Skip to main content

Courtney N. Segrest

Title: Adjunct Faculty

Department: Studio Art

College: College of Visual Arts and Design

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • MFA, University of North Texas, 2023
    Major: Studio Art
    Specialization: Ceramics

Current Scheduled Teaching

ASTU 2101.503Beginning Ceramics: HandbuildingSpring 2025
ASTU 2101.501Beginning Ceramics: HandbuildingFall 2024 Syllabus
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Previous Scheduled Teaching

ASTU 2102.501Beginning Ceramics: ThrowingSpring 2024 Syllabus SPOT
ASTU 2102.502Beginning Ceramics: ThrowingFall 2023 Syllabus SPOT
ASTU 2101.501Beginning Ceramics: HandbuildingSpring 2023 Syllabus SPOT
ASTU 2101.503Beginning Ceramics: HandbuildingFall 2022 Syllabus SPOT
ASTU 2101.501Beginning Ceramics: HandbuildingSpring 2022 Syllabus SPOT
ART 1900.111Foundations: Systems and TransformationsFall 2021 SPOT
ART 1800.402Foundations: Narrative and RepresentationSummer 5W1 2021 Syllabus SPOT
ART 1900.305Foundations: Systems and TransformationsSpring 2021 SPOT
ART 1800.308Foundations: Narrative and RepresentationFall 2020 SPOT
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.
,
Overall
Summative Rating		 Challenge and
Engagement Index		 Response Rate

out of 5
out of 7		 %
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE