eValuate Report (Public) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: RCPL 5353-900 / P SC 5353-900 Total Enrollment: 15

Section Title: State & Local Public Finance Course Level: All

Instructor: Fernando Costa Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.16667 5 0.98319 6 0.00 0.00 33.33 16.67 50.00 25.00 35.29DEPARTMENT 4.38462 4 0.70027 65 0.00 1.54 7.69 41.54 49.23COLLEGE 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 4.16667 5 1.16905 6 0.00 16.67 0.00 33.33 50.00 18.75 42.35DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.78201 65 0.00 3.08 9.23 35.38 52.31COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.09 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Fernando Costa

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 5 1.21106 6 0.00 16.67 0.00 16.67 66.67 11.76 42.70DEPARTMENT 4.66154 5 0.53843 65 0.00 0.00 3.08 27.69 69.23COLLEGE 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 4.40000 5 1.34164 5 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 29.41 60.67DEPARTMENT 4.36923 5 0.87624 65 0.00 6.15 7.69 29.23 56.92COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.32 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.54772 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 23.53 44.94DEPARTMENT 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1112-001 / CNS 1112-010 / I D 1112-001 Total Enrollment: 118

Section Title: Cultures of Collaborating Course Level: All

Instructors: Hans Butzer / Kenneth Robson / Mia Kile Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 3.56566 4 1.15318 99 7.07 13.13 15.15 45.45 19.19 6.90 8.24DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 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 3.31633 4 1.26489 98 10.20 19.39 17.35 34.69 18.37 6.90 8.24DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.74 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Hans Butzer

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.90909 4 0.95928 99 4.04 1.01 23.23 43.43 28.28 18.75 22.47DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.24 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 3.96939 4 1.10718 98 3.06 12.24 7.14 39.80 37.76 31.25 26.97DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.07 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.95960 4 1.05868 99 3.03 6.06 21.21 31.31 38.38 12.50 12.36DEPARTMENT 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

Kenneth Robson

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.78788 4 1.02293 99 4.04 6.06 22.22 42.42 25.25 12.50 17.98DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.36 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 3.69697 4 0.98410 99 3.03 10.10 19.19 49.49 18.18 15.63 15.73DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.32 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.73469 4 1.01078 98 4.08 5.10 27.55 39.80 23.47 9.38 8.99DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.55 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Mia Kile

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.69697 4 0.99442 99 3.03 8.08 26.26 41.41 21.21 6.25 14.61DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.44 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 3.68367 4 1.02139 98 3.06 11.22 20.41 44.90 20.41 12.50 14.61DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.34 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.55102 4 1.02668 98 4.08 9.18 32.65 35.71 18.37 6.25 4.49DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.75 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1121-001 Total Enrollment: 36

Section Title: Methods I - Intro-Creating Course Level: All

Instructor: Hans Butzer Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.29630 5 0.99285 27 3.70 0.00 14.81 25.93 55.56 37.93 42.35DEPARTMENT 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 4.22222 5 1.05003 27 3.70 3.70 11.11 29.63 51.85 48.28 47.06DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.15 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Hans Butzer

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.59259 5 0.79707 27 0.00 3.70 7.41 14.81 74.07 71.88 64.04DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.44 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.25926 4 0.85901 27 0.00 3.70 14.81 33.33 48.15 59.38 50.56DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.19 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.59259 5 0.69389 27 0.00 0.00 11.11 18.52 70.37 68.75 51.69DEPARTMENT 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1154-001 Total Enrollment: 13

Section Title: Design I - Fundamentals Course Level: All

Instructor: Robert Pavilk Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.78680 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 14.29 71.43 68.97 65.88DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.40 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 4.14286 4 0.89974 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 28.57 42.86 41.38 38.82DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.07 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Robert Pavilk

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.28571 5 0.95119 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 14.29 57.14 43.75 39.33DEPARTMENT 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 4.28571 5 0.95119 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 14.29 57.14 62.50 52.81DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.21 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.57143 5 0.78680 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 14.29 71.43 65.63 49.44DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.33 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 1154-002 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Design I - Fundamentals 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 4.70000 5 0.48305 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 70.00 89.66 80.00DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.53 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 0.42164 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 80.00 89.66 81.18DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.71 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Nickolas Harm

