Skip to main content

Heather A. Lamb

Title: Adjunct Faculty

Department: Information Science

College: College of Information

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • PhD, University of North Texas, 2022
    Major: Learning Technologies
    Dissertation: Multiple Case Study Examining the Perceptions of Teacher, Planning, Use, and Implementation of the Constructivist Learning Theory in a Suburban School District
  • GAC, University of North Texas, 2004
    Major: Advanced Management in Libraries and Information Agencies
  • MS, University of North Texas, 2001
    Major: Library Science

Current Scheduled Teaching

INFO 5345.401School Library Program DevelopmentSpring 2025
INFO 5345.401School Library Program DevelopmentFall 2024
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

INFO 5345.001School Library Program DevelopmentSummer 10W 2024 SPOT
LTEC 1100.020Computer ApplicationsSpring 2017 Syllabus SPOT
LTEC 1100.021Computer ApplicationsSpring 2017 Syllabus SPOT
LTEC 1100.020Computer ApplicationsFall 2016 Syllabus SPOT
LTEC 1100.021Computer ApplicationsFall 2016 Syllabus 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