Consolidated UTSA Student Evaluations
through 2003
Instructor Evaluation
    (College of Liberal and Fine Arts)		 Total students for all sections:                                         333
Total number of sections:                                                    14
ITEM MEAN SD 1 2 3 4 5 OMIT
Displayed a personal interest in students and their learning 4.32 0.8 3 10 32 121 167 0
Found ways to help students answer their own questions 3.95 0.9 4 18 71 136 104 0
Scheduled coursework in ways that helped students keep up 4.07 0.9 7 18 53 119 134 2
Demonstrated the importance of the subject matter 4.18 0.8 12 11 37 116 154 3
Formed teams to facilitate learning 2.43 1.2 121 61 67 47 34 3
Made it clear how each topic fit into the subject matter 3.92 1.0 13 28 50 123 119 0
Explained reasons for criticisms of students' performance 3.68 1.0 19 25 86 114 86 3
Stimulated students to intellectual effort 3.85 0.9 10 24 59 141 93 5
Encouraged students to use multiple resources 4.51 0.6 1 7 28 81 216 0
Explained course material clearly and concisely 3.82 1.0 17 27 67 111 111 0
Related course material to real life situations 4.24 0.9 8 13 42 97 173 0
Gave tests, projects that covered the most important topics 4.26 0.8 7 7 39 118 161 1
Introduced stimulating ideas about the course 3.94 0.9 11 14 62 141 104 1
Involved students in "hands on" projects 4.13 1.0 16 14 45 93 165 0
Inspired students to set and achieve goals 3.68 1.0 14 28 101 99 91 0
Asked students to share ideas with others 3.59 1.1 22 28 98 97 85 3
Provided timely and frequent feedback on tests and projects 3.57 1.1 23 41 74 112 83 0
Asked students to help each other 3.27 1.1 31 49 106 92 54 1
Gave projects that required creative thinking 3.96 1.0 14 18 63 107 129 2
Encouraged student-faculty interaction outside of class 4.14 1.0 8 17 50 105 153 0
Learning Objectives                
ITEM MEAN SD 1 2 3 4 5 OMIT
Gaining factual knowledge 3.86 0.9 14 18 67 132 99 3
Learning fundamental principles, generalizations, or theories 3.85 0.9 11 13 78 140 88 3
Learning to apply course material 3.77 0.9 15 17 81 133 84 3
Developing specific skills, competencies, and points of view 3.85 0.9 13 18 68 134 95 5
Acquiring skills in working with others as a team member 2.48 1.1 93 78 90 42 26 4
Developing creative capacities 3.26 1.2 40 52 86 86 66 3
Gaining a broader understanding of intellectual activity 3.14 1.3 49 51 91 83 56 3
Developing a skill in expressing myself orally and in writing 3.58 1.0 16 38 90 109 77 3
Learning how to find and use resources in answering questions 4.13 0.9 7 19 51 99 151 6
Developing a clearer understanding of personal values 3.35 1.1 20 45 119 91 55 3
Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas 3.94 0.9 3 25 67 130 105 3
Acquiring an interest in learning more by asking questions 3.65 1.0 14 31 93 109 83 3
Course Evaluation                
ITEM MEAN SD 1 2 3 4 5 OMIT
Amount of reading in course 3.11 0.7 9 34 215 58 15 5
Amount of work in non-reading projects 3.74 0.8 5 16 118 111 80 3
Difficulty of subject matter 3.56 0.7 2 16 150 119 44 2
I had a strong desire to take this course 3.40 1.1 27 35 118 85 66 3
I worked harder on this course than most others 3.77 0.9 6 29 85 131 80 3
I really wanted to take this course from this instructor 3.21 1.2 37 35 143 59 56 5
I really wanted to take this course regardless of who taught it 3.17 1.3 42 54 106 68 60 5
The course resulted in more positive feelings towards this subject 3.82 1.0 18 18 70 126 99 2
Overall, I rate this instructor an excellent instructor 4.08 0.9 15 16 43 109 148 2
Overall, I rate this course as excellent 3.74 1.0 18 17 82 129 84 3