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.60000 5 0.69921 10 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 70.00 75.00 65.17DEPARTMENT 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 4.40000 5 0.84327 10 0.00 0.00 20.00 20.00 60.00 78.13 60.67DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.32 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 87.50 77.53DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2243-001 Total Enrollment: 95

Section Title: History of Arch I Course Level: All

Instructor: Catherine Barrett Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 3.90909 4 1.13748 44 4.55 6.82 20.45 29.55 38.64 13.79 15.29DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.29 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 3.75000 4 1.08102 44 6.82 4.55 18.18 47.73 22.73 10.34 16.47DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.31 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Catherine Barrett

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.04654 43 2.33 9.30 11.63 39.53 37.21 31.25 32.58DEPARTMENT 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 3.93182 4 1.18905 44 9.09 2.27 11.36 40.91 36.36 28.13 25.84DEPARTMENT 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 4.20455 4 0.79474 44 0.00 4.55 9.09 47.73 38.64 31.25 24.72DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.06 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2323-001 Total Enrollment: 59

Section Title: Methods III-Design Analytics Course Level: All

Instructor: Robert Pavilk Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.61290 5 0.49514 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.71 61.29 72.41 68.24DEPARTMENT 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 4.51613 5 0.56985 31 0.00 0.00 3.23 41.94 54.84 75.86 67.06DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.44 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Robert Pavilk

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.70968 5 0.46141 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.03 70.97 84.38 74.16DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.55 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.54839 5 0.56796 31 0.00 0.00 3.23 38.71 58.06 81.25 65.17DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.46 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.51613 5 0.56985 31 0.00 0.00 3.23 41.94 54.84 59.38 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2354-001 Total Enrollment: 18

Section Title: Design III-Crafting Place Course Level: All

Instructor: Anthony Cricchio Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.45455 5 0.68755 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 36.36 54.55 58.62 58.82DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 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 4.09091 4 0.94388 11 0.00 9.09 9.09 45.45 36.36 24.14 32.94DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.02 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Anthony Cricchio

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.18322 11 9.09 0.00 9.09 45.45 36.36 31.25 32.58DEPARTMENT 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 3.72727 4 1.19087 11 0.00 18.18 27.27 18.18 36.36 18.75 16.85DEPARTMENT 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 4.54545 5 0.68755 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 27.27 63.64 62.50 48.31DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 2354-002 Total Enrollment: 14

Section Title: Design III-Crafting Place 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 4.14286 4 0.69007 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 57.14 28.57 27.59 34.12DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.05 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 4.14286 4 0.69007 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 57.14 28.57 41.38 38.82DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.07 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Geoff Parker

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.85714 4 0.37796 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 85.71 0.00 15.63 20.22DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.29 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 0.69007 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 57.14 28.57 53.13 42.70DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 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 4.00000 4 0.81650 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 42.86 28.57 18.75 16.85DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 3013-001 Total Enrollment: 79

Section Title: Architecture for Non-Majors Course Level: All

Instructor: David Boeck Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.17143 4 1.04278 35 2.86 5.71 11.43 31.43 48.57 31.03 36.47DEPARTMENT 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 4.13889 5 1.09942 36 2.78 5.56 19.44 19.44 52.78 31.03 35.29DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.07 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

David Boeck

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.84515 36 0.00 5.56 5.56 22.22 66.67 68.75 59.55DEPARTMENT 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 3.83333 4 1.18322 36 2.78 11.11 27.78 16.67 41.67 25.00 23.60DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 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 4.38889 5 0.87105 36 0.00 2.78 16.67 19.44 61.11 43.75 33.71DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.14 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 3555-001 Total Enrollment: 17

Section Title: Design V-Arch Making I 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 4.64286 5 0.63332 14 0.00 0.00 7.14 21.43 71.43 82.76 71.76DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.47 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 4.64286 5 0.49725 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.71 64.29 86.21 74.12DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.56 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Stephanie Pilat

