8

Section Title: Info Tech App for Construction Course Level: All

Instructor: Tamera Mc Cuen 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 0.89443 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 60.00 33.33 52.81DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.23 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 77.78 76.41DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.66 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Tamera Mc Cuen

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 16.67 38.54DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.01 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.80000 4 0.83666 5 0.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 11.11 26.04DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.22 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.22474 5 0.00 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 11.11 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 5623-900 Total Enrollment: 12

Section Title: Constr Contracts & Finances Course Level: All

Instructor: William Mc Manus 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 0.75593 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 25.00 62.50 38.89 53.93DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.33 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.75593 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 25.00 62.50 44.44 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

William Mc Manus

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.75593 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 25.00 62.50 38.89 48.96DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.70711 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 0.00 87.50 61.11 72.92DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.60 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.62500 5 0.74402 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 12.50 75.00 38.89 50.53DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.31 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 5960-005 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Directed Readings Course Level: All

Instructor: Tamera Mc Cuen 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 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 16.67 19.10DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 16.67 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.14 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Tamera Mc Cuen

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 11.11 23.96DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 16.67 31.25DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 11.11 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 5970-900 Total Enrollment: 3

Section Title: Residential Construction Course Level: All

Instructor: William Mc Manus 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 88.89 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 83.33 82.02DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

William Mc Manus

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 94.44 84.38DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 94.44 83.33DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 88.89 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: CNS 5970-901 Total Enrollment: 4

Section Title: Heavy Civil Course Level: All

Instructor: Dominique Pittenger 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 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 66.67 77.53DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.59 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 27.78 40.45DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.20 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Dominique Pittenger

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 1.00000 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 75.00 38.89 48.96DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 61.11 72.92DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.60 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 72.22 65.26DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.45 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 1254-001 Total Enrollment: 7

Section Title: Design and Graphics Studio II Course Level: All

Instructor: Jill Croka 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 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 88.89 65.17DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.53 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Jill Croka

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 81.82 64.58DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.46 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 72.73 31.25DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 9.09 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 1254-002 Total Enrollment: 21

Section Title: Design and Graphics Studio II Course Level: All

Instructor: Jill Croka 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 4.66667 5 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 88.89 67.42DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.51 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 83.33 100.00 78.65DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.69 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Jill Croka

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.50000 3 1.37840 6 33.33 16.67 16.67 33.33 0.00 0.00 1.04DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.61 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 1.83333 2 0.75277 6 33.33 50.00 16.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 1.91 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 5 1.26491 6 0.00 16.67 16.67 16.67 50.00 9.09 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 2544-001 Total Enrollment: 23

Section Title: Architect Design/Human Factors Course Level: All

Instructor: Janet Biddick 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 66.67 43.82DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.07 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 55.56 33.71DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.01 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Janet Biddick

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.62500 4 1.06066 8 0.00 12.50 37.50 25.00 25.00 36.36 16.67DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.54 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.62500 4 1.06066 8 0.00 12.50 37.50 25.00 25.00 45.46 18.75DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.37 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.12500 5 1.12599 8 0.00 12.50 12.50 25.00 50.00 36.36 28.42DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.26 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 2773-001 Total Enrollment: 23

Section Title: Interior Construction 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 3.93750 4 1.12361 16 6.25 0.00 25.00 31.25 37.50 33.33 17.98DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.26 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.94118 4 0.89935 17 0.00 11.76 5.88 58.82 23.53 44.44 23.60DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.19 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Hans-Peter Wachter

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.17647 5 1.07444 17 0.00 11.76 11.76 23.53 52.94 72.73 37.50DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.01 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.23529 4 1.25147 17 11.76 17.65 17.65 41.18 11.76 36.36 12.50DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.71 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.11765 4 0.85749 17 0.00 5.88 11.76 47.06 35.29 27.27 27.37DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.27 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 2783-001 Total Enrollment: 25

Section Title: Interior Materials & Specs Course Level: All

Instructor: Janet Biddick 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 3.42857 4 1.27242 7 14.29 0.00 28.57 42.86 14.29 11.11 6.74DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.79 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.42857 4 1.27242 7 14.29 0.00 28.57 42.86 14.29 11.11 7.87DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.70 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Janet Biddick