I put more effort into coursework than others 3.68 0.9 6 18 120 116 69 4
The instructor used a variety of teaching methods 4.01 0.9 10 14 53 137 115 4
The instructor expected students to take appropriate responsibility 4.33 0.7 3 4 36 125 161 4
The instructor had high achievement standards 4.16 0.8 4 8 47 141 129 4
The instructor used educational technology 4.23 0.8 9 8 45 102 165 4
Average Weighted Score of all questions In all LeBlanc's sections:             3.84
Consolidated LSU Student Evaluations for SPCM 2061
(Communication for Business and Professionals)
2000
Instructor Evaluation
    (College of Arts and Sciences)		 Total students for all sections:                                         42
Total number of sections:                                                    2
ITEM SCORE # A # B # C # D # E
Well Preparedness   3.81   35   6   1   0   0
Clear Presentation   3.67   30   10   2   0   0
Evokes Interest   3.43   25   12   4   0   1
Proper Grade Emphasis   3.76   33   8   1   0   0
Fair Grades   3.86   37   4   1   0   0
Concerned   3.71   30   12   0   0   0
Overall Rating   3.69   31   9   2   0   0
Average Weighted Score
of College Questions:
A = 4.00, b = 3.00, C = 2.00, D = 1.00, E = 0.00		 In H. P. LeBlanc's sections:                                             3.70
In all sections of the same course:                                 3.70
In all 2000 Level courses in the same department:       3.43
Instructor Evaluation
    (Dept. of Speech Communication)		 Total students for all sections:                                         42
Total number of sections:                                                    2
ITEM SCORE # A # B # C # D # E
Clear Goals and Objectives on Syllabus   3.57   26   14   2   0   0
Class Policies Clearly Explained   3.86   37   4   1   0   0
Grading Criteria Clear   3.45   23   16   2   1   0
Textbook Understandable   3.17   19   16   3   3   1
Textbook Informative   2.86   15   14   8   2   3
Textbook Interesting   2.52   10   12   13   4   3
Instructor Knowledgeable   3.90   38   4   0   0   0
Instructor Concerned About Student Learning   3.67   31   10   0   0   1
Textbook Supplemented W/ Other Sources   3.29   22   12   7   0   1
Assignments Appropriate For Subject   3.43   23   15   3   1   0
Classroom Activities' Relevance Explained   3.29   22   13   5   1   1
Instructor Kept Class On Topic   3.36   24   11   6   0   1
Instructor Available During Office Hours   3.76   33   6   2   0   0
Average Weighted Score
of Department Questions:
A = 4.00, b = 3.00, C = 2.00, D = 1.00, E = 0.00

In all H. P. LeBlanc's sections:                                        3.39
Consolidated LSU Student Evaluations for SPCM 2010
(Interpersonal Communication)
1999-2000
Instructor Evaluation
    (College of Arts and Sciences)		 Total students for all sections:                                       228
Total number of sections:                                                    10
ITEM SCORE # A # B # C # D # E
Well Preparedness   3.60   152   63   11   1   1
Clear Presentation   3.58   148   67   11   1   1
Evokes Interest   3.50   137   71   19   0   1
Proper Grade Emphasis   3.55   146   65   14   2   1
Fair Grades   3.52   154   48   16   7   2
Concerned   3.60   153   61   13   0   1
Overall Rating   3.58   146   72   7   2   1
Average Weighted Score
of College Questions:
A = 4.00, b = 3.00, C = 2.00, D = 1.00, E = 0.00		 In H. P. LeBlanc's sections:                                             3.56
In all sections of the same course:                                 3.44
In all 2000 Level courses in the same department:       3.44
Instructor Evaluation