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.46881 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 71.43 87.50 75.28DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 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 4.78571 5 0.57893 14 0.00 0.00 7.14 7.14 85.71 87.50 79.78DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.67 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.78571 5 0.57893 14 0.00 0.00 7.14 7.14 85.71 84.38 74.16DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.56 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 3555-002 Total Enrollment: 16

Section Title: Design V-Arch Making I Course Level: All

Instructor: John Yowell Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 1.06904 8 0.00 12.50 0.00 12.50 75.00 62.07 60.00DEPARTMENT 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 4.62500 5 0.74402 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 12.50 75.00 82.76 72.94DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.54 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

John Yowell

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 1.06904 8 0.00 12.50 0.00 12.50 75.00 68.75 59.55DEPARTMENT 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 4.12500 4 0.64087 8 0.00 0.00 12.50 62.50 25.00 50.00 41.57DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.07 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.12500 5 1.64208 8 12.50 12.50 0.00 0.00 75.00 21.88 19.10DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.14 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4133-001 / ARCH 5133-001 Total Enrollment: 33

Section Title: Architectural Structures I Course Level: All

Instructor: Shideh Shadravan Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.40741 4 0.63605 27 0.00 0.00 7.41 44.44 48.15 48.28 55.29DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 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 4.34615 5 0.84580 26 0.00 3.85 11.54 30.77 53.85 55.17 56.47DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.27 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Shideh Shadravan

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.44444 5 0.75107 27 0.00 0.00 14.81 25.93 59.26 59.38 49.44DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.29 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.07407 5 1.10683 27 0.00 11.11 22.22 14.81 51.85 46.88 39.33DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.02 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.96296 5 0.19245 27 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 96.30 90.63 82.02DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.74 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4333-001 / ARCH 5333-001 Total Enrollment: 45

Section Title: Advanced Structures Course Level: All

Instructor: Shideh Shadravan Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.12195 4 0.81225 41 0.00 2.44 19.51 41.46 36.59 24.14 30.59DEPARTMENT 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 3.82927 4 0.97217 41 0.00 14.63 12.20 48.78 24.39 13.79 18.82DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.24 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Shideh Shadravan

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.09756 4 1.01992 41 0.00 12.20 9.76 34.15 43.90 34.38 33.71DEPARTMENT 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 3.56098 4 1.22574 41 7.32 12.20 24.39 29.27 26.83 6.25 10.11DEPARTMENT 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 4.39024 5 1.02172 41 2.44 4.88 9.76 17.07 65.85 46.88 34.83DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.14 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4453-001 / ARCH 5453-001 Total Enrollment: 51

Section Title: Modern & Contemporary Arch Course Level: All

Instructor: Stephanie Pilat Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.43243 5 0.68882 37 0.00 0.00 10.81 35.14 54.05 55.17 57.65DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 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 4.45946 5 0.69100 37 0.00 0.00 10.81 32.43 56.76 65.52 63.53DEPARTMENT 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

Stephanie Pilat

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.88889 5 0.39841 36 0.00 0.00 2.78 5.56 91.67 90.63 84.27DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.73 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.94595 5 0.22924 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.41 94.59 93.75 83.15DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.82 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.67568 5 0.66892 37 0.00 2.70 2.70 18.92 75.68 78.13 65.17DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.44 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4523-900 / ARCH 5523-900 Total Enrollment: 33

Section Title: Methods V-Thermal Systems Course Level: All

Instructor: John Yowell Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.63636 5 0.58109 22 0.00 0.00 4.55 27.27 68.18 79.31 70.59DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.47 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 4.59091 5 0.59033 22 0.00 0.00 4.55 31.82 63.64 79.31 71.76DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.51 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

John Yowell

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.68182 5 0.47673 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.82 68.18 81.25 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.53 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.81818 5 0.39477 22 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.18 81.82 90.63 80.90DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.70 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.71429 5 0.56061 21 0.00 0.00 4.76 19.05 76.19 81.25 67.42DEPARTMENT 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4723-001 / ARCH 5723-001 Total Enrollment: 46