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.85714 4 1.21499 7 0.00 14.29 28.57 14.29 42.86 54.55 21.88DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.31 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 54.55 27.08DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.17 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.28571 5 0.95119 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 14.29 57.14 63.64 36.84DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.08 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 3223-001 Total Enrollment: 24

Section Title: Advanced Computer Applications Course Level: All

Instructors: Elizabeth Pober / 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 4.60000 5 0.51640 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 60.00 77.78 62.92DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.44 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 77.78 61.80DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.46 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Elizabeth Pober

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 90.91 68.75DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.49 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 100.00 70.83DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.56 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 90.91 61.05DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.39 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Mia Kile

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.60000 4 1.07497 10 10.00 0.00 20.00 60.00 10.00 27.27 15.63DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.56 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.90000 4 0.87560 10 0.00 0.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 63.64 28.13DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.13 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.77778 4 0.97183 9 0.00 11.11 22.22 44.44 22.22 0.00 9.47DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.65 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 3734-001 Total Enrollment: 12

Section Title: Design III: Commercial 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 4.22222 4 0.66667 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 55.56 33.33 55.56 40.45DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.04 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.88889 4 0.78174 9 0.00 0.00 33.33 44.44 22.22 33.33 20.23DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.25 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Hans-Peter Wachter

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.11111 3 1.16667 9 11.11 11.11 44.44 22.22 11.11 18.18 9.38DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.03 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 2.55556 2 1.33333 9 22.22 33.33 22.22 11.11 11.11 18.18 4.17DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 1.29 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.70711 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 44.44 44.44 72.73 38.95DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.02 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 3743-001 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Construct Drawing & Detailing Course Level: All

Instructor: Christina Hoehn 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 3.33333 4 1.41421 9 22.22 0.00 11.11 55.56 11.11 0.00 4.49DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.89 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.33333 4 1.22474 9 11.11 11.11 22.22 44.44 11.11 0.00 6.74DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.80 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Christina Hoehn

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.77778 4 1.09291 9 0.00 22.22 0.00 55.56 22.22 45.46 18.75DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.39 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.11111 3 1.26930 9 11.11 22.22 22.22 33.33 11.11 27.27 11.46DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.55556 5 0.52705 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 55.56 81.82 48.42DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.23 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 3763-001 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Int Design Hist-19th/20th Cent Course Level: All

Instructors: Elizabeth Pober / 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 4.18182 4 0.40452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.82 18.18 44.44 37.08DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.00 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.18182 4 0.40452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.82 18.18 66.67 37.08DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.05 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Elizabeth Pober

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.72727 5 0.46710 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.27 72.73 100.00 69.79DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.52 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.63636 5 0.50452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.36 63.64 90.91 64.58DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.50 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.81818 5 0.40452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.18 81.82 100.00 73.68DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.53 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Mia Kile

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.09091 4 0.70065 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 54.55 27.27 63.64 34.38DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.09 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.09091 4 1.13618 11 9.09 0.00 0.00 54.55 36.36 81.82 39.58DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.03 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.18182 4 0.75076 11 0.00 0.00 18.18 45.45 36.36 45.46 30.53DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.19 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: I D 4776-001 Total Enrollment: 18

Section Title: Interior Design V Course Level: All

Instructor: Christina Hoehn 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 3.66667 3 0.86603 9 0.00 0.00 55.56 22.22 22.22 22.22 11.24DEPARTMENT 3.76000 4 1.33441 125 9.60 11.20 12.00 28.00 39.20COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.54 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 4 1.00000 9 0.00 11.11 33.33 33.33 22.22 22.22 11.24DEPARTMENT 3.62097 4 1.47385 124 16.13 9.68 8.06 28.23 37.90COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.47 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Christina Hoehn

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 1.11803 9 0.00 44.44 22.22 22.22 11.11 9.09 6.25DEPARTMENT 3.63571 4 1.30968 140 10.71 10.71 13.57 34.29 30.71COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.13 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 2.33333 2 1.41421 9 33.33 33.33 11.11 11.11 11.11 9.09 3.13DEPARTMENT 3.62143 4 1.38579 140 12.86 10.00 14.29 27.86 35.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 1.48 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.22222 4 0.83333 9 0.00 0.00 22.22 33.33 44.44 54.55 33.68DEPARTMENT 4.03521 4 1.13245 142 4.93 4.23 19.72 24.65 46.48COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.15 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: L A 5243-001 Total Enrollment: 10