    (Dept. of Speech Communication)		 Total students for all sections:                                       228
Total number of sections:                                                    10
ITEM SCORE # A # B # C # D # E
Clear Goals and Objectives on Syllabus   3.62   163   47   16   1   1
Class Policies Clearly Explained   3.61   163   48   13   2   2
Grading Criteria Clear   3.48   137   68   20   2   1
Textbook Understandable   3.16   97   78   42   4   4
Textbook Informative   3.06   83   85   46   6   4
Textbook Interesting   2.76   65   67   73   9   9
Instructor Knowledgeable   3.84   198   23   5   0   1
Instructor Concerned About Student Learning   3.64   159   57   11   0   1
Textbook Supplemented W/ Other Sources   3.14   104   67   41   7   6
Assignments Appropriate For Subject   3.43   130   72   22   3   1
Classroom Activities' Relevance Explained   3.40   127   71   24   3   2
Instructor Kept Class On Topic   3.12   94   78   45   9   1
Instructor Available During Office Hours   3.70   175   31   13   2   1
Average Weighted Score
of Department Questions:
A = 4.00, b = 3.00, C = 2.00, D = 1.00, E = 0.00

In all H. P. LeBlanc's sections:                                        3.38
Consolidated LSU Evening School Student Evaluations for SPCM 2010
(Interpersonal Communication)
1999-2000
Course Evaluation
    (LSU Evening School)		 Total students for all sections:                                                 35
Total number of sections:                                                            2
ITEM MEAN # SA # A # N # D # SD # NR
Clear Presentation of Requirements   4.8   29   6   0   0   0   0
Textbooks and Materials Pertinent   4.5   22   8   4   0   0   1
Tests Consistent with Course Materials   4.7   26   9   0   0   0   0
Fair Grades   4.8   26   6   1   0   0   2
Overall Rating of Course   4.5   21   11   3   0   0   0
Instructor Evaluation  
ITEM MEAN # SA # A # N # D # SD # NR
Clear Presentation of Materials   4.7   25   8   1   0   0   1
Class Policies Clearly Explained   4.9   31   4   0   0   0   0
Instructor Prepared for Class   4.7   28   6   0   1   0   0
Instructor Well-informed about Subject Matter   4.8   29   6   0   0   0   0
Instructor Presented Well-organized Lectures   4.5   21   9   3   1   0   1
Presentations were Interesting and Valuable   4.3   20   10   3   1   1   0
Instructor's Style of Presentation Effective   4.4   20   12   1   2   0   0
Instructor Stimulated Student's Interests   4.4   18   13   1   1   1   1
Instructor Provided Appropriate and Discreet Critique   4.8   27   5   1   0   0   2
Instructor was Accessible to Students   4.7   26   3   4   0   0   2
Instructor Available to Provide Help   4.7   26   5   2   0   0   2
Instructor was Respectful Toward Students   4.9   30   5   0   0   0   0
Instructor Treated Students Fairly   4.8   29   6   0   0   0   0
Instructor Behaved Professionally   4.7   24   9   1   0   0   1
Instructor Helped Students Build Confidence in Subject   4.6   24   8   2   0   0   1
Overall Rating of Instructor   4.7   26   8   1   0   0   0
Student Self-evaluation  
ITEM MEAN # SA # A # N # D # SD # NR
Attended All / Most Classes   4.8   28   6   0   0   0   1
Participated in Class Activities   4.4   18   13   3   0   0   1
Completed All Assignments   4.7   26   7   1   0   0   1
Put Forth Effort to Learn   4.2   18   9   5   1   1   1
Able to Think and Communicate Ideas in Class   4.6   24   7   3   0   0   1
Atmosphere of Class Conducive to Learning   4.6   22   7   3   0   0   3
Overall Rating of Self   4.8   26   7   0   0   0   2
General Course and Instructor Evaluation  
ITEM % A % B % C % D % F Legend