Section Title: Methods VII-Advanced Systems Course Level: All

Instructor: DANIEL BUTKO Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.22727 4 0.96119 44 4.55 0.00 9.09 40.91 45.45 34.48 38.82DEPARTMENT 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 4.13636 4 0.87845 44 2.27 2.27 11.36 47.73 36.36 27.59 34.12DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.06 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

DANIEL BUTKO

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.61364 5 0.68932 44 0.00 2.27 4.55 22.73 70.45 78.13 66.29DEPARTMENT 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 4.38636 5 0.84126 44 2.27 2.27 2.27 40.91 52.27 75.00 58.43DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.31 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.25000 5 1.03710 44 4.55 2.27 9.09 31.82 52.27 34.38 26.97DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.01 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4755-001 / ARCH 4755-002 Total Enrollment: 42

Section Title: Design VII-Systems & Context Course Level: All

Instructors: Marjorie Callahan / 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 4.39474 4 0.63839 38 0.00 0.00 7.89 44.74 47.37 44.83 51.76DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.22 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 4.26316 4 0.72351 38 0.00 0.00 15.79 42.11 42.11 51.72 50.59DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.19 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Marjorie Callahan

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.13889 4 0.79831 36 0.00 2.78 16.67 44.44 36.11 37.50 34.83DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 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 4.18919 4 0.93802 37 0.00 8.11 10.81 35.14 45.95 56.25 43.82DEPARTMENT 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 4.16216 4 0.76425 37 0.00 0.00 21.62 40.54 37.84 25.00 20.22DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.10 1,047 3.25 3.82 14.80 29.61 48.52

Daniel Butko

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.44737 5 0.76042 38 0.00 2.63 7.89 31.58 57.89 62.50 50.56DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.29 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.05263 4 1.03838 38 2.63 7.89 10.53 39.47 39.47 43.75 38.20DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.00 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.24722 37 8.11 2.70 18.92 21.62 48.65 18.75 16.85DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4970-005 / ARCH 6133-001 Total Enrollment: 10

Section Title: Sustainable Design Analytics Course Level: All

Instructor: Lee Fithian Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 5 0.78680 7 0.00 0.00 14.29 28.57 57.14 51.72 56.47DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.25 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 4.14286 4 0.89974 7 0.00 0.00 28.57 28.57 42.86 41.38 38.82DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.07 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lee Fithian

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.14286 5 1.21499 7 0.00 14.29 14.29 14.29 57.14 40.63 35.96DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 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 3.57143 4 1.27242 7 0.00 28.57 14.29 28.57 28.57 9.38 11.24DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.44 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.42857 4 0.53452 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.14 42.86 50.00 39.33DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.18 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 4970-900 / ARCH 5970-900 Total Enrollment: 17

Section Title: Housing Typologies + Trends 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 4.61538 5 0.65044 13 0.00 0.00 7.69 23.08 69.23 75.86 69.41DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.45 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 4.15385 4 0.89872 13 0.00 0.00 30.77 23.08 46.15 44.83 40.00DEPARTMENT 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

David Boeck

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.38462 5 0.76795 13 0.00 0.00 15.38 30.77 53.85 56.25 47.19DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.23 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.38462 5 0.86972 13 0.00 0.00 23.08 15.38 61.54 71.88 57.30DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.31 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.38462 5 0.76795 13 0.00 0.00 15.38 30.77 53.85 40.63 32.58DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.13 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5143-001 Total Enrollment: 3

Section Title: Architectural History 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 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 41.38 49.41DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.15 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 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 20.69 31.76DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.07 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 50.00 42.70DEPARTMENT 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 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 68.75 56.18DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.26 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 37.50 30.34DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5516-001 Total Enrollment: 4

Section Title: Graduate Arch Design I Course Level: All

Instructor: Deborah Richards Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.81650 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 20.69 27.06DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.20 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 0.81650 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 20.69 31.76DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.07 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Deborah Richards

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.75000 4 0.50000 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 0.00 9.38 16.85DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 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 3.75000 4 1.50000 4 0.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 50.00 21.88 20.22DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.28 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.50000 5 0.57735 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 56.25 44.94DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5536-001 Total Enrollment: 6

