Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
SharePoint

Skip Navigation LinksStudent Midterm Self-Evaluation

1. Date

 3/7/2012
 1 (13%) 
 
 3/11/2012
 1 (13%) 
 
 3/13/2012
 3 (38%) 
 
 3/14/2012
 3 (38%) 
 
Total: 8

2. Student’s Name

 Awien Ater
 0 (0%)  
 Ashley Arrenholz
 1 (13%) 
 
 Kate Beach
 0 (0%)  
 Jennifer Berman
 0 (0%)  
 Emily Gnefkow
 1 (13%) 
 
 Caroline Hayner
 0 (0%)  
 Benjamin Holloway
 1 (13%) 
 
 Brittany Johnson
 1 (13%) 
 
 Marieka Jones
 0 (0%)  
 Jennifer LaFountain
 0 (0%)  
 Mike Lee
 0 (0%)  
 Alisa Medina
 0 (0%)  
 Lauren-Ashleigh Owen
 0 (0%)  
 Cara Smith
 1 (13%) 
 
 Erica Taylor
 1 (13%) 
 
 Ashley Vega
 0 (0%)  
 Cathleen Wilkinson
 1 (13%) 
 
 Shante' Williams
 1 (13%) 
 
 Caroline Dowey
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

3. Community Organization (practicum site)

 GaDuGi Center
 1 (13%) 
 
 Douglas County Health Department
 0 (0%)  
 Disability Rights Center of Kansas
 1 (13%) 
 
 CHIP
 1 (13%) 
 
 Lawrence-Douglas County Housing Authority
 1 (13%) 
 
 KUWG
 2 (25%) 
 
 Lawrence Memorial Hospital
 1 (13%) 
 
 Truman Medical Center
 1 (13%) 
 
Total: 8

4. Student's commitment to the practicum experience:

 Consistently Committed (5 Points)
 6 (75%) 
 
 Almost Always Committed (4 Points)
 2 (25%) 
 
 Usually Committed (3 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Disengaged (1 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

5. Student's work habits to date:

 Excellent (5 Points)
 5 (63%) 
 
 Very Good (4 Points)
 3 (38%) 
 
 Somewhat Inconsistent (3 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Poor (1 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

6. Overall quality of student's effort (e.g., amount learned, skills learned, etc.):

 Very Satisfied (5 Points)
 8 (100%)  
 Satisfied (4 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Somewhat Dissatisfied (3 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Dissatisfied (1 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

7. Progress toward practicum product(s)/project from the student:

 Very Satisfied (15 Points)
 6 (75%) 
 
 Satisfied (12 Points)
 2 (25%) 
 
 Somewhat Dissatisfied (9 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Dissatisfied (6 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

8. Student's interaction with others at the site (e.g. staff, clients):

 Consistently Positive (5 Points)
 8 (100%)  
 Almost Always (4 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Occasionally Negative (3 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Frequently Negative (1 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

9. Student's relationship with others in the organization: (e.g. The student established effective working relationships within the organization and the community.)

 Very Satisfied (5 Points)
 7 (88%) 
 
 Satisfied (4 Points)
 1 (13%) 
 
 Somewhat Dissatisfied (3 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Dissatisfied (1 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

10. Student's overall attitude toward the activities and personnel associated with the practicum:

 Very Positive (5 Points)
 8 (100%)  
 Fairly Positive (4 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Occasionally Negative (3 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Too Often Negative (1 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

11. Student's understanding of practicum objectives:

 Very Good (5 Points)
 6 (75%) 
 
 Fairly Sufficient (4 Points)
 2 (25%) 
 
 Occasionally Insufficient (3 Points)
 0 (0%)  
 Often Insufficient (1 Point)
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate (0 Points)
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

12. Supervisor’s ability to provide direction and support to the student’s practicum objectives: (No points awarded)

 Very Good
 8 (100%)  
 Fairly Sufficient
 0 (0%)  
 Occasionally Insufficient
 0 (0%)  
 Often Insufficient
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

13. Supervisor's level of dependability to date: (No points awarded)

 Consistently Dependable
 7 (88%) 
 
 Almost Always Dependable
 1 (13%) 
 
 Sometimes Undependable
 0 (0%)  
 Often Undependable
 0 (0%)  
 Unable to Evaluate
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

14. Would you recommend this site for future practicum  students?

 Yes
 8 (100%)  
 No
 0 (0%)  
Total: 8

15. If you are required to complete an additional semester of practicum, are you interested in being placed at this site again in the future?

 Yes
 7 (88%) 
 
 No
 1 (13%) 
 
Total: 8

16. Please enter any additional feedback regarding the practicum organization.  (This information will not be shared with the practicum site.)

 I love the practicum site, the only criticism I would give is that Carrie is extremely busy and cannot always be available for signatures or feedback/advice. Also, the RSO office is so busy that time is spent often on assisting residents rather than being able to work on the practicum project. Much at home time is required to work on the project in addition to the time spent at the practicum site. Amazing people to work with however and the work that is put out in that office is off the charts!
 1 (20%) 
 
 --I appreciate the sites effort and understanding with accepting me onto their project after having to switch practicum sites.
 1 (20%) 
 
 The DRC is a great place for a practicum student who is interested in advocacy/legal advocacy & disability policy.
 1 (20%) 
 
 
The CHIP organization and Janelle are always willing to work with me and help me with problems I may be having throughout the semester. I really enjoy my time with the organization and have learned so much from Janelle.
 1 (20%) 
 
 
Christina has been a great supervisor. Everyone in the Work Group is working on 20 projects at once so scheduling can be difficult, but Christina is very good about making time to meet.
 1 (20%) 
 
Total: 5



This site is a service of the KU Center for Community Health and Development.