My Expected Grade in this Course is:   82.7   17.3   0.0   0.0   0.0   SA = Strongly Agree
  N = Neutral
  SD = Strongly Disagree
  NR = No Response
I Would Give this Course a Grade of:   67.0   24.3   8.7   0.0   0.0
I Would Give Course Materials a Grade of:   51.5   35.6   9.8   3.1   0.0
I Would Give this Instructor a Grade of:   79.9   17.4   2.8   0.0   0.0
Average Weighted Score
of LSU Evening School Questions:
A = 4.00, b = 3.00, C = 2.00, D = 1.00, E = 0.00

In all H. P. LeBlanc's sections:                                                4.67
Consolidated SIUC Instructor and Course Evaluation for GE-D 152
(Interpersonal Communication)
1992-1995
Instructor Evaluation Total students for all sections:                                                     254
Total number of sections:                                                                13
ITEM MEAN SD % E % V % G % W % I % NR
Prepared for class 4.2 0.74 39.34 42.88 16.72 0.00 0.83 0.41
Made clear assignments 4.0 0.79 30.80 37.72 25.06 1.61 0.79 0.41
Set clear standards for grading 4.2 0.78 40.09 36.19 21.39 1.62 0.00 0.81
Graded fairly 4.2 0.77 42.97 36.96 17.07 2.33 0.40 0.41
Knew if students understood him 4.0 0.83 31.50 40.14 23.64 3.67 0.77 0.41
Spoke understandably 4.2 0.76 39.32 41.82 17.11 0.43 0.76 0.84
Answered impromtu questions 4.2 0.81 41.40 36.56 20.11 0.80 0.76 0.41
Showed interest in the course 4.5 0.66 60.22 30.69 7.90 0.00 0.38 0.79
Gave examples for complex ideas 4.3 0.74 48.11 38.57 10.74 1.19 0.77 0.81
Accepted criticism and suggestions 4.1 0.74 37.43 39.28 18.63 1.96 0.00 2.83
Increased appreciation for subject 4.0 0.90 33.85 35.72 23.62 4.00 1.13 1.67
Organized, presented subject well 4.2 0.77 40.57 40.50 16.28 1.57 0.76 0.41
Specified course objectives 4.1 0.81 35.07 40.52 20.55 2.40 0.77 0.79
Achieved specific course objectives 4.1 0.83 35.39 39.35 21.31 1.66 1.13 1.19
Explained the subject clearly 4.2 0.80 40.87 37.74 16.79 1.98 0.38 0.41
Showed interest in students 4.4 0.70 52.02 34.96 11.49 1.24 0.00 0.41
Was enthusiastic about subject 4.5 0.62 61.00 31.05 7.13 0.00 0.38 0.41
Available outside of class 4.1 0.83 35.87 36.63 20.04 1.60 1.65 4.30
Encouraged student participation 4.2 0.82 42.20 37.28 17.70 1.54 0.74 0.41
In general, taught class effectively 4.2 0.81 46.57 36.60 13.87 1.56 1.13 0.41
Course Evaluation Total students for all sections:                                                     254
Total number of sections:                                                                13
ITEM MEAN SD % SA % A % N % D % SD % NR
Course was a good learning experience 4.1 0.71 29.00 57.06 7.84 3.93 0.76 1.59
Course content was good 4.0 0.67 20.14 59.94 9.17 3.62 0.80 2.02
The course was well organized 4.1 0.72 27.51 57.74 9.89 1.95 1.16 2.02
*Trouble paying attention in class 3.5 1.06 6.01 14.21 20.50 41.33 14.61 1.94
*Additional prerequisites 3.7 0.91 1.62 8.68 26.76 35.81 23.30 2.78
*Fewer prerequisites 3.0 0.84 8.20 12.74 49.37 15.80 4.69 5.66
Course was very interesting 3.9 0.79 20.15 58.30 11.41 4.65 1.94 2.83
Required work was appropriate 4.0 0.67 16.55 67.39 9.13 3.99 0.83 1.96
Course was one of the best 3.3 1.00 11.09 35.09 30.80 11.91 6.32 2.32
The tests covered the course 3.8 0.90 15.09 58.30 12.58 6.70 4.26 2.40
*Course was a waste of time 3.7 0.99 3.20 10.56 17.02 43.61 23.65 2.40
Textbook was good 2.7 1.05 4.83 21.26 27.51 20.10 21.76 2.70
*AV could be used more effectively 2.9 0.87 5.23 26.32 38.19 18.15 3.93 4.66
*Should be taught in some other way 3.5 0.95 3.85 12.23 22.45 45.62 11.42 2.39
*Covered material in other courses 3.0 1.00 5.13 30.61 23.31 31.79 4.76 2.75
*Material was too difficult 3.9 0.85 1.16 8.27 15.04 50.06 22.17 2.77