Section Title: Grad Architectural Design III Course Level: All

Instructor: David Boeck Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 2.66667 3 1.63299 6 33.33 16.67 16.67 16.67 16.67 3.45 2.35DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -1.58 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 1.41421 6 16.67 16.67 33.33 16.67 16.67 3.45 5.88DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -1.05 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

David Boeck

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 2.83333 3 1.47196 6 16.67 33.33 16.67 16.67 16.67 3.13 5.62DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -1.30 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 1.86190 6 50.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 16.67 3.13 5.62DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -1.27 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 3.33333 3 1.36626 6 0.00 33.33 33.33 0.00 33.33 3.13 2.25DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.98 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5713-980 Total Enrollment: 6

Section Title: Real Estate I Course Level: All

Instructor: Kevin Anderson 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 86.21 78.82DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.50 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 72.41 65.88DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.42 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Kevin Anderson

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 50.00 42.70DEPARTMENT 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 4.33333 4 0.57735 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33 68.75 56.18DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.26 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 75.00 64.04DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.43 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5922-001 Total Enrollment: 41

Section Title: Methods IX Course Level: All

Instructor: Nickolas Harm Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.54545 5 0.68755 11 0.00 0.00 9.09 27.27 63.64 65.52 63.53DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.37 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 4.45455 5 0.93420 11 0.00 9.09 0.00 27.27 63.64 62.07 62.35DEPARTMENT 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

Nickolas Harm

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.36364 5 1.02691 11 0.00 9.09 9.09 18.18 63.64 53.13 46.07DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.21 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.72727 5 0.46710 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.27 72.73 84.38 76.40DEPARTMENT 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 4.63636 5 0.50452 11 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.36 63.64 71.88 55.06DEPARTMENT 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5955-001 Total Enrollment: 19

Section Title: Design IX Course Level: All

Instructor: Lee Fithian Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 0.81650 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 20.69 27.06DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.20 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 72.41 65.88DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.42 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Lee Fithian

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.00000 3 0.00 0.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 31.25 32.58DEPARTMENT 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 4.00000 4 0.81650 4 0.00 0.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 40.63 35.96DEPARTMENT 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 0.57735 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 50.00 56.25 44.94DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 5955-002 Total Enrollment: 22

Section Title: Design IX 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 3.80000 4 1.64317 5 20.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 10.34 12.94DEPARTMENT 3.96667 4 1.12205 570 4.39 7.19 16.67 30.88 40.88COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.40 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 58.62 61.18DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.32 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Anthony Cricchio

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.00000 4 1.22474 5 0.00 20.00 0.00 40.00 40.00 31.25 32.58DEPARTMENT 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 4.00000 4 1.00000 5 0.00 0.00 40.00 20.00 40.00 40.63 35.96DEPARTMENT 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 4.20000 4 0.83666 5 0.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 28.13 23.60DEPARTMENT 4.14136 4 1.04241 573 3.32 5.06 13.09 31.24 47.29COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 -0.06 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6356-001 Total Enrollment: 2

Section Title: Graduate Studio III Course Level: All

Instructor: Marjorie Callahan Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.91 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Marjorie Callahan

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.84 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 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.87 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 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6680-980 Total Enrollment: 4

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 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.91 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 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.84 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 40.63 35.96DEPARTMENT 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 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: ARCH 6690-980 Total Enrollment: 3

Section Title: Professional Project Course Level: All

Instructor: Shawn Schaefer Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 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 5.00000 5 0.00000 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.90283 4 1.14262 566 5.83 6.36 16.43 34.45 36.93COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.91 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 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 4.03460 4 1.15017 578 5.54 5.88 13.49 29.76 45.33COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 0.84 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 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 3.96522 4 1.17413 575 5.22 7.65 16.35 26.96 43.83COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.87 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 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00DEPARTMENT 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: CNS 1112-011 Total Enrollment: 35