Section Title: Land Arch Tech: Mats/Construct 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 4.22222 4 0.97183 9 0.00 11.11 0.00 44.44 44.44 33.33 40.45DEPARTMENT 3.90000 4 1.07115 20 0.00 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.04 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.70711 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 44.44 44.44 33.33 40.45DEPARTMENT 4.00000 4 0.88192 19 0.00 5.26 21.05 42.11 31.58COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.20 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Leehu Loon

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.62500 5 0.74402 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 12.50 75.00 57.14 62.50DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.42 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.55556 5 0.88192 9 0.00 0.00 22.22 0.00 77.78 57.14 59.38DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.43 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.44096 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.22 77.78 57.14 67.37DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.48 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: L A 5525-001 Total Enrollment: 7

Section Title: L A Intro Graduate Studio II Course Level: All

Instructors: Scott Williams / 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 3.42857 3 0.97590 7 0.00 14.29 42.86 28.57 14.29 0.00 6.74DEPARTMENT 3.90000 4 1.07115 20 0.00 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.79 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.85714 4 1.21499 7 0.00 14.29 28.57 14.29 42.86 16.67 17.98DEPARTMENT 4.00000 4 0.88192 19 0.00 5.26 21.05 42.11 31.58COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.28 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Scott Williams

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.57143 4 1.39728 7 14.29 0.00 28.57 28.57 28.57 0.00 14.58DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.59 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.71429 3 1.25357 7 0.00 14.29 42.86 0.00 42.86 14.29 25.00DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.29 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.71429 4 1.38013 7 0.00 28.57 14.29 14.29 42.86 0.00 6.32DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.72 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Leehu Loon

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.81650 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 42.86 28.57 14.29 23.96DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.18 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 4 0.89974 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 28.57 42.86 42.86 41.67DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.08 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.48795 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 28.57 63.16DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.41 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: L A 5545-001 Total Enrollment: 5

Section Title: L A Interm Grad Studio IV 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 83.33 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.90000 4 1.07115 20 0.00 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 66.67 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.00000 4 0.88192 19 0.00 5.26 21.05 42.11 31.58COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Leehu Loon

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.71 84.38DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.71 83.33DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.71 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: L A 5924-001 Total Enrollment: 9

Section Title: Planting Design Course Level: All

Instructor: Reid Coffman 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 5 0.88641 8 0.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 43.82DEPARTMENT 3.90000 4 1.07115 20 0.00 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.07 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.37500 4 0.51755 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.50 37.50 50.00 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.00000 4 0.88192 19 0.00 5.26 21.05 42.11 31.58COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.24 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Reid Coffman

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.75593 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 25.00 62.50 42.86 48.96DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.75593 8 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 28.57 31.25DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.05 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.46291 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 42.86 65.26DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.45 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: L A 5943-001 Total Enrollment: 11

Section Title: History & Theory-Lndscp Arch 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 4.62500 5 0.51755 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 62.50 66.67 65.17DEPARTMENT 3.90000 4 1.07115 20 0.00 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.46 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 66.67 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.00000 4 0.88192 19 0.00 5.26 21.05 42.11 31.58COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Woodfin

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.88889 5 0.33333 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.11 88.89 71.43 82.29DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.67 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.50000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 71.43 65.63DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.53 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.77778 5 0.66667 9 0.00 0.00 11.11 0.00 88.89 57.14 67.37DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.48 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: L A 5950-001 Total Enrollment: 4

Section Title: Graduate Project Proposal 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 83.33 84.27DEPARTMENT 3.90000 4 1.07115 20 0.00 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 66.67 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.00000 4 0.88192 19 0.00 5.26 21.05 42.11 31.58COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Thomas Woodfin

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 85.71 84.38DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 85.71 83.33DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 85.71 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: L A 6970-900 Total Enrollment: 9