Course should continue to be offered 4.1 0.77 28.45 54.43 11.06 1.22 1.96 2.70
*Reading assignments hard to understand 3.6 0.90 1.97 11.48 25.26 41.26 15.41 3.98
*I was often confused 3.8 0.91 1.95 10.26 12.27 48.97 24.76 1.96
Generally, the course was good 4.1 1.34 29.08 56.84 8.57 1.59 1.64 1.96
Objectives Total students for all sections:                                                     254
Total number of sections:                                                                13
ITEM MEAN SD % E % V % G % L % N % NR
Gaining factual knowledge 3.8 0.83 20.78 38.61 29.78 4.69 1.16 4.74
Learning fundamental principles, etc. 3.7 0.83 18.15 34.95 31.12 5.09 1.14 5.94
Learning to apply course material 3.8 0.90 22.44 35.10 29.93 5.97 1.50 5.13
Developing specific competencies 3.5 0.92 16.67 26.39 33.98 11.54 2.03 9.80
Professionals gain new knowledge 3.4 0.99 16.55 24.76 34.62 11.85 3.20 9.13
Creative capacities 3.6 1.01 20.18 27.91 29.45 10.65 2.76 9.02
Personal responsibility 3.5 0.99 17.89 33.01 26.01 9.85 4.26 9.01
Broader appreciation 3.5 1.00 16.22 32.72 30.31 8.71 4.70 7.50
Skill in expression 3.6 0.97 19.70 34.19 29.46 7.54 3.05 5.95
Implications of course for myself 3.7 0.94 20.96 33.09 30.33 4.98 3.07 7.56
Self-rating Total students for all sections:                                                     254
Total number of sections:                                                                13
ITEM MEAN SD % Y % N % NR NOTE: Items marked "*"
are reversed in scoring.

Disagreement leads
to a high mean.

Response percentages
have not been changed.
Strong interest in material 0.5 0.50 45.99 45.26 8.60
Strong interest in the discipline 0.4 0.47 32.93 48.94 12.70
To obtain a good grade 0.8 0.33 74.80 16.10 8.96
To satisfy a requirement for major 0.7 0.44 67.46 24.34 8.33
To fulfill electives 0.7 0.42 64.69 26.83 8.72
Form adequately evaluates course 0.8 0.35 76.83 15.76 7.49
Consolidated LSU Student Evaluations for SPCM 2010
(Interpersonal Communication)
1990-1992
Instructor Evaluation
(College of Arts and Sciences)		 Total students for all sections:                                       104
Total number of sections:                                                    5
ITEM SCORE # A # B # C # D # E
Well Preparedness 3.55 69 25 9 0 1
Clear Presentation 2.89 36 34 24 7 3
Evokes Interest 2.93 34 39 23 6 2
Proper Grade Emphasis 2.84 29 42 24 5 4
Fair Grades 2.68 28 32 29 13 2
Concerned 3.14 43 36 22 3 0
Overall Rating 2.88 33 35 29 4 3
Average Weighted Score
of College Questions:
A = 4.00, b = 3.00, C = 2.00, D = 1.00, E = 0.00		 In H. P. LeBlanc's sections:                                             2.99
In all sections of the same course:                                 3.05
In all 2000 Level courses in the same department:       3.10
Consolidated LSU Course Evaluations for SPCM 1061
(Public Speaking)
1989-1990
Instructor Evaluation
(College of Arts and Sciences)		 Total students for all sections:                                          41
Total number of sections:                                                     2
ITEM SCORE # A # B # C # D # E
Well Preparedness 3.59 25 15 1 0 0
Clear Presentation 3.34 18 19 4 0 0
Evokes Interest 3.32 21 13 6 1 0
Proper Grade Emphasis 3.20 18 15 6 2 0
Fair Grades 3.20 18 14 6 2 0
Concerned 3.41 23 12 6 0 0
Overall Rating 3.34 21 15 3 2 0
Average Weighted Score
of College Questions:
A = 4.00, b = 3.00, C = 2.00, D = 1.00, E = 0.00		 In H. P. LeBlanc's sections:                                              3.33
In all sections of the same course:                                  3.15
In all 1000 Level courses in the same department:        3.15