Section Title: Disc-CNS 1112-010 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 4.13793 5 1.18696 29 3.45 10.34 10.34 20.69 55.17 56.25 32.94DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.05 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 3.82759 4 1.16708 29 6.90 6.90 13.79 41.38 31.03 31.25 17.65DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.24 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Kenneth Robson

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 3.92857 4 1.01575 28 0.00 10.71 21.43 32.14 35.71 50.00 24.72DEPARTMENT 3.96748 4 1.16363 246 5.69 6.10 16.67 28.86 42.68COLLEGE 3.99905 4 1.16934 -0.22 1,049 5.82 6.58 13.73 29.65 44.23

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

INDIVIDUAL 4.03448 4 1.05162 29 3.45 6.90 10.34 41.38 37.93 56.25 37.08DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 -0.02 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.34483 5 0.93640 29 0.00 6.90 10.34 24.14 58.62 56.25 31.46DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: CNS 2714-001 Total Enrollment: 29

Section Title: Materials & Methods I 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 4.83333 5 0.38069 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 100.00 83.53DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.67 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 0.44233 24 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 93.75 80.00DEPARTMENT 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

Richard Ryan

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.53161 24 0.00 0.00 4.17 16.67 79.17 81.25 77.53DEPARTMENT 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 4.66667 5 0.56466 24 0.00 0.00 4.17 25.00 70.83 100.00 75.28DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 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 4.75000 5 0.53161 24 0.00 0.00 4.17 16.67 79.17 100.00 73.03DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.52 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: CNS 3103-010 Total Enrollment: 21

Section Title: Construction Surveying Course Level: All

Instructor: Matthew Reyes Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.58333 5 0.51493 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.67 58.33 81.25 67.06DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.41 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 4.16667 4 0.71774 12 0.00 0.00 16.67 50.00 33.33 62.50 42.35DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.09 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Matthew Reyes

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.83333 5 0.38925 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.67 83.33 93.75 82.02DEPARTMENT 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 4.58333 5 0.51493 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.67 58.33 81.25 67.42DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 3.94561 4 1.19770 0.49 1,048 6.11 7.44 15.55 27.58 43.32

21. Instructor provided for student consultation INDIVIDUAL 4.58333 5 0.51493 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.67 58.33 75.00 50.56DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.34 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: CNS 3103-011 Total Enrollment: 21

Section Title: Lab-CNS 3103-010 Course Level: All

Instructor: Matthew Reyes Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 4.66667 5 0.50000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 93.75 78.82DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 0.50 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 4.55556 5 0.52705 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 55.56 81.25 68.24DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 0.47 1,007 6.75 7.25 14.90 33.37 37.74

Matthew Reyes

12. Instructor made effective use of class/studio time INDIVIDUAL 4.75000 5 0.46291 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 75.00 81.25 77.53DEPARTMENT 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 4.66667 5 0.50000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 100.00 75.28DEPARTMENT 3.94758 4 1.18410 248 6.45 5.65 16.94 28.63 42.34COLLEGE 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 4.66667 5 0.50000 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 66.67 87.50 64.04DEPARTMENT 4.18072 4 0.97730 249 2.81 1.20 19.68 27.71 48.59COLLEGE 4.16332 4 1.02599 0.43 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) - Fall 2014College of Architecture

Course: CNS 3123-001 Total Enrollment: 25

Section Title: Statics/Strengths Materials Course Level: All

Instructor: Lisa Holliday Section Size: All

Question LevelMean

ResponseMedian

ResponseStandardDeviation

ZScore Responses Percent #1 Percent #2 Percent #3 Percent #4 Percent #5 Dept Rank College Rank

2. The course projects/assignments provided good opportunity forlearning

INDIVIDUAL 3.58333 4 0.99620 12 0.00 16.67 25.00 41.67 16.67 25.00 9.41DEPARTMENT 3.87234 4 1.18425 235 5.53 8.94 17.02 29.79 38.72COLLEGE 3.94483 4 1.14824 -0.63 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 1.02691 11 0.00 18.18 18.18 45.45 18.18 25.00 11.76DEPARTMENT 3.81974 4 1.20421 233 6.44 9.44 15.88 32.19 36.05COLLEGE 3.88083 4 1.18795 -0.4