Section Title: Exterior Lighting Design 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 4.16667 4 0.75277 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 50.00 33.33 16.67 35.96DEPARTMENT 3.90000 4 1.07115 20 0.00 15.00 15.00 35.00 35.00COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.02 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.83333 4 0.98319 6 0.00 16.67 0.00 66.67 16.67 0.00 16.85DEPARTMENT 4.00000 4 0.88192 19 0.00 5.26 21.05 42.11 31.58COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.30 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Scott Williams

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.51640 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 28.57 41.67DEPARTMENT 3.75000 4 1.29269 20 0.00 25.00 20.00 10.00 45.00COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.14 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.66667 4 1.50555 6 16.67 0.00 16.67 33.33 33.33 0.00 19.79DEPARTMENT 4.25000 5 1.01955 20 0.00 10.00 10.00 25.00 55.00COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.33 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.70711 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 14.29 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.55000 5 0.75915 20 0.00 5.00 0.00 30.00 65.00COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5053-900 Total Enrollment: 8

Section Title: Planning Management 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 4.00000 4 0.81650 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 19.10DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.19 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.57735 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 25.00 50.56DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.36 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Fernando Costa

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.57735 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 25.00 48.96DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.30 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 5 0.95743 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 46.88DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.17 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 4 1.25831 4 0.00 25.00 0.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 7.37DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.68 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5173-001 / ECON 5173-001 Total Enrollment: 10

Section Title: Urban and Regional Analysis 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 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 62.50 84.27DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.46291 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 62.50 74.16DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.61 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Charles Warnken

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 62.50 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 50.00 72.92DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.60 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5203-001 / SOC 5203-001 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Urban Land Use Controls 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 4.90000 5 0.31623 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 90.00 50.00 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.75 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 50.00 69.66DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.56 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Charles Warnken

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 50.00 72.92DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.59 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.80000 5 0.42164 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 62.50 78.13DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.64 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5463-900 Total Enrollment: 9

Section Title: Computer Mapping & Gis In Plan 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 3.42857 4 1.51186 7 14.29 14.29 14.29 28.57 28.57 12.50 6.74DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.79 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 1.52753 7 28.57 0.00 28.57 28.57 14.29 12.50 3.37DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 1.13 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Guoqiang Shen

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.42857 2 1.61835 7 42.86 14.29 14.29 14.29 14.29 0.00 0.00DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.68 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 2.85714 2 1.21499 7 0.00 57.14 14.29 14.29 14.29 0.00 6.25DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 1.03 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.81650 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 42.86 28.57 25.00 12.63DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.40 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5513-001 Total Enrollment: 8

Section Title: Subdivision & Planned Unit Dev 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 4.33333 5 0.81650 6 0.00 0.00 16.67 33.33 50.00 37.50 48.32DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.16 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 37.50 60.67DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.43 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Kathleen Wieters

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.78680 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 14.29 71.43 37.50 60.42DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.37 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 4.28571 4 0.75593 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 42.86 42.86 37.50 48.96DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.20 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.53452 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.86 57.14 37.50 49.47DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.25 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5653-900 / ARCH 5653-900 Total Enrollment: 4

Section Title: Urban Design Seminar 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 3.00000 3 0.81650 4 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 2.25DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 1.24 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 2.50000 3 0.57735 4 0.00 50.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 1.62 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Guoqiang Shen

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 0.81650 4 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 12.50 6.25DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 1.13 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 3.00000 3 0.81650 4 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 12.50 8.33DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.91 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 4 1.25831 4 0.00 25.00 0.00 50.00 25.00 0.00 7.37DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.68 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5960-003 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Directed Readings 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 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 62.50 84.27DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 75.00 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Charles Warnken

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 62.50 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 75.00 83.33DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5960-004 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Directed Readings 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 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 62.50 84.27DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

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 75.00 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Kathleen Wieters

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 62.50 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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 75.00 83.33DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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) - Spring 2012College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 6520-003 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Field Studies 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 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 62.50 84.27DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.86 1,015 4.93 7.88 15.57 31.03 40.59

9. The course provided an appropriate challenge which enhanced mylearning and development

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 75.00 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.86 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Charles Warnken

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 62.50 84.38DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.78 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

17. Instructor provided clear objectives for projects, assignments,exams, etc.

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 75.00 83.33DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.81 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 76.84DEPARTMENT 4.46032 5 0.79971 63 1.59 1.59 4.76 33.33 58.73COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.73 